Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
-
The ability of emergency care research (ECR) to produce meaningful improvements in the outcomes of acutely ill or injured patients depends on the optimal configuration, infrastructure, organization, and support of emergency care research networks (ECRNs). Through the experiences of existing ECRNs, we can learn how to best accomplish this. A meeting was organized in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2008, to discuss the present state and future directions of clinical research networks as they relate to emergency care. ⋯ The most commonly cited weaknesses were studies with too narrow a focus and restrictive inclusion criteria, a vast organizational structure with a risk of either too much or too little central organization or control, and heterogeneity of institutional policies and procedures among sites. Through the survey and structured discussion process involving multiple stakeholders, the authors have identified strengths and weaknesses that are consistent across a number of existing ECRNs. By leveraging the strengths and addressing the weaknesses, strategies can be adopted to enhance the scientific value and productivity of these networks and give direction to future ECRNs.
-
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program and the 2006 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report on the future of emergency care highlight the need for coordinated emergency care research (ECR) to improve the outcomes of acutely ill or injured patients. In response, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) sponsored the Emergency Care Research Network (ECRN) Conference in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2008. ⋯ ECR may extend beyond individual patients and have as the focus of investigation the actual system of emergency care delivery itself and its effects on the community with respect to access to care, use of resources, and cost. Infrastructure determinants of research network success identified by conference participants included multidisciplinary collaboration, accurate long-term outcome determination, novel information technology, intellectual infrastructure, and wider network relationships that extend beyond the ED.
-
The objective was to quantify the expansion of midlevel provider (MLP) practice in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) over the past decade. Specifically, we sought to quantify the absolute number of patients seen by MLPs, the annual growth rate of patients seen by MLPs, and the expansion in the proportion of EDs using MLPs. ⋯ The number of ED patients seen by MLPs has increased sharply, from 5.2 million in 1997 (5.5% of all ED cases) to 15.2 million in 2006 (12.7% of all ED cases). Similarly, the proportion of EDs reporting use of MLPs has increased from 28.3% in 1997 to 77.2% in 2006.
-
The most common vestibular disorders seen in the emergency department (ED) are benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and acute peripheral vestibulopathy (APV; i.e., vestibular neuritis or labyrinthitis). BPPV and APV are two very distinct disorders that have different clinical presentations that require different diagnostic and treatment strategies. BPPV can be diagnosed without imaging and is treated with canalith-repositioning maneuvers. APV sometimes requires neuroimaging by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to exclude posterior fossa stroke mimics and should be treated with vestibular sedatives and corticosteroids. We sought to determine if emergency physicians (EPs) apply best practices to diagnose and treat these common vestibular disorders. ⋯ Patients given a vestibular diagnosis in the ED may not be managed optimally. Patients given BPPV and APV diagnoses undergo imaging (predominantly CT) with equal frequency, suggesting overuse of CT (BPPV) and probably underuse of MRI (APV). Most patients diagnosed with BPPV are given meclizine, which is not indicated. Specific therapy for APV (corticosteroids) is probably underutilized. Educational initiatives and clinical guidelines merit consideration.
-
The objective was to estimate the national left-without-being-seen (LWBS) rate and to identify patient, visit, and institutional characteristics that predict LWBS. ⋯ Several patient, visit, and hospital characteristics are independently associated with LWBS. Prediction and benchmarking of LWBS rates should adjust for these factors.