No abstract

Introduction: As the significance of social workers (SW) in improving healthcare delivery in the emergency department (ED) continues to expand, emergency physicians will increasingly be expected to effectively partner with SWs in both academic and community settings. In this scoping review we sought to provide evidence-based recommendations for effective emergency clinician educational interventions on how to incorporate SWs in the ED to address health-related social needs while also identifying directions for future research. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of publications in PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and APA PsycINFO. A search strategy was designed in accordance with Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guidelines. Using the scoping review framework by Arksey and O’Malley, we applied consensus-based inclusion and exclusion criteria to guide study selection. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart delineating the selection process was generated using Covidence. Results: Our search strategy identified nine qualifying articles for further analysis out of an initial sample of 2,119 articles. Of the nine articles that underwent full text review, 89% (8/9) evaluated a short educational didactic with or without a hands-on component to reinforce learning. Barriers to successful implementation of curricula discussed in all articles included time constraints, lack of buy-in from clinical faculty, lack of knowledge of appropriate referral sources once a problem is identified, and perceived distraction of the training from more standard clinical topics. Facilitators of curricula implementation and training success included the presence of a pre-existing and structured weekly conference schedule, ability to complete the training in a relatively short time frame or during intern orientation, presence of simulation resources, and residents’ overall perceived interest in the topics. Conclusion: Ultimately, we found that interdisciplinary learning with SWs is generally well received by participants, and we offer various suggestions on incorporation into student and resident education. Moving forward, we recommend that a standardized curriculum of working with SWs be developed using didactic sessions, simulation, and/or direct observation with feedback.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Females have historically lower rates of cardiovascular testing when compared to males. Clinical decision pathways (CDP) that utilize standardized risk-stratification methods may balance this disparity. We sought to determine whether clinical decision pathways could minimize sex-based differences in the non-invasive workup of chest pain in the emergency department (ED). Moreover, we evaluated whether the HEART score would minimize sex-based differences in risk-stratification. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort review of adult ED encounters for chest pain where CDP was employed. Primary outcome was any occurrence of non-invasive imaging (coronary CTA, stress imaging), invasive testing, intervention (PCI or CABG), or death. Secondary outcomes were 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We stratified HEART scores and primary/secondary outcomes by sex. Results A total of 1078 charts met criteria for review. Mean age at presentation was 59 years. Females represented 47% of the population. Low, intermediate, and high-risk patients as determined by the HEART score were 17%, 65%, and 18% of the population, respectively, without any significant differences between males and females. Non-invasive testing was similar between males and females when stratified by risk. Males categorized as high risk underwent more coronary angiogram (33% vs 16%, p = 0.01) and PCI (18% vs 8%, p = 0.04) than high risk females, but this was not seen in patients categorized as low or intermediate risk. Males experienced more MACE than females (9% vs 4%, p = 0.001). Conclusions We identified no sex-based differences in risk-stratification or non-invasive testing when the CDP was used. High risk males, however, underwent more coronary angiogram and PCI than high risk females, and consequently males experienced more overall MACE than females. This disparity may be explained by sex-based differences in the pathophysiology driving each patient’s presentation.