Objectives: Emergent cricothyroidotomy (EC) is a rarely used yet lifesaving procedure that is important for an emergency physician to master throughout his or her training. We evaluated the difference in utilization of a manikin or porcine model among emergency medicine (EM) residents when teaching EC. We also evaluated the difference in the models using two different commonly utilized and taught techniques: "scalpel-finger-bougie" (SFB) technique and the Melker technique (MT).Methods: This was a prospective crossover design. Instructions about the procedure were provided; study participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups and performed cricothyrotomy on both manikin and porcine simulators using both the Melker and the SFB techniques. Each group was started with the technique on the second simulator opposite what they started with on the first simulator. After the procedures, study participants completed a questionnaire that used the same format for both groups. All survey questions required a 7-point Likert scale response. Confidence, difficulty, reality of the anatomy, and landmarks were compared.Results: Fifteen EM residents participated in the study. Compared to the porcine-first group, the manikin-first group rated the anatomy more realistic (question 5) after their first attempt (6.29 vs. 5.87) than their second attempt (using the porcine model; 4.29 vs. 5.62; main effect for attempts [first vs. second] p = 0.027; interaction p = 0.074). Interestingly, the porcine model-first group rated the landmarks (question 6) significantly easier to find in both attempts (6.87 vs. 5.86 on the first attempt and 6.50 vs. 5.57 on the second attempt; p = 0.012). Twelve participants (80%) chose SFB as their preferred technique to use in real-life scenario.Conclusion: The Manikin model tends to be more realistic in cricothyrotomy simulation than the porcine model.The influence of fresh pig skin overlying the porcine model may require further research. Landmark identification during the procedure was easier on both models when participants start with the porcine model. Participants prefer the SFB over MT if faced with a real-life scenario.From the

Introduction There has been a widespread antibiotic prescription in the Emergency Department (ED) among patients presenting with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) irrespective of the causative agent of the disease. The viral respiratory panel (VRP) test is designed to detect viral pathogens in the respiratory tract, which may contribute to the exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as the upper and lower respiratory tract infections are caused by a broad range of microbes and not only bacteria. The aim of this study is to weigh the benefits of obtaining a VRP in patients presenting with isolated symptoms pertaining to well-defined criteria of an AECOPD with preexisting COPD or reactive airway disease to find out how such test impacts patient throughput time in the ED and also investigate how obtaining a VRP affects the use of antibiotics in this patient population. It is important that ED physicians accurately diagnose the main cause of AECOPD to help optimize the use of health care resources, including antibiotics, antivirals, inpatient, and ED beds. VRP testing must be taken into consideration as it helps eliminate the need of administering antibiotics to every patient who presents to the ED with AECOPD. Design and method This is a case-control observational study using retrospective chart review to obtain patients’ data from our hospital data warehouse. Data on patients with the primary diagnosis of AECOPD in the past two years were retrieved. A comparison between those who had VRP on arrival in the ED and those who did not have a VRP obtained was performed. We also compared ED throughput time for patients with AECOPD who received antibiotics to those who did not receive antibiotics. Only patients between the ages of 18 and 64 were included in the study. Patients with other preexisting health conditions such as cardiac diseases, neurological problems, and abdominal complaints were excluded. Patients who required hospitalization and pregnant patients were excluded from the study. Results We collected the data of 340 patients who met the study criteria. Of the 340 patients enrolled, 65 (19%) received the VRP test and 275 (81%) did not receive VRP test. Among the 65 patients who received the VRP test, 45 (70%) had a virus etiology detected and reported in the ED (p=0.001). Also, 138 (50.2%) did not receive VRP test and were not given antibiotics, and 137 (49.8%) did not receive VRP test but were treated with antibiotics; 11 patients received antibiotics despite haven tested positive to a virus. The result showed that those who received antibiotics with no VRP test on arrival in the ED had a shorter throughput time compared to patients who did not receive antibiotics but received VRP test. Conclusion The study is a quality improvement study to help determine the efficacy and appropriateness of ordering a VRP prior to ED disposition and the impact of overall ED throughput time fo...