Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA
-
Emerg Med Australas · Feb 2022
Observational StudyExamining emergency department inequities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Findings from a national retrospective observational study examining Indigenous emergency care outcomes.
There is increasing evidence that EDs may not operate equitably for all patients, with Indigenous and minoritised ethnicity patients experiencing longer wait times for assessment, differential pain management and less evaluation and treatment of acute conditions. ⋯ To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive investigation of acute outcomes by ethnicity to date in New Zealand. We found ED mortality inequities that are unlikely to be explained by ED process measures or comorbidities. Our findings reinforce the need to investigate health professional bias and institutional racism within an acute care context.
-
Emerg Med Australas · Feb 2022
Increased paediatric emergency mental health and suicidality presentations during COVID-19 stay at home restrictions.
Anecdotal reports indicate an increase in mental health presentations and acuity to EDs during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated stay at home restrictions. Paediatric and adolescent data to confirm this are unavailable in the Australian setting. ⋯ Despite an overall decrease in ED presentations, the absolute increase in mental health presentations for children and adolescents during the stay at home restriction period was pronounced. It is unclear how sustained this change and the impact on mental health resource use will be post-pandemic.
-
Emerg Med Australas · Feb 2022
Observational StudyMisleading medical literature: An observational study.
Language that implies a conclusion not supported by the evidence is common in the medical literature. The hypothesis of the present study was that medical journal publications are more likely to use misleading language for the interpretation of a demonstrated null (i.e. chance or not statistically significant) effect than a demonstrated real (i.e. statistically significant) effect. ⋯ Among a random selection of sentences in prestigious journals describing P-values close to 0.05, 1 in 10 are misleading (n = 44, 11%) and this is more prevalent when the P-values are above 0.05 compared to below 0.05. Caution is advised for researchers, clinicians and editors to align with the context and purpose of P-values.