Objectives: The aims of the present study were to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented by Australasian emergency physicians at major emergency medicine meetings and to identify the site of publication of papers. Method: All free paper abstracts presented (oral and poster) by Australasian emergency physicians and trainees at five Australasian College for Emergency Medicine/Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine and International Conference on Emergency Medicine meetings between 1995 and 1998 were identified retrospectively from conference programmes. In order to determine whether or not the abstract had been published, the PubMed database (http://www4.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/) was searched using the presenter’s name and key words from the abstract. In addition, a hand search of the non‐abstracted journal Emergency Medicine was conducted. Results: Of the 207 free paper abstracts identified, 73 (35%) had been published as full articles. Papers were published in a variety of journals; however, Emergency Medicine accounted for almost half the published papers. The mean time between presentation and publication was 12.6 months (median 11 months). Conclusion: The abstract to publication rate for papers presented by Australasian emergency physicians and trainees at Australasian College for Emergency Medicine/Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine and International Conference on Emergency Medicine meetings is 35%, which is lower than that reported by some other established specialities, but comparable to rates reported for US‐based national and international emergency medicine meetings. Future research should look at barriers to the publication of findings and ways to assist the publication process. See Commentary, page 407.

No abstract

Background: Sharing anonymised ED data with community agencies to reduce alcohol-related injury and assaults has been found effective in the UK. This protocol document outlines the design of an Australian multi-site trial using shared, anonymised ED data to reduce alcoholrelated harm.

Objective The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of the Advanced Musculoskeletal Physiotherapist (AMP) in managing patients brought in by ambulance to the emergency department (ED). Methods This study was a dual-centre observational study. Patients brought in by ambulance to two Melbourne hospitals over a 12-month period and seen by an AMP were compared with a matched group seen by other ED staff. Primary outcome measures were wait time and length of stay (LOS) in the ED. Results Data from 1441 patients within the Australasian Triage Scale (ATS) Categories 3-5 with musculoskeletal complaints were included in the analysis. Subgroup analysis of 825 patients aged ≤65 years demonstrated that for Category 4 (semi-urgent) patients, the median wait time to see the AMP was 9.5min (interquartile range (IQR) 3.25-18.00min) compared with 25min (IQR 10.00-56.00min) to see other ED staff (P ≤ 0.05). LOS analysis was undertaken on patients discharged home and demonstrated that there was a 1.20 greater probability (95% confidence interval 1.07-1.35) that ATS Category 4 patients managed by the AMP were discharged within the 4-hour public hospital target compared with patients managed by other ED staff: 87.04% (94/108) of patients managed by the AMPs met this standard compared with 72.35% (123/170) of patients managed by other ED staff (P=0.002). Conclusions Patients aged ≤65 years with musculoskeletal complaints brought in by ambulance to the ED and triaged to ATS Category 4 are likely to wait less time to be seen and are discharged home more quickly when managed by an AMP. This study has added to the evidence that AMPs improve patient flow in the ED, freeing up time for other ED staff to see higher-acuity, more complex patients. What is known about the topic? There is a growing body of evidence establishing that AMPs improve the flow of patients presenting with musculoskeletal conditions to the ED through reduced wait times and LOS and, at the same time, providing good-quality care and enhanced patient satisfaction. What does this paper add? Within their primary contact capacity, AMPs also manage patients who are brought in by ambulance presenting with musculoskeletal conditions. To the authors' knowledge, there is currently no available literature documenting the performance of AMPs in the management of this cohort of patients. What are the implications for practitioners? This study has added to the body of evidence that AMPs improve patient flow in the ED and illustrates that AMPs, by seeing patients brought in by ambulance, are able to have a positive impact on the pressures increasingly facing the Victorian Ambulance Service and emergency hospital care.