Search

Introduction: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) inequitably impacted minority populations and regions with limited access to healthcare resources. The Barnes-Jewish Emergency Department in St. Louis, MO, serves such a population. The COVID-19 vaccine is an available defense to help achieve community immunity. The emergency department (ED) is a potential societal resource to provide access to a vaccination intervention. Our objective in this study was to describe and evaluate a novel ED COVID-19 vaccine program, including its impact on the local surrounding underserved community., Methods: This was a retrospective, post-protocol implementation review of an ED COVID-19 vaccination program. Over the initial six-month period, we compiled data on all vaccinated patients out of the ED to evaluate demographic data and the impact on underserved regional areas., Results: We report a successful ED-based COVID-19 vaccine program (with over 1,000 vaccines administered). This program helped raise regional and state vaccination rates. Over 50% of the population that received the COVID-19 vaccine from the ED were from defined socially vulnerable patient populations. No adverse effects were documented., Conclusion: Operation CoVER (COVID-19 Vaccine in the Emergency Room) Saint Louis was able to successfully vaccinate a socially vulnerable patient population. This free, COVID-19 ED-based vaccine program with dedicated pharmacy support, was novel in emergency medicine practice. Similar ED-based vaccine programs could help with future vaccine distribution., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.

Objectives: In mechanically ventilated patients, awareness with paralysis (AWP) can have devastating consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and thoughts of suicide. Single-center data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate an event rate for AWP factors higher than that reported from the operating room. However, there remains a lack of data on AWP among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The objective was to assess the proportion of ED patients experiencing AWP and investigate modifiable variables associated with its occurrence., Design: An a priori planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, before-and-after clinical trial., Setting: The ED of three academic medical centers., Patients: Mechanically ventilated adult patients that received neuromuscular blockers., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: All data related to sedation and analgesia were collected. AWP was the primary outcome, assessed with the modified Brice questionnaire, and was independently adjudicated by three expert reviewers. Perceived threat, in the causal pathway for PTSD, was the secondary outcome. A total of 388 patients were studied. The proportion of patients experiencing AWP was 3.4% ( n = 13), the majority of whom received rocuronium ( n = 12/13; 92.3%). Among patients who received rocuronium, 5.5% ( n = 12/230) experienced AWP, compared with 0.6% ( n = 1/158) among patients who did not receive rocuronium in the ED (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.15). Patients experiencing AWP had a higher mean ( sd ) threat perception scale score, compared with patients without AWP (15.6 [5.8] vs 7.7 [6.0]; p < 0.01)., Conclusions: AWP was present in a concerning proportion of mechanically ventilated ED patients, was associated with rocuronium exposure in the ED, and led to increased levels of perceived threat, placing patients at greater risk for PTSD. Studies that aim to further quantify AWP in this vulnerable population and eliminate its occurrence are urgently needed., Competing Interests: Dr. Fuller is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number R34HL150404. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Dr. Kollef is supported by the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation. Funders played no role in the following features of the study: study design, data collection, data management, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the article, or decision to submit the article for publication. Drs. Fuller’s, Mohr’s, and Roberts’ institutions received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Drs. Fuller, Mohr, Roberts, Faine, Drewry, and Yan received support for article research from the NIH. Dr. Drewry’s institution received funding from the NIH. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Introduction: Management of sedation, analgesia, and anxiolysis are cornerstone therapies in the emergency department (ED). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a central alpha-2 agonist, is increasingly being used, and intensive care unit (ICU) data demonstrate improved outcomes in patients with respiratory failure. However, there is a lack of ED-based data. We therefore sought to: 1) characterize ED DEX use; 2) describe the incidence of adverse events; and 3) explore factors associated with adverse events among patients receiving DEX in the ED., Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study of consecutive ED patients administered DEX (January 1, 2017-July 1, 2019) at an academic, tertiary care ED with an annual census of ~90,000 patient visits. All included patients (n= 103) were analyzed for characterization of DEX use in the ED. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events, bradycardia and hypotension. Secondary clinical outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and hospital mortality. To examine for variables associated with adverse events, we used a multivariable logistic regression model., Results: We report on 103 patients. Dexmedetomidine was most commonly given for acute respiratory failure, including sedation for mechanical ventilation (28.9%) and facilitation of non-invasive ventilation (17.4%). Fifty-four (52.4%) patients experienced the composite adverse event, with hypotension occurring in 41 patients (39.8%) and bradycardia occurring in 18 patients (17.5%). Dexmedetomidine was stopped secondary to an adverse event in eight patients (7.8%). Duration of DEX use in the ED was associated with an increase adverse event risk (adjusted odds ratio, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 1.001, 1.008)., Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered in the ED for patients with acute respiratory failure. Adverse events are relatively common, yet DEX is discontinued comparatively infrequently due to adverse events. Our results suggest that DEX could be a viable option for analgesia, anxiolysis, and sedation in ED patients.

Objectives: Emergency department boarding is the practice of caring for admitted patients in the emergency department after hospital admission, and boarding has been a growing problem in the United States. Boarding of the critically ill has achieved specific attention because of its association with poor clinical outcomes. Accordingly, the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians convened a Task Force to understand the implications of emergency department boarding of the critically ill. The objective of this article is to review the U.S. literature on (1) the frequency of emergency department boarding among the critically ill, (2) the outcomes associated with critical care patient boarding, and (3) local strategies developed to mitigate the impact of emergency department critical care boarding on patient outcomes., Data Sources and Study Selection: Review article., Data Extraction and Data Synthesis: Emergency department-based boarding of the critically ill patient is common, but no nationally representative frequency estimates has been reported. Boarding literature is limited by variation in the definitions used for boarding and variation in the facilities studied (boarding ranges from 2% to 88% of ICU admissions). Prolonged boarding in the emergency department has been associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital length of stay, and higher mortality. Health systems have developed multiple mitigation strategies to address emergency department boarding of critically ill patients, including emergency department-based interventions, hospital-based interventions, and emergency department-based resuscitation care units., Conclusions: Emergency department boarding of critically ill patients was common and was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Health systems have generated a number of strategies to mitigate these effects. A definition for emergency department boarding is proposed. Future work should establish formal criteria for analysis and benchmarking of emergency department-based boarding overall, with subsequent efforts focused on developing and reporting innovative strategies that improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients boarded in the emergency department.

Introduction: Awareness with paralysis is a complication with potentially devastating psychological consequences for mechanically ventilated patients. While rigorous investigation into awareness has occurred for operating room patients, little attention has been paid outside of this domain. Mechanically ventilated patients in the emergency department (ED) have been historically managed in a way that predisposes them to awareness events: high incidence of neuromuscular blockade use, underdosing of analgesia and sedation, delayed administration of analgesia and sedation after intubation, and a lack of monitoring of sedation targets and depth. These practice patterns are discordant to recommendations for reducing the incidence of awareness, suggesting there is significant rationale to examine awareness in the ED population., Methods and Analysis: This is a single centre, prospective cohort study examining the incidence of awareness in mechanically ventilated ED patients. A cohort of 383 mechanically ventilated ED patients will be included. The primary outcome is awareness with paralysis. Qualitative reports of all awareness events will be provided. Recognising the potential problem with conventional multivariable analysis arising from a small number of events (expected less than 10-phenomenon of separation), Firth penalised method, exact logistic regression model or penalised maximum likelihood estimation shrinkage (Ridge, LASSO) will be used to assess for predictors of awareness., Ethics and Dissemination: Approval of the study by the Human Research Protection Office has been obtained. This work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts, presentation in abstract form at scientific meetings and data sharing with other investigators through academically established means., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Providing supplemental oxygen is fundamental in the management of mechanically ventilated patients. Increasing amounts of data show worse clinical outcomes associated with hyperoxia. However, these previous data in the critically ill have not focused on outcomes associated with brief hyperoxia exposure immediately after endotracheal intubation. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of isolated early hyperoxia exposure in the emergency department (ED) on clinical outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients with subsequent normoxia in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: This was an observational cohort study conducted in the ED and ICUs of an academic center in the USA. Mechanically ventilated normoxic (partial pressure of arterial oxygen (P a O 2 ) 60-120 mm Hg) ICU patients with mechanical ventilation initiated in the ED were studied. The cohort was categorized into three oxygen exposure groups based on P a O 2 values obtained after ED intubation: hypoxia, normoxia, and hyperoxia (defined as P a O 2  < 60 mmHg, P a O 2 60-120 mm Hg, and P a O 2  > 120 mm Hg, respectively, based on previous literature)., Results: A total of 688 patients were included. ED normoxia occurred in 350 (50.9%) patients, and 300 (43.6%) had exposure to ED hyperoxia. The ED hyperoxia group had a median (IQR) ED P a O 2 of 189 mm Hg (146-249), compared to an ED P a O 2 of 88 mm Hg (76-101) in the normoxia group, P < 0.001. Patients with ED hyperoxia had greater hospital mortality (29.7%), when compared to those with normoxia (19.4%) and hypoxia (13.2%). After multivariable logistic regression analysis, ED hyperoxia was an independent predictor of hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.95 (1.34-2.85))., Conclusions: ED exposure to hyperoxia is common and associated with increased mortality in mechanically ventilated patients achieving normoxia after admission. This suggests that hyperoxia in the immediate post-intubation period could be particularly injurious, and targeting normoxia from initiation of mechanical ventilation may improve outcome.

Study Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of an emergency department (ED)-based lung-protective mechanical ventilation protocol for the prevention of pulmonary complications., Methods: This was a quasi-experimental, before-after study that consisted of a preintervention period, a run-in period of approximately 6 months, and a prospective intervention period. The intervention was a multifaceted ED-based mechanical ventilator protocol targeting lung-protective tidal volume, appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, rapid oxygen weaning, and head-of-bed elevation. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was the composite incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and ventilator-associated conditions., Results: A total of 1,192 patients in the preintervention group and 513 patients in the intervention group were included. Lung-protective ventilation increased by 48.4% in the intervention group. In the propensity score-matched analysis (n=490 in each group), the primary outcome occurred in 71 patients (14.5%) in the preintervention group compared with 36 patients (7.4%) in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.71). There was an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference 3.7; 95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), ICU-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.7), and hospital-free days (mean difference 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6) associated with the intervention. The mortality rate was 34.1% in the preintervention group and 19.6% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.47; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63)., Conclusion: Implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the ED is feasible and is associated with significant improvements in the delivery of safe mechanical ventilation and clinical outcome., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of an emergency department mechanical ventilation protocol on clinical outcomes and adherence to lung-protective ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome., Design: Quasi-experimental, before-after trial., Setting: Emergency department and ICUs of an academic center., Patients: Mechanically ventilated emergency department patients experiencing acute respiratory distress syndrome while in the emergency department or after admission to the ICU., Interventions: An emergency department ventilator protocol which targeted variables in need of quality improvement, as identified by prior work: 1) lung-protective tidal volume, 2) appropriate setting of positive end-expiratory pressure, 3) oxygen weaning, and 4) head-of-bed elevation., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 229 patients (186 preintervention group, 43 intervention group) were studied. In the emergency department, the intervention was associated with significant changes (p < 0.01 for all) in tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen administration, and head-of-bed elevation. There was a reduction in emergency department tidal volume from 8.1 mL/kg predicted body weight (7.0-9.1) to 6.4 mL/kg predicted body weight (6.1-6.7) and an increase in lung-protective ventilation from 11.1% to 61.5%, p value of less than 0.01. The intervention was associated with a reduction in mortality from 54.8% to 39.5% (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.83; p = 0.02) and a 3.9 day increase in ventilator-free days, p value equals to 0.01., Conclusions: This before-after study of mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome demonstrates that implementing a mechanical ventilator protocol in the emergency department is feasible and associated with improved clinical outcomes.