Introduction Barrier enclosure devices were introduced to protect against infectious disease transmission during aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMP). Recent discussion in the medical community has led to new designs and adoption despite limited evidence. A scoping review was conducted to characterize devices being used and their performance. Methods We conducted a scoping review of formal databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Scopus), grey literature, and hand-searched relevant journals. Forward and reverse citation searching was completed on included articles. Article/full-text screening and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorized by publication type, device category, intended medical use, and outcomes (efficacy – ability to contain particles; efficiency – time to complete AGMP; and usability – user experience). Results Searches identified 6489 studies and 123 met criteria for inclusion (k = 0.81 title/abstract, k = 0.77 full-text). Most articles were published in 2020 (98%, n = 120) as letters/commentaries (58%, n = 71). Box systems represented 42% ( n = 52) of systems described, while plastic sheet systems accounted for 54% ( n = 66). The majority were used for airway management (67%, n = 83). Only half of articles described outcome measures (54%, n = 67); 82% ( n = 55) reporting efficacy, 39% ( n = 26) on usability, and 15% ( n = 10) on efficiency. Efficacy of devices in containing aerosols was limited and frequently dependent on use of suction devices. Conclusions While use of various barrier enclosure devices has become widespread during this pandemic, objective data of efficacy, efficiency, and usability is limited. Further controlled studies are required before adoption into routine clinical practice.

IntroductionThe use of search engines and online social media (OSM) websites by healthcare providers is increasing and may even be used to search for patient information. This raises several ethical issues. The objective of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of OSM and web-searching for patient information and to explore attitudes towards the ethical appropriateness of these practices by physicians and trainees in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe conducted an online survey study of Canadian emergency physicians and trainees listed under then Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) and senior medical students at the University of Toronto.ResultsWe received 530 responses (response rate 49.1%): 34.9% medical students, 15.5% residents, 49.6% staff physicians. Most had an active Facebook account (74%). Sixty-four participants (13.5%) had used Google to research a patient and 10 (2.1%) had searched for patients on Facebook. There were no differences in these results based on level of training, and 25% of physicians considered using Facebook to learn about a patient “very unethical.” The most frequent ethical concerns were with violation of patient confidentiality, dignity, and consent. The practice was usually not disclosed to patients (14%), but often disclosed to senior colleagues (83%).ConclusionThis is the first study examining the prevalence of and attitudes towards online searching for obtaining patient information in the ED. This practice occurs among staff physicians and trainees despite ethical concerns. Future work should explore the utility and desirability of searching for patient information online.

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding has been associated with adverse events, including short-term death and hospitalization among discharged patients. The mechanisms are poorly understood, but may include altered physician decision-making about ED discharge of higher-risk patients. One example is patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke, who are at high risk of subsequent stroke. While hospitalization is frequently recommended, little consensus exists on which patients require admission.