Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
-
The societal contribution of emergency care in the United States has been described. The role and impact of academic emergency departments (EDs) has been less clear. Our report summarizes the results of a benchmarking effort specifically focused on academic emergency medicine (EM) practices. ⋯ Academic EM programs are characterized by significant productivity in clinical operations, education, and research. The survey results reported in this investigation provide appropriate benchmarking for academic EM programs because they allow for comparison of academic programs to each other, rather than nonacademic programs that do not necessarily share the additional missions of research and education and may have dissimilar working environments.
-
This retrospective cohort study examined the rate of survival to hospital discharge among adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, comparing patients who received care only from basic cardiac life support (BCLS)-trained emergency medical service (EMS) crews to patients who had an advanced cardiac life support (ACLS)-trained EMS crew on scene at some point during the resuscitation. There was no difference in the primary outcome of rate of survival to hospital discharge (10.9% with ACLS care and 10.6% with BCLS care, p = 0.67).
-
The objective was to develop a patient decision aid (DA) to promote shared decision making (SDM) for stable, alert patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with syncope. ⋯ We iteratively developed an evidence-based DA to facilitate SDM for alert syncope patients after an unremarkable ED evaluation. Further testing is required to determine its effects on patient care. This DA has the potential to improve care for syncope patients and promote patient-centered care in emergency medicine.
-
Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a rare condition with a high mortality that is often missed. The objective of our study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinical and laboratory findings for AAD, in confirmed cases of AAD and in a low-risk control group. ⋯ Patients with one or more high-risk feature should be considered high risk, whereas patients with no high-risk and multiple low-risk features are at low risk for AAD.