Search

Background: Individuals who have a transgender or gender nonconforming (TGGNC) experience belong to a marginalized segment of the U.S. population, and healthcare can be difficult for them to navigate. Although emergency departments (EDs) traditionally serve as healthcare “safety nets” for vulnerable populations, quantitative studies outside the United States have found that TGGNC-experienced persons tend to avoid EDs and/or have negative experiences. This qualitative study primarily describes the ED experiences of people with a TGGNC history; furthermore, the study explores reasons why this population avoids U.S. EDs and their recommendations for improvements to ED care. Methods: This qualitative study used data about TGGNC-historied persons' experiences in U.S. EDs from retrospective, anonymous, written surveys (paper or web based). National data collection took place from June 2012 through December 2014. Participant responses (n=240) were examined using thematic analysis. Results: Using a framework that recognized positive and negative responses, the themes of Self-Efficacy and Power Inequity surfaced. These themes exposed the tension between patients with TGGNC experiences and clinicians who were perceived to lack training in this area, resulting in negative patient experiences. When practitioners had specific training about this population, participants reported positive care experiences. Conclusions: This study indicates that many TGGNC-historied persons who use U.S. EDs have negative experiences, largely due to lack of provider sensitivity toward and training about this patient population. Data from this investigation suggest that training of U.S. ED providers and institutional support would help improve care for this marginalized group.

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) has a high morbidity and mortality, such that the rapid delivery of anticonvulsant therapy should be initiated within minutes of seizure onset to prevent permanent neuronal damage. GCSE is not a specific disease but is a manifestation of either a primary central nervous system (CNS) insult or a systemic disorder with secondary CNS effects. It is mandatory to look for an underlying cause. First-line therapies for seizures and status epilepticus include the use of a benzodiazepine, followed by an infusion of a phenytoin with a possible role for intravenous valproate or phenobarbital. If these first-line medications fail to terminate the GCSE, treatment includes the continuous infusion of midazolam, pentobarbital, or propofol.

The present study was designed to assess the value of the presenting symptom of "typical" anginal pain, "atypical/nonanginal" pain, or the lack of chest pain in predicting the presence of inducible myocardial ischemia using cardiac stress testing in emergency department patients being evaluated for possible acute coronary syndrome. We performed a retrospective observational study of adult patients who were evaluated for acute coronary syndrome in an emergency department chest pain unit. The presenting symptoms were obtained from a structured questionnaire administered before stress testing. Patient chest pain was categorized according to the presence of substernal chest pain or discomfort that was provoked by exertion or emotional stress and was relieved by rest and/or nitroglycerin. Chest pain was classified as "typical" angina if all 3 descriptors were present and "atypical" or "nonanginal" if

For more than 25 years, emergency medicine researchers have examined 72-hour return visits as a marker for high-risk patient visits and as a surrogate measure for quality of care. Individual emergency departments frequently use 72-hour returns as a screening tool to identify deficits in care, although comprehensive departmental reviews of this nature may consume considerable resources. We discuss the lack of published data supporting the use of 72-hour return frequency as an overall performance measure and examine why this is not a valid use, describe a conceptual framework for reviewing 72-hour return cases as a screening tool, and call for future studies to test various models for conducting such quality assurance reviews of patients who return to the emergency department within 72 hours.

Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a rare and lethal disease with presenting signs and symptoms that can often be seen with other high risk conditions; diagnosis is therefore often delayed or missed. Pain is present in up to 90% of cases and is typically severe at onset. Many patients present with acute on chronic hypertension, but hypotension is an ominous sign, often reflecting hemorrhage or cardiac tamponade. The chest x-ray can be normal in 10-20% of patients with AAD, and though transthoracic echocardiography is useful if suggestive findings are seen, and should be used to identify pericardial effusion, TTE cannot be used to exclude AAD. Transesophageal echocardiography, however, reliably confirms or excludes the diagnosis, where such equipment and expertise is available. CT scan with IV contrast is the most common imaging modality used to diagnose and classify AAD, and MRI can be used in patients in whom the use of CT or IV contrast is undesirable. Recent specialty guidelines have helped define high-risk features and a diagnostic pathway that can be used the emergency department setting. Initial management of diagnosed or highly suspected acute aortic dissection focuses on pain control, heart rate and then blood pressure management, and immediate surgical consultation.

Background Evaluating the quality of care as part of a quality improvement process is required in many clinical environments by accrediting bodies. It produces metrics used to evaluate department and individual provider performance, provides outcomes-based feedback to clinicians, and identifies ways to reduce error. Discussion To improve patient safety and train our residents to perform peer review, we expanded our quality assurance program from a narrow, administrative process carried out by a small number of attendings to an educationally focused activity of much greater scope incorporating all residents on a monthly basis. We developed an explicit system by which residents analyze sets of high-risk cases and record their impressions onto structured databases, which are reviewed by faculty. At monthly meetings, results from the month's case reviews are presented, learning points discussed, and corrective actions are proposed. Conclusion By integrating Clinical Quality Review (CQR) as a core, continuous component of the residency curriculum, we increased the number of cases reviewed more than 10-fold and implemented a variety of clinical process improvements. An anonymous survey conducted after 2 years of resident-led CQR indicated that residents value their exposure to the peer review process and feel it benefits them as clinicians, but also that the program requires a significant investment of time that can be burdensome.