No abstract

BACKGROUND: Developments in information technology (IT) have driven a push in healthcare innovation in the emergency department (ED). Many of these applications rely on mobile technology (MT) such as smartphones but not everyone is comfortable with MT usage. Our study aims to characterize the technology usage behavior of users in the ED so as to guide the implementation of IT interventions in the ED. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital. Patients and their caregivers aged 21 and above were recruited. The survey collected demographic information, technology usage patterns, and participant reported comfort level in the usage of MT. We performed descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression to identify factors differentially associated with comfort in usage of MT. RESULTS: A total of 498 participants were recruited, and 299 (60%) were patients. English was the most commonly written and read language (66.9%) and 64.2% reported a comfort level of 3/5 or more in using MT. Factors that were associated with being comfortable in using MT include having a tertiary education, being able to read and write English, as well as being a frequent user of IT. Caregivers were more likely to display these characteristics CONCLUSION: A large proportion of ED patients are not comfortable in the usage of MT. Factors that predicted comfort level in the usage of MT were common amongst caregivers. Future interventions should take this into consideration in the design of MT interventions.

No abstract

Background Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is an uncommon disease but has to be carefully considered in patients with isolated unilateral upper limb swelling due to its potential to cause devastating complications and sequelae such as pulmonary embolism and septic thrombophlebitis. Given the extreme rarity of this condition, it is not surprising that point-of-care ultrasonographic evaluation of the upper limb for deep venous thrombosis is hardly ever performed in the emergency department. This case report serves to highlight how point-of-care ultrasonographic evaluation of the upper extremity venous system could be incorporated as a tool in the diagnostic armamentarium of the emergency physician. Case presentation A 51-year-old Chinese gentleman presented to the emergency department with a 1-day duration of progressive right upper extremity swelling and pain. On examination, his hemodynamic parameters were stable with no tachycardia. He was noted to have a hyperaemic and grossly swollen but non-tender right upper limb. Distal pulses remained strong. Point-of-care ultrasonography of his right upper limb venous system with Doppler colour flow and single-point augmentation with the arm squeeze manoeuvre immediately confirmed the diagnosis of right upper extremity deep venous thrombosis, which in turn permitted anticoagulation to be instituted promptly whilst in the emergency department. Conclusion The use of point-of-care ultrasonography of the upper limb venous system can prove invaluable as a rapid, non-invasive technique to facilitate expedient diagnosis of and early intervention for UEDVT in the emergency department.

Objective Chest pain scores allow emergency department (ED) physicians to identify low‐risk patients for whom discharge can be safely expedited. Although these have been extensively validated in Western cohorts, data in patients of Asian heritage are lacking. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of HEART, ED Assessment of Chest Pain Score (EDACS), and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) in risk‐stratifying which chest pain patients are at risk of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days (composite of all‐cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization). Methods This single‐center prospective cohort‐study that enrolled 1200 patients was conducted by a large urban tertiary center in Singapore. Chest pain scores were reported before disposition by research assistants blinded to the physician's clinical assessment. Outcomes were assessed independently by a blinded cardiologist and emergency physician, while another cardiologist adjudicated in the case of discrepancies. Results Of the 1195 patients analyzed, 135 (11.3%) suffered major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days. HEART, which ruled out major adverse cardiovascular events in 52.8% of patients with 88.1% sensitivity, and EDACS, which ruled out major adverse cardiovascular events in 57.5% of patients with 83.7% sensitivity, proved comparable to clinical judgment that ruled out major adverse cardiovascular events in 73.0% of patients with 85.5% sensitivity. GRACE was weaker—ruling out major adverse cardiovascular events in 79.2% of patients with a dismal sensitivity of 45.0%. The correlation‐statistic for HEART (79.4%) was superior to EDACS (69.9%) and GRACE (69.2%). Conclusions HEART more accurately identified low‐risk chest pain patients in an Asian ED, demonstrating comparable performance characteristics to clinical judgment. This has major implications on the use of chest pain scores to safely expedite disposition decisions for low‐risk chest pain patients.