No abstract

Background and objectives Urgent care centers (UCCs) are increasingly popular with an estimated number of 9600 stand‐alone centers in the United States compared to emergency departments (EDs). These facilities offer a potentially more convenient and affordable option for patients seeking care for a variety of low‐acuity conditions. Because of the limitations of UCCs, patients occasionally are referred to EDs for further care. Prior studies have attempted to evaluate the appropriateness of these UCC referrals. Our study is the first to consider if these referrals require ED‐specific care and the diagnostic concordance of these referrals. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients who were referred from UCCs to our ED between October 2020 and June 2021. We used a Boolean search strategy to screen charts for the terms urgent care, emergency department, referral, or transfer. Cases were manually screened until 300 met the inclusion criteria. Cases had to feature the patient being seen by a UCC provider and directly referred to the ED on the same day. Patients who presented to the ED of their own volition were excluded. Three independent abstractors reviewed the charts. All abstractors and a senior investigator piloted the use of a data collection sheet and discussed the management of any ambiguous data. A senior physician reviewed all discrepancies among abstractors. Data collected included ED final diagnosis and whether the final diagnosis was similar to the UCC diagnosis. A referral was deemed to require ED‐specific care and resources if (1) the patient was admitted, (2) imaging (other than an x‐ray) was performed, (3) specialist consultation was required, or (4) care was provided in the ED that is not conventionally available at UCCs. Results From the 300 patient charts, 55% of patients referred from UCCs to the ED did not require ED‐specific care or resources and 64% had discordant diagnoses between UCC diagnosis and ED diagnosis. A total of 41% of patients underwent advanced imaging studies, 26% received specialty consultations, and 15% were admitted. Subgroup analysis for lacerations, extremity/fracture care, and abnormal electrocardiograms (ECGs) showed disproportionally high levels of discordant diagnoses and referrals that did not require ED‐specific care or resources. Conclusion Our data found that 55% of patients referred to EDs from UCCs did not require ED‐specific care or resources and 64% carried a discordant diagnosis between UC and ED diagnosis. We suggest quality remedies, such as educational sessions and engagement with telemedicine sub‐specialists as well as a coordinated formalized system for UCC to ED referrals.

Authorship of peer-reviewed publications is important for academic rank, promotion, and national reputation. In pain medicine, limited information is available for authorship trends for women as compared with men. The objective of this study was to describe trends of female authorship data in the 5 pain journals with the highest impact factors over a 10-year period. We analyzed data for January, April, and October in 2009, 2014, and 2019. For each article, the following information was recorded: journal name, journal month, journal year, article title or article PMCID, total authors, total female authors, total male authors, total authors of unknown gender, presence or absence of a female first author, and presence or absence of a female last/senior author. Authorship for 924 articles was reviewed. When a man was senior author, women were first author on only 27.9% of articles (P<.001). A woman was 2 times as likely (57.2%) to be first author when a woman was the senior author (P<.001), pointing to the potential impact of female senior authors. An article with 50% or more female authors was 76.4% more likely to have a female senior author (P<.001). The results demonstrate the influence of a senior female author on the likelihood of an article’s having a female first author. When men were the senior authors, women were half as likely to be first authors. The total number of female authors changed very little between 2009 and 2019.

Introduction:After officer-involved shootings, rapid delivery of emergency medical care is critical but may be delayed due to scene safety concerns. The purpose of this study was to describe medical care rendered by law enforcement officers (LEO) after lethal force incidents.Method:Retrospective analysis of open-source video footage of officer-involved shootings (OIS) occurring between 2/15/2013 and 12/31/2020. Frequency and nature of care provided, time until LEO and emergency medical services (EMS) care, and mortality outcomes were evaluated. The study was deemed exempt by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board.Results:342 videos were included in the final analysis. LEOs rendered care in 172 (50.3%) incidents. The average elapsed time from the time of injury to LEO-provided care was 155.8 + 198.8 seconds. Hemorrhage control was the most common intervention performed. An average of 214.2 seconds elapsed between LEO care and EMS arrival. No mortality difference was identified between LEO vs EMS care (p = 0.1631). Subjects with truncal wounds were more likely to die than those with extremity wounds (p < 0.00001).Conclusion:LEO rendered medical care in half of all OIS incidents, initiating care on average 3.5 minutes prior to EMS arrival. Although no significant mortality difference was noted for LEO versus EMS care, this finding must be interpreted cautiously, as specific interventions, such as extremity hemorrhage control, may have impacted select patients. Future studies are needed to determine optimal LEO care for these patients.