National Institute for Health Research.

Objective To determine whether full elbow extension as assessed by the elbow extension test can be used in routine clinical practice to rule out bony injury in patients presenting with elbow injury. Design Adults: multicentre prospective interventional validation study in secondary care. Children: multicentre prospective observational study in secondary care. Setting Five emergency departments in southwest England. Participants 2127 adults and children presenting to the emergency department with acute elbow injury. Intervention Elbow extension test during routine care by clinical staff to determine the need for radiography in adults and to guide follow-up in children. Main outcome measures Presence of elbow fracture on radiograph, or recovery with no indication for further review at 7-10 days. Results Of 1740 eligible participants, 602 patients were able to fully extend their elbow; 17 of these patients had a fracture. Two adult patients with olecranon fractures needed a change in treatment. In the 1138 patients without full elbow extension, 521 fractures were identified. Overall, the test had sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) for detecting elbow fracture of 96.8% (95.0 to 98.2) and 48.5% (45.6 to 51.4). Full elbow extension had a negative predictive value for fracture of 98.4% (96.3 to 99.5) in adults and 95.8% (92.6 to 97.8) in children. Negative likelihood ratios were 0.03 (0.01 to 0.08) in adults and 0.11 (0.06 to 0.19) in children. Conclusion The elbow extension test can be used in routine practice to inform clinical decision making. Patients who cannot fully extend their elbow after injury should be referred for radiography, as they have a nearly 50% chance of fracture. For those able to fully extend their elbow, radiography can be deferred if the practitioner is confident that an olecranon fracture is not present. Patients who do not undergo radiography should return if symptoms have not resolved within 7-10 days.

IntroductionThe clinical effectiveness of a ‘rule-out’ acute coronary syndrome (ACS) strategy for emergency department patients with chest pain, incorporating a single undetectable high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) taken at presentation, together with a non-ischaemic ECG, remains unknown.MethodsA randomised controlled trial, across eight hospitals in the UK, aimed to establish the clinical effectiveness of an undetectable hs-cTn and ECG (limit of detection and ECG discharge (LoDED)) discharge strategy. Eligible adult patients presented with chest pain; the treating clinician intended to perform investigations to rule out an ACS; the initial ECG was non-ischaemic; and peak symptoms occurred <6 hours previously. Participants were randomised 1:1 to either the LoDED strategy or the usual rule-out strategy. The primary outcome was discharge from the hospital within 4 hours of arrival, without a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) within 30 days.ResultsBetween June 2018 and March 2019, 632 patients were randomised; 3 were later withdrawn. Of 629 patients (age 53.8 (SD 16.1) years, 41% women), 7% had a MACE within 30 days. For the LoDED strategy, 141 of 309 (46%) patients were discharged within 4 hours, without MACE within 30 days, and for usual care, 114 of 311 (37%); pooled adjusted OR 1.58 (95% CI 0.84 to 2.98). No patient with an initial undetectable hs-cTn had a MACE within 30 days.ConclusionThe LoDED strategy facilitates safe early discharge in >40% of patients with chest pain. Clinical effectiveness is variable when compared with existing rule-out strategies and influenced by wider system factors.Trial registration numberISRCTN86184521.

No abstract

Head injuries across all age groups represent an extremely common emergency department (ED) presentation. The main focus of initial assessment and management rightly concentrates on the need to exclude significant pathology, that may or may not require neurosurgical intervention. Relatively little focus, however, is given to the potential for development of post-concussion syndrome (PCS), a constellation of symptoms of varying severity, which may bear little correlation to the nature or magnitude of the precipitating insult. This review aims to clarify the aetiology and terminology surrounding PCS and to examine the mechanisms for diagnosing and treating.