There is no evidence for the necessity of clinical observation of HET patients with minimal or no injuries diagnosed after standard ER stabilization and evaluation.

There is no consensus between readmitted patients and treating doctors about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor about associated risk factors and root causes. Patients should be more effectively involved in their discharge process, and the relevance of optimal communication between them should be emphasized to create a safe and efficient discharge process.

Introduction This retrospective case series describes the use of cola to immediately treat complete oesophageal food bolus obstructions in the emergency centre. Short of emergent endoscopy – which is invasive, expensive, not without adverse events, and often unavailable in low-resource settings – no other proven therapies exist to relieve oesophageal food impactions. Methods We performed a chart review of adults with complete oesophageal food bolus obstructions presenting to two Dutch emergency centres. Our primary outcome was cola’s success rate in resolving the obstruction. Our secondary outcome was adverse event occurrence. Results We identified 22 cola interventions in 19 patients, the majority of whom (77.3%) were male. The median age was 59 years (IQR 29–73). All presentations were due to meat impaction. Endoscopy revealed relevant upper gastrointestinal pathology in 54.5%. When initiated in the emergency centre, cola successfully resolved 59% of complete oesophageal obstructions. No adverse events were reported in patients successfully treated with cola. Discussion While keenly aware of our retrospective study’s limitations, we found a promising success rate for cola as an acute intervention for oesophageal food bolus impactions. We registered no adverse events attributable to cola. Also, given that cola is cheap, widely available and seemingly safe we believe it can be considered in patients with oesophageal obstructions due to food, either as pre-endoscopy treatment or in case endoscopy is not available at all. We think our findings provide an impetus for prospective research on this intervention.

IntroductionGlenohumeral (shoulder) dislocations are the most common large joint dislocations seen in the emergency department (ED). They cause pain, often severe, and require timely interventions to minimise discomfort and tissue damage. Commonly used reposition or relocation techniques often involve traction and/or leverage. These techniques have high success rates but may be painful and time consuming. They may also cause complications. Recently, other techniques—the biomechanical reposition techniques (BRTs)—have become more popular since they may cause less pain, require less time and cause fewer complications. To our knowledge, no research exists comparing the various BRTs. Our objective is to establish which BRT or BRT combination is fastest, least painful and associated with the lowest complication rate for adult ED patients with anterior glenohumeral dislocations (AGDs).Methods and analysisAdults presenting to the participating EDs with isolated AGDs, as determined by radiographs, will be randomised to one of three BRTs: Cunningham, modified Milch or scapular manipulation. Main study parameters/endpoints are ED length of stay and patients’ self-report of pain. Secondary study parameters/endpoints are procedure times, need for analgesic and/or sedative medications, iatrogenic complications and rates of successful reduction.Ethics and disseminationNon-biomechanical AGD repositioning techniques based on traction and/or leverage are inherently painful and potentially harmful. We believe that the three BRTs used in this study are more physiological, more patient friendly, less likely to cause pain, more time efficient and less likely to produce complications. By comparing these three techniques, we hope to improve the care provided to adults with acute AGDs by reducing their ED length of stay and minimising pain and procedure-related complications. We also hope to define which of the three BRTs is quickest, most likely to be successful and least likely to require sedative or analgesic medications to achieve reduction.Trial registration numberNTR5839.