Objective: The scope of selected emergency physiotherapy practitioners (EPP) in this Australian nontertiary ED has recently extended to include the prescription of a limited drug formulary, including paracetamol, some NSAIDs and opioids, an anti-emetic, a benzodiazepine and nitrous oxide. Although there are large-scale studies investigating prescription errors made by doctors, there is a lack of data on prescribing practices of physiotherapists in the ED setting. The aim of present study is to compare the prescribing practices of EPP to their medical and nursing colleagues within the setting of treating musculoskeletal injuries in the ED. Methods: One hundred retrospective National Inpatient Medication Chart (NIMC) audits of adult patients presenting primarily with musculoskeletal complaints were undertaken using the standardised NIMC audit tool, with patient demographics, and NIMC audit results compared between groups. Results: Fifty medication charts were audited for each group, with a total of 212 drug orders. EPP demonstrated higher completion rates for patient identification, patient weight and medication history compared to medical and nursing staff. Legibility of drug names and route of administration appeared equivalent, whereas EPP had higher completion rates for legible drug doses and signatures compared to medical and nursing staff. Conclusion: In the management of ED patients with musculoskeletal complaints, prescription-trained EPP appear to perform similarly if not better than their medical and nursing colleagues with regards to NIMC audit tool results.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to (i) capture clinicians' knowledge, attitude and adherence to the first Australian national peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) Clinical Care Standard, (ii) examine the instrument performance of the knowledge related questions and (iii) explore the educational needs for, and barriers to, Standard adherence among Australian ED clinicians.MethodsA cross‐sectional national online survey was conducted from March to June 2022, using a snowball sampling method. The survey used 5‐point Likert scales and multiple‐choice questions to capture respondents' knowledge, attitude and adherence to the Standard as well as the educational needs for, and barriers to, Standard adherence.ResultsIn total, 433 ED nurses and doctors responded. Although nearly half (n = 206, 47.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 55.5–65.8) of respondents claimed that they were unfamiliar with the Standard, questions on PIVC knowledge yielded that most respondents had adequate knowledge of most of the key standards. Respondents' attitudes towards multiple intravenous insertion attempts and ongoing PIVC competency monitoring are not in agreement with the Standard. Self‐reported practices regarding routine insertion of idle catheters (55%; 95% CI 49.9–59.9), using antecubital fossa as the first insertion site (84%; 95% CI 80–87), insertion without confidence (46%; 95% CI 41.2–51.1) and lack of routine reviewing the ongoing needs of PIVC (40%; 95% CI 35.3–45.1) were not aligned with the Standard. Unawareness of the Standard and non‐practical recommendations were rated as the top barriers to Standard adherence.ConclusionThe findings of the survey suggest that the Standard may need modification to align with the needs of ED clinicians. Future studies need to explore the applicability and relevancy of some recommendations in the ED settings as they may cause low adherence to the Standard.

This article describes the quality improvement process used to implement a waiting area within fast track. Staff and patient survey data indicated a significant decrease in workload, with a subsequent high satisfaction of both groups following the redesign process.