Purpose To assess the views of emergency medicine physicians (EMPs) on the practice of providing unnecessary medical management in the emergency department. Methods All EMPs in Saudi Arabia were approached to participate in this cross-sectional study. A self-administered online survey that collected the participants’ demographic information and opinions regarding the unnecessary management provided by EMPs in Saudi Arabia was conducted between December 2020 and February 2021. SPSS 22.0 was used to analyze the data. Results A total of 181 EMPs returned the questionnaire. More than 80% of the participants believed that EMPs order unnecessary tests or procedures at least a few times per week. The major reasons for ordering unnecessary medical tests or procedures were “concern about malpractice issues” (60.8%), “not having enough time with a patient for meaningful discussion” (47%), and “just to be safe” (46.4%). More than 55% of the respondents also believed that EMPs are in the best position to address the problem of unnecessary testing. Conclusion Most of the EMPs who participated in this study recognized that ordering unnecessary tests is a serious problem that happens on a daily basis. Many factors and reasons were described by the participants, and multiple possible solutions were suggested to help overcome the issue. Evaluating physicians’ perspectives on the issue is a key step in addressing the problem and implementing appropriate interventions.

Dapsone overdose is a well-known potent cause of methemoglobinemia and hemolytic anemia. We discuss a case of a two-year-old male who developed severe persistent methemoglobinemia treated with multiple doses of methylene blue (MB), multidose activated charcoal, and vitamin C. Methylene blue infusion (rather than bolus dosing) aided in controlling this patient's methemoglobin (MetHb) levels and symptoms and may reduce the total needed dose.

ObjectiveThe Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria are two commonly used clinical decision rules which use midline cervical spine (c-spine) tenderness on palpation as an indication for c-spine imaging post-trauma. This study was undertaken to determine the prevalence and location of midline c-spine tenderness in the non-trauma population.MethodsWe prospectively evaluated consenting adult patients presenting to an urban ED or university sport medicine clinic in Montreal, Canada between 2018 and 2020 for atraumatic non-head and neck-related reports over a 20-month period. The presence and location of pain during midline c-spine palpation as assessed by two examiners during separate evaluations was recorded. Patient information such as age, neck length and circumference, gender, body mass index (BMI) and scaphoid tenderness was also collected.ResultsOf 478 patients enrolled, 286 (59.8%) had midline c-spine tenderness on palpation with both examiners. The majority of those with tenderness were female (70.6%). When examining all patients, tenderness was present in the upper third of the c-spine in 128 (26.8%) patients, middle third in 270 (56.5%) patients and lower third in 6 (1.3%) patients. Factors associated with having increased odds of midline c-spine tenderness on palpation included a lower BMI and the presence of scaphoid tenderness on palpation.ConclusionsThere is a high prevalence of c-spine tenderness on palpation in patients who have not undergone head or neck trauma. This finding may help explain the low specificity in some of the validation studies examining the CCR and the NEXUS criteria.

Introduction Early identification of a patient with infection who may develop sepsis is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, this remains elusive because no single clinical measure or test can reflect complex pathophysiological changes in patients with sepsis. However, multiple clinical and laboratory parameters indicate impending sepsis and organ dysfunction. Screening tools using these parameters can help identify the condition, such as SIRS, quick SOFA (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). We aim to externally validate qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS/NEWS2/MEWS for in-hospital mortality among adult patients with suspected infection who presenting to the emergency department. Methods and analysis PASSEM study is an international prospective external validation cohort study. For 9 months, each participating centre will recruit consecutive adult patients who visited the emergency departments with suspected infection and are planned for hospitalisation. We will collect patients' demographics, vital signs measured in the triage, initial white blood cell count, and variables required to calculate Charlson Comorbidities Index; and follow patients for 90 days since their inclusion in the study. The primary outcome will be 30-days in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome will be intensive care unit (ICU) admission, prolonged stay in the ICU (i.e., >72 hours), and 30- as well as 90-days all-cause mortality. The study started in December 2021 and planned to enrol 2851 patients to reach 200 in-hospital death. The sample size is adaptive and will be adjusted based on prespecified consecutive interim analyses. Ethics and dissemination The Aseer Regional Committee for Research Ethics in the General Directorate of Health Affairs-Aseer Region has approved this study. Informed consent is not required for this study due to its complete observational nature and absence of interventions or invasive procedures. We will publish study's results in peer-reviewed journals and may present them at scientific conferences.