Search

Introduction: The application of structural competency and structural vulnerability to emergency medicine (EM) research has not been previously described despite EM researchers routinely engaging structurally vulnerable populations. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review and consensus-building process to develop a structurally competent research approach and operational framework relevant to EM research. Methods: We conducted a scoping review focused on structural competency and structural vulnerability. Results of the review informed the development of a structural competency research framework that was presented throughout a multi-step consensus process culminating in the 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference. Feedback to the framework was incorporated throughout the conference. Results: The scoping review produced 291 articles with 123 articles relevant to EM research. All 123 articles underwent full-text review and data extraction following a standardized data extraction form. Most of the articles acknowledged or described structures that lead to inequities with a variety of methodological approaches used to operationalize structural competency and/or structural vulnerability. The framework developed aligned with components of the research process, drawing upon methodologies from studies included in the scoping review. Conclusion: The framework developed provides a starting point for EM researchers seeking to understand, acknowledge, and incorporate structural competency into EM research. By incorporating components of the framework, researchers may enhance their ability to address social, historical, political, and economic forces that lead to health inequities, reframing drivers of inequities away from individual factors and focusing on structural factors.

Introduction Physicians must be facile in working with a medical interpreter (MI) given the large population of patients with limited English proficiency. Methods To facilitate residents' assessment of their ability to interact with non-English-speaking patients, we developed a simulation case involving one such patient. The case involved a 31-year-old Spanish-speaking postpartum female who presented with eclamptic seizures. The learner needed to request an MI to assist with obtaining the patient's medical history once her concerned family member (also Spanish speaking) arrived. The major critical actions included appropriate use of MI services, recognition of the risk for eclamptic seizures, proper evaluation and treatment, and appropriate disposition to an obstetrician. The case required a high-fidelity mannequin and simulation operator, nurse simulated participant, Spanish-speaking actor (to play the husband or family member), certified Spanish MI, and faculty evaluator. Results We implemented this case with 60 emergency medicine residents, ranging from PGY 1 to 3. The learner was assessed by both the faculty observer and MI. Checklists for assessment and debriefing materials were provided. Two of 60 residents did not request an MI. When compared to a prior version of this case that did not include the language barrier, median scores dropped from 12 to 10 out of 24, suggesting that the language barrier created a more challenging case. Discussion The use of MIs is an integral part of health care practice in the United States, and we present a simulation case that can assess learners' use of MIs.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. There is strong evidence that gender and sex play an important role across the spectrum of TBI, from pathophysiology to clinical care. In May 2014, Academic Emergency Medicine held a consensus conference "Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes." A TBI working group was formed to explore what was known about the influence of sex and gender on TBI and to identify gaps for future research. The findings resulted in four major recommendations to guide the TBI research agenda.

We propose expansion of the standard "time-out" into a comprehensive "preparatory pause" encompassing five well-documented perioperative risk avoidance strategies: beta-adrenergic blockade, DVT prophylaxis, preoperative antibiotics, normothermia, and euglycemia. Although all members of the surgical team acknowledge the clear benefit of these five prophylactic strategies, published national compliance even in the target patient population is a disappointingly consistent 50%. We have developed and field-tested a "preparatory pause" form that we appended to our "surgical time-out." By politely challenging our surgical team as to the inclusion of these five risk avoidance strategies in 167 consecutive patients, we increased our compliance to more than 90% for each preventive measure. We have not attempted to quantify the physical and psychological benefit of complication avoidance due to the enhanced activation of these five prophylactic strategies. Using published surgical complication prevalence data, with and without these accepted risk avoidance measures, we estimate the number of complications per 100 patients avoided. Utilizing the Medicare payment schedule for each complication, we approximate the purely financial benefit of the "preparatory pause" to be $88,640 per 100 patients, or almost $900 per patient. The now standard surgical "time-out" is designed to avoid the gratifyingly uncommon problem of "wrong patient,""wrong procedure," and "wrong site." Many surgeons negotiate an entire career without stumbling over these disastrous problems. We propose expansion of the "time-out" to include five well-documented perioperative risk avoidance strategies that many of us overlook all too often.

We compared serious and non-serious review of systems (ROS) complaints in the Emergency Department (ED). There were 173 adults discharged from an urban county ED who were administered a 56-item ROS identical to the ED chart ROS. Blinded review of ED charts determined which ROS complaints were documented by clinicians and whether ROS complaints were addressed by ED diagnostic testing or physical examination (PE). Mean differences in proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between serious and non-serious ROS complaints were: 1) For whether patients expected ROS complaints addressed in the ED, 15.7% (95% CI 6.5–24.2); 2) For ROS complaints concomitantly noted on ED charts by providers, 9.0% (95% CI 1.7–17.6); and 3) For whether provider-noted ROS complaints were addressed by testing or PE, 21.2% (95% CI 4.2–38.3). Discharged ED patients expect more of their serious ROS complaints to be addressed. More serious ROS complaints are noted and addressed by ED providers, but most ROS complaints noted by providers are not addressed.