Objectives: Patient refusal of transport after treatment of hypoglycemia is common in urban emergency medical services (EMS) systems. The rate of relapse is unknown. The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of diabetic patients initially refusing transport (refusers) and those transported to an ED. Methods: All paramedic runs from January to July 1995 were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with a field assessment of hypoglycemic signs/symptoms, and a fingerstick glucose c80 mg/dL. Data for analysis included paramedic run duration, patient demographics, and refusal or acceptance of transport. Patient outcome was obtained from a review of hospital and medical examiner records. Relapse was defined as hypoglycemia necessitating EMS activation or an ED visit within 48 hours of the initial episode. Student's t-test and x2analysis were used to compare means and rates, respectively. Results: Over the 7 months, 374 patients made 571 calls to 9-1-1 that met inclusion criteria (5.2% of all paramedic runs). Of these, 412 were refusers (72.2%) and 159 were transported patients (27.8%). The hospital records of 4 transported patients were unavailable. Sixty-three transported patients were admitted (11.2%), with l death from prolonged hypoglycemia. The rates of relapse did not differ between the refusers and the transported patients ( p > 0.05). Twenty-five relapses occurred among the refusers (6.1%), with 14 repeat refusals, 11 transports, 5 admissions, and no deaths. There were 7 relapses among the transported patients (4.4%), with 2 refusals, 5 transports, 2 admissions, and no deaths. The paramedic run time was significantly shorter for the refusers than for the transported patients ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: The out-ofhospital treatment of hypoglycemic diabetic patients appears to be effective and efficient. Independent of the patient's refusal or acceptance of transport, the out-of-hospital treatment of hypoglycemic patients in this system appears t o be safe.

No abstract

IntroductionClosed reduction of distal radius fractures (CRDRF) is a commonly performed emergency department (ED) procedure. The use of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) to diagnose fractures and guide reduction has previously been described. The primary objective of this study was to determine if the addition of PoCUS to CRDRF changed the perception of successful initial reduction. This was measured by the rate of further reduction attempts based on PoCUS following the initial clinical determination of achievement of best possible reduction.Methods We performed a multicenter prospective cohort study, using a convenience sample of adult ED patients presenting with a distal radius fracture to five Canadian EDs. All study physicians underwent standardized PoCUS training for fractures. Standard clinically-guided best possible fracture reduction was initially performed. PoCUS was then used to assess the reduction adequacy. Repeat reduction was performed if deemed indicated. A post-reduction radiograph was then performed. Clinician impression of reduction adequacy was scored on a 5 point Likert scale following the initial clinically-guided reduction and following each PoCUS scan and the post-reduction radiograph.Results There were 131 patients with 132 distal radius fractures. Twelve cases were excluded prior to analysis. There was no significant difference in the assessment of the initial reduction status by PoCUS as compared to the clinical exam (mean score: 3.8 vs. 3.9; p = 0.370; OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.72; p = 0.87). Significantly fewer cases fell into the uncertain category with PoCUS than with clinical assessment (2 vs 12; p = 0.008). Repeat reduction was performed in 49 patients (41.2%). Repeat reduction led to a significant improvement (p < 0.001) in the PoCUS determined adequacy of reduction (mean score: 4.3 vs 3.1; p < 0.001). In this group, the odds ratio for adequate vs. uncertain or inadequate reduction assessment using PoCUS was 12.5 (95% CI 3.42 to 45.7; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the assessment of reduction by PoCUS vs. radiograph.ConclusionsPoCUS-guided fracture reduction leads to repeat reduction attempts in approximately 40% of cases and enhances certainty regarding reduction adequacy when the clinical assessment is unclear.

No abstract

Introduction: Emergency medicine point-of-care ultrasonography (EM-PoCUS) is a core competency for residents in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and College of Family Physicians of Canada emergency medicine (EM) training programs. Although EM-PoCUS fellowships are currently offered in Canada, there is little consensus regarding what training should be included in a Canadian EM-PoCUS fellowship curriculum or how this contrasts with the training received in an EM residency. Objectives: To conduct a systematic needs assessment of major stakeholders to define the essential elements necessary for a Canadian EM-PoCUS fellowship training curriculum. Methods: We carried out a national survey of experts in EMPoCUS, EM residency program directors, and EM residents. Respondents were asked to identify competencies deemed either nonessential to EM practice, essential for general EM practice, essential for advanced EM practice, or essential for EM-PoCUS fellowship trained (''expert'') practice. Results: The response rate was 81% (351 of 435). PoCUS was deemed essential to general EM practice for basic cardiac, aortic, trauma, and procedural imaging. PoCUS was deemed essential to advanced EM practice in undifferentiated symptomatology, advanced chest pathologies, and advanced procedural applications. Expert-level PoCUS competencies were identified for administrative, pediatric, and advanced gynecologic applications. Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated that there was a need for EM-PoCUS fellowships, with an ideal length of 6 months. Conclusion: This is the first needs assessment of major stakeholders in Canada to identify competencies for expert training in EM-PoCUS. The competencies should form the basis for EM-PoCUS fellowship programs in Canada.