Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of hot water immersion for the treatment of Physalia sp. (bluebottle or Portuguese Man‐of‐War) stings. Design: Open‐label, randomised comparison trial. Primary analysis was by intention to treat, with secondary analysis of nematocyst‐confirmed stings. One halfway interim analysis was planned. Setting: Surf lifesaving first aid facilities at two beaches in eastern Australia from 30 December 2003 to 5 March 2005. Participants: 96 subjects presenting after swimming in the ocean for treatment of an apparent sting by a bluebottle. Interventions: Hot water immersion (45°C) of the affected part versus ice pack application. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was a clinically important reduction in pain as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were the development of regional or radiating pain, frequency of systemic symptoms, and proportion with pruritus or rash on follow‐up. Results: 49 patients received hot water immersion and 47 received ice packs. The two groups had similar baseline features, except patients treated with hot water had more severe initial pain (VAS [mean ± SD]: 54 ± 22 mm versus 42 ± 22 mm). After 10 minutes, 53% of the hot water group reported less pain versus 32% treated with ice (21%; 95% CI, 1%–39%; P = 0.039). After 20 minutes, 87% of the hot water group reported less pain versus 33% treated with ice (54%; 95% CI, 35%–69%; P = 0.002). The trial was stopped after the halfway interim analysis because hot water immersion was shown to be effective (P = 0.002). Hot water was more effective at 20 minutes in nematocyst‐confirmed stings (95% versus 29%; P = 0.002). Radiating pain occurred less with hot water (10% versus 30%; P = 0.039). Systemic effects were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Immersion in water at 45°C for 20 minutes is an effective and practical treatment for pain from bluebottle stings.

POC testing for troponin in the ED tended to reduce the LOS for possible ACS patients. The degree of this benefit is likely to be markedly dependent on its acceptance and uptake by attending personnel, and on the ED setting in which it is used.

In a large Australian ED, less than 1% of patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of coronary syndrome were discharged and subsequently had a 30 day adverse event. Reducing this proportion by admitting patients with traditional risk factors would markedly increase hospital workload. Opportunities exist to improve both the safety and efficiency of chest pain assessment in the ED.

Treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in rural settings involves thrombolysis followed by transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospital. The first step is accurate diagnosis via electrocardiography (ECG), but one-third of all STEMI incidents go unrecognized and hence untreated. OBJECTIVE To reduce missed diagnoses of STEMI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cluster randomized clinical trial included 29 hospital emergency departments (EDs) in rural Australia with no emergency medicine specialists, which were randomized to usual care vs automatically triggered diagnostic support from the tertiary referral hospital (management of rural acute coronary syndromes [MORACS] intervention). Patients presenting with symptoms compatible with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were eligible for inclusion. The study was conducted from December 2018 to April 2020. Data were analyzed in August 2021.INTERVENTION Triage of a patient with symptoms compatible with ACS triggered an automated notification to the tertiary hospital coronary care unit. The ECG and point-of-care troponin results were reviewed remotely and a phone call was made to the treating physician in the rural hospital to assist with diagnosis and initiation of treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe proportion of patients with missed STEMI diagnoses.RESULTS A total of 6249 patients were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.2] years; 48% female). Of 7474 ED presentations with suspected ACS, STEMI accounted for 77 (2.0%) in usual care hospitals and 46 (1.3%) in MORACS hospitals. Missed diagnosis of STEMI occurred in 27 of 77 presentations (35%) in usual care hospitals and 0 of 46 (0%) in MORACS hospitals (P < .001). Of eligible patients, 48 of 75 (64%) in the usual care group and 36 of 36 (100%) in the MORACS group received primary reperfusion (P < .001). In the usual care group, 12-month mortality was 10.3% (n = 8) vs 6.5% (n = 3) in the MORACS group (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.18-2.23). Patients with missed STEMI diagnoses had a mortality of 25.9% (n = 7) compared with 2.0% (n = 1) for those with accurately diagnosed STEMI (relative risk, 13.2; 95% CI, 1.71-102.00; P = .001). Overall, there were 6 patients who did not have STEMI as a final diagnosis; 5 had takotsubo cardiomyopathy and 1 had pericarditis. There was no difference between groups in the rate of alternative final diagnosis. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCEThe findings indicate that MORACS diagnostic support service reduced the proportion of missed STEMI and improved the rates of primary reperfusion therapy. Accurate diagnosis of STEMI was associated with lower mortality.