No abstract

POCUS has a high specificity for diagnosing acute appendicitis and has very similar characteristics to those of a radiologist-performed ultrasound. These findings are consistent with the current literature and have the potential to decrease patient morbidity, diagnostic delays, ED length of stay, and need for additional imaging.

Objective:The Canadian Emergency Cardiac Care Coalition, the American Heart Association and similar groups have established a benchmark for the administration of thrombolytics in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care as a door-to-needle (DTN) time of 30 minutes or less. Previous research suggests that this goal is not being achieved in Canada. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the target DTN time of 30 minutes or less for thrombolysis could be met in 2 rural Ontario emergency departments (EDs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review and obtained descriptive data for each case, including demographic information and the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score. Visit timeline data were also collected and included the time during which patients saw a physician, had an electrocardiogram (ECG), received thrombolytic therapy and were discharged from the ED. Relevant time intervals, such as the median DTN time, were calculated. Results: A total of 454 charts were reviewed for patients with a diagnosis of AMI who were seen between 1996 and 2007. The final sample consisted of 101 patients who received thrombolytics (63% men) whose median age was 67 years and median CTAS score was Level II (Emergent). The median door-to-ECG time was 6 minutes, door-to-physician time was 8 minutes and DTN time was 27 minutes; 58% of patients received thrombolytics within 30 minutes. Conclusion: A DTN time of 30 minutes or less is achievable in rural EDs.

Objectives Cholelithiasis and cholecystitis are common conditions that frequently require patients to come to the Emergency Department (ED) and undergo diagnostic imaging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test characteristics of emergency physician performed point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to diagnose cholelithiasis and cholecystitis in a Canadian ED. Methods A health records review was performed on all ED patients > 17 years of age for whom POCUS was performed to diagnose cholelithiasis and cholecystitis in a Canadian academic ED over a 5-year period. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated. The gold standard used for diagnosis was pathology, laparoscopy, radiology-performed comprehensive ultrasonography, followed by computed tomography scans. Results A total of 577 patients were included in the study. The sensitivity and specificity of POCUS to diagnose cholelithiasis was 95.2% (95% CI 91.1-97.8%) and 93.1% (95% CI 90.1-95.4%). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for POCUS to diagnose cholelithiasis were found to be 14 and 0.05; the negative predictive value was 97.6% (95% CI 95.5-98.7%). The sensitivity and specificity of POCUS to diagnose cholecystitis was 67.1% (95% CI 54.9-77.9%) and 97.6% (95% CI 95.9-98.8%). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for POCUS to diagnose cholecystitis were found to be 28 and 0.34; the negative predictive value was 95.6% (95% CI 93.9-96.8%). Conclusion POCUS is reliable for the diagnosis of cholelithiasis and for ruling in cholecystitis. In cases where POCUS is negative or indeterminate for cholecystitis, further imaging should be obtained as clinical suspicion warrants. Keywords Retrospective • Point-of-care ultrasound • Cholelithiasis • Cholecystitis RésuméObjectifs La cholélithiase et la cholécystite sont des troubles médicaux courants qui obligent fréquemment les patients à se rendre aux urgences et subir une imagerie diagnostique. Le but de cette étude était d'évaluer les caractéristiques des tests de l'échographie au point d'intervention (POCUS) effectuée par des médecins urgentistes pour diagnostiquer la cholélithiase et la cholécystite dans une urgence canadienne.

IntroductionPre-hospital analgesia is administered at a suboptimal rate. We aimed to identify barriers to pre-hospital oral analgesia administration to adult patients, as perceived by paramedics, using qualitative methods.MethodsParamedics from a county emergency medical service were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interviews consisted of two questions regarding barriers to pre-hospital administration of oral analgesia using a previously established medical directive. The same investigator completed all interviews, which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Barriers to analgesia administration to adult patients were identified from the interview transcripts using open coding of the data. Two investigators completed the coding process independently and discrepancies were then resolved by consensus. Code frequencies were tabulated and thematic analysis was used to organise the data into broad domains and themes.ResultsIn total, 44 paramedics of a possible 46 (95.7%) completed a semi-structured interview. The final sample size was 43 after exclusion criteria were applied. The median paramedic age and practice experience was 39 and 9.5 years respectively, 58% of the participants were male. Barriers to oral analgesia administration emerged in the domains of patient, medical directive, and paramedic factors.ConclusionParamedic perceived barriers to pre-hospital oral analgesia administration were identified and include those related to patient, medical directive, and paramedic factors. Minimising these barriers should be undertaken to reduce rates of pre-hospital under-treatment of pain and improve pre-hospital pain management.