Objective To determine whether full elbow extension as assessed by the elbow extension test can be used in routine clinical practice to rule out bony injury in patients presenting with elbow injury. Design Adults: multicentre prospective interventional validation study in secondary care. Children: multicentre prospective observational study in secondary care. Setting Five emergency departments in southwest England. Participants 2127 adults and children presenting to the emergency department with acute elbow injury. Intervention Elbow extension test during routine care by clinical staff to determine the need for radiography in adults and to guide follow-up in children. Main outcome measures Presence of elbow fracture on radiograph, or recovery with no indication for further review at 7-10 days. Results Of 1740 eligible participants, 602 patients were able to fully extend their elbow; 17 of these patients had a fracture. Two adult patients with olecranon fractures needed a change in treatment. In the 1138 patients without full elbow extension, 521 fractures were identified. Overall, the test had sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) for detecting elbow fracture of 96.8% (95.0 to 98.2) and 48.5% (45.6 to 51.4). Full elbow extension had a negative predictive value for fracture of 98.4% (96.3 to 99.5) in adults and 95.8% (92.6 to 97.8) in children. Negative likelihood ratios were 0.03 (0.01 to 0.08) in adults and 0.11 (0.06 to 0.19) in children. Conclusion The elbow extension test can be used in routine practice to inform clinical decision making. Patients who cannot fully extend their elbow after injury should be referred for radiography, as they have a nearly 50% chance of fracture. For those able to fully extend their elbow, radiography can be deferred if the practitioner is confident that an olecranon fracture is not present. Patients who do not undergo radiography should return if symptoms have not resolved within 7-10 days.

Background Patients with palpitations and pre-syncope commonly present to Emergency Departments (EDs) but underlying rhythm diagnosis is often not possible during the initial presentation. This trial compares the symptomatic rhythm detection rate of a smartphone-based event recorder (AliveCor) alongside standard care versus standard care alone, for participants presenting to the ED with palpitations and pre-syncope with no obvious cause evident at initial consultation. Methods Multi-centre open label, randomised controlled trial. Participants ≥ 16 years old presenting to 10 UK hospital EDs were included. Participants were randomised to either (a) intervention group; standard care plus the use of a smartphone-based event recorder or (b) control group; standard care alone. Primary endpoint was symptomatic rhythm detection rate at 90 days. Trial registration number NCT02783898 ( ClinicalTrials.gov ). Findings Two hundred forty-three participants were recruited over an 18-month period. A symptomatic rhythm was detected at 90 days in 69 (n = 124; 55.6%; 95% CI 46.9–64.4%) participants in the intervention group versus 11 (n = 116; 9.5%; 95% CI 4.2–14.8) in the control group (RR 5.9, 95% CI 3.3–10.5; p < 0.0001). Mean time to symptomatic rhythm detection in the intervention group was 9.5 days (SD 16.1, range 0–83) versus 42.9 days (SD 16.0, range 12–66; p < 0.0001) in the control group. The commonest symptomatic rhythms detected were sinus rhythm, sinus tachycardia and ectopic beats. A symptomatic cardiac arrhythmia was detected at 90 days in 11 (n = 124; 8.9%; 95% CI 3.9–13.9%) participants in the intervention group versus 1 (n = 116; 0.9%; 95% CI 0.0–2.5%) in the control group (RR 10.3, 95% CI 1.3–78.5; p = 0.006). Interpretation Use of a smartphone-based event recorder increased the number of patients in whom an ECG was captured during symptoms over five-fold to more than 55% at 90 days. This safe, non-invasive and easy to use device should be considered part of on-going care to all patients presenting acutely with unexplained palpitations or pre-syncope. Funding This study was funded by research awards from Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland (CHSS) and British Heart Foundation (BHF) which included funding for purchasing the devices. MR was supported by an NHS Research Scotland Career Researcher Clinician award.

Significant adverse effects of propofol in this case series were uncommon (12/98 patients) and readily countered. This case series suggests that propofol is a safe and effective sedative for relocating hip prostheses.

The intervention was effective at achieving nearly universal early assessment and documentation of pain. This did not translate to an improvement in analgesic provision. Other means of changing behaviour need to be studied, possibly using the computerised record again to obligate analgesia provision.

Our large series of propofol sedations performed by emergency physicians supports the safety of this practice. The sentinel adverse event rate of 1% that we identify prompts review: we will in future emphasize adherence to the reduced 0.5 mg kg(-1) propofol dose in the elderly, and reconsider our use of metaraminol. We believe that our application of the World SIVA adverse event tool sets a benchmark for further studies.