ObjectiveRural emergency departments (EDs) are an important gateway to care for the 20% of Canadians who reside in rural areas. Less than 15% of Canadian rural EDs have access to a computed tomography (CT) scanner. We hypothesized that a significant proportion of inter-facility transfers from rural hospitals without CT scanners are for CT imaging. Our objective was to assess inter-facility transfers for CT imaging in a rural ED without a CT scanner.ResultsWe selected a rural ED that offers 24/7 medical care with admission beds but no CT scanner. Descriptive statistics were collected from 2010 to 2015 on total ED visits and inter-facility transfers. Data was accessible through hospital and government databases. Between 2010 and 2014, there were respectively 13,531, 13,524, 13,827, 12,883, and 12,942 ED visits, with an average of 444 inter-facility transfers. An average of 33% (148/444) of inter-facility transfers were to a rural referral centre with a CT scan, with 84% being for CT scan. Inter-facility transfers incur costs and potential delays in patient diagnosis and management, yet current databases could not capture transfer times. Acquiring a CT scan may represent a reasonable opportunity for the selected rural hospital considering the number of required transfers.

ObjectivesAs Canada’s second largest province, the geography of Quebec poses unique challenges for trauma management. Our primary objective was to compare mortality rates between trauma patients treated at rural emergency departments (EDs) and urban trauma centres in Quebec. As a secondary objective, we compared the availability of trauma care resources and services between these two settings.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting26 rural EDs and 33 level 1 and 2 urban trauma centres in Quebec, Canada.Participants79 957 trauma cases collected from Quebec’s trauma registry.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur primary outcome measure was mortality (prehospital, ED, in-hospital). Secondary outcome measures were the availability of trauma-related services and staff specialties at rural and urban facilities. Multivariable generalised linear mixed models were used to determine the relationship between the primary facility and mortality.ResultsOverall, 7215 (9.0%) trauma patients were treated in a rural ED and 72 742 (91.0%) received treatment at an urban centre. Mortality rates were higher in rural EDs compared with urban trauma centres (13.3% vs 7.9%, p<0.001). After controlling for available potential confounders, the odds of prehospital or ED mortality were over three times greater for patients treated in a rural ED (OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.88 to 6.28). Trauma care setting (rural vs urban) was not associated with in-hospital mortality. Nearly all of the specialised services evaluated were more present at urban trauma centres.ConclusionsTrauma patients treated in rural EDs had a higher mortality rate and were more likely to die prehospital or in the ED compared with patients treated at an urban trauma centre. Our results were limited by a lack of accurate prehospital times in the trauma registry.

No abstract

Background: Emergency departments (EDs) in rural and remote areas face challenges in delivering accessible, high quality and efficient services. The objective of this pilot study was to test the feasibility and relevance of the selected approach and to explore challenges and solutions to improve delivery of care in selected EDs. Methods: We conducted an exploratory multiple case study in two rural EDs in Québec, Canada. A survey filled out by the head nurse for each ED provided a descriptive statistical portrait. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ED health professionals, decision-makers and citizens (n = 68) and analyzed inductively and thematically. Results: The two EDs differed with regards to number of annual visits, inter-facility transfers and wait time. Stakeholders stressed the influence of context on ED challenges and solutions, related to: 1) governance and management (e.g. lack of representation, poor efficiency, ill-adapted standards); 2) health services organization (e.g. limited access to primary healthcare and long-term care, challenges with transfers); 3) resources (e.g. lack of infrastructure, limited access to specialists, difficult staff recruitment/retention); 4) and professional practice (e.g. isolation, large scope, maintaining competencies with low case volumes, need for continuing education, teamwork and protocols). There was a general agreement between stakeholder groups. Conclusions: Our findings show the feasibility and relevance of mobilizing stakeholders to identify contextspecific challenges and solutions. It confirms the importance of undertaking a larger study to improve the delivery of care in rural EDs.

Discussions: This is the first study in rural Canada to involve multiple stakeholders/patients in a mission to improve locally relevant and sustainable emergency care. Conclusions: This research experience, involving large-scale mobilisation, will hopefully serve as a model for improving performance in all areas of our health and social care system. Lessons learned: Participatory action research approach is demanding but it can lead to rich collaborations and help implement recommendations. Limitation: Implementation of solutions is pending but the unique methodology of the research project is, in itself, interesting to report. Suggestions for future research: The study's methodology could be deployed elsewhere in Canada and internationally. Reference: 1-Fleet R, et al., Rural emergency care 360°: mobilising healthcare professionals, decisionmakers, patients and citizens to improve rural emergency care in the province of Quebec, Canada: a qualitative study protocol. BMJ open. 2017 Aug 1;7(8).