Objective-To assess doctors' and nurses' views on the presence of relatives in the resuscitation room during cardiac arrest or major trauma. Design-Questionnaires were sent to accident and emergency (A&E) nurses In a 10 year study by Hanson and Strawser4 in which relatives were given the option of witnessing resuscitation attempts, family members reported that in those cases where the patient died, the presence of relatives brought a sense of reality to their loss, helping to avoid a prolonged period of denial. We were impressed by the research and were keen to put into practice the policy of offering relatives or loved ones the opportunity of being present in the resuscitation room. Before bringing about a change in practice we decided to assess doctors' and nurses' views so that potential problems could be addressed. MethodsQuestionnaires were sent to A&E nurses and doctors of all specialties in all grades of seniority at Queen Mary's University Hospital, Roehampton, in November 1995 (we did not include nurses outside A&E, as changes in our policy would not affect them but would affect doctors in all specialties). One hundred and three questionnaires were sent on a named basis. Recipients were asked to state whether they would or would not favour the presence of relatives in the resuscitation room if the relative had expressed a desire to be there. They were also invited to give comments to support their view. The information gained was analysed. The questionnaire is shown in appendix 1. ResultsEighty one questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 78.6%. A pattern emerged showing that A&E nurses were likely to be in favour of the presence of relatives, while doctors were more likely to be in favour with increasing seniority (P << 0.001). STATUS OF RESPONDENTSHouse officers formed the smallest proportion (10%) of respondents, as they are only attached to medical and surgical firms. A&E nurses formed 12% of respondents, registrars 16%, senior house officers 33%, and consultants 29% (fig 1).

This study investigated children <18 years old treated for burns in United States (US) emergency departments from 1990 to 2014 using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. There were 2 548 971 children treated for burns during the study period, averaging 101 959 annually. The number and rate of burns decreased by 30.0% and 38.9%, respectively, (both P < .001) during the study. Most patients (58.4%) were boys, 64.0% were <6 years old, and 7.4% were admitted to the hospital. Thermal burns accounted for 60.2% of injuries. The hand/fingers were most commonly injured (37.1%), followed by head/neck (19.6%). The most common specified mechanism of injury was grabbing/touching (18.4%), followed by spilling/splashing (16.4%). Although the number of children treated for burns has decreased, it remains an important source of pediatric injury, demonstrating the need to increase prevention efforts, especially among young children. This is the first study to use a nationally representative sample to investigate burn mechanisms.

Objectives Women are underrepresented in emergency medicine (EM) leadership. Some evidence suggests that geographic mobility improves career advancement. We compared movement between medical school and residency by gender. Our hypothesis was that women move a shorter distance than men. Methods We collected National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) lists of ranked applicants from eight EM residency programs from the 2020 Main Residency Match. We added the gender expressed in interviews and left the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) number as the unique identifier. Applicant data for matched osteopathic and allopathic seniors in the continental United States was included. We obtained street addresses for medical schools from an AAMC database and residency program addresses from the ACGME website. We performed geospatial analysis using ArcGIS Pro and compared results by gender. NRMP approved the data use and our institutional review board granted exempt status. Results A total of 881 of 944 unique applicants met inclusion criteria and included 48.5% (830/1,713) of matched allopaths and 37% of all matched seniors; 48% (420) were female. There was no significant difference between genders for distance moved (p = 0.31). Women moved a mean (±SD) 619 (±698) miles (median = 341 miles, range = 0–2,679 miles); and men, a mean (±SD) 641 (±717) miles (median = 315 miles, range = 0–2,671 miles). Further analysis of applicants traveling less than 50 miles (49 women, 51 men) and by census division showed no significant frequency differences. Conclusion Women and men travel similar distances for EM residency with the majority staying within geographic proximity to their medical school. This suggests that professional mobility at this stage is not a constraint. Our study findings are limited because we do not know which personal and professional factors inform relocation decisions. Gender is not associated with a difference in distance moved by students for residency. This finding may have implications for resident selection and career development.