Emergency medicine journal : EMJ
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
12 A multi-centre randomised feasibility study evaluating the impact of a prognostic model for management of blunt chest wall trauma patients: stumbl trial.
A new prognostic model has been developed and externally validated, the aim of which is to assist in the management of the blunt chest wall trauma patient in the Emergency Department (ED). A definitive randomised controlled trial (impact trial), is required to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of the new model, before it can be accepted in clinical practice. The purpose of this trial is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of such a definitive trial and inform its design. ⋯ Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 granted approval for the trial in September 2016. Health Care Research Wales Research Permissions and the HRA have granted approval for the study. Patient recruitment commenced in February 2017. Planned dissemination is through publication in a peer-reviewed Emergency Medicine Journal, presentation at appropriate conferences and to stakeholders at Professional Meetings.
-
There are no widely accepted validated clinical decision rules for the use of WBCT in trauma. Given the potential risks and costs, there is a clear need for a clinical decision rule (CDR) to safely guide targeted use of WBCT. We aimed to derive a CDR to guide clinical decisions on WBCT utilisation by detecting patients at high and low risk of multi-region trauma. ⋯ 1608 patients were included in the study. The derived model combined a bespoke physiological score with mechanistic and anatomical factors. The physiological score identified the risk of multi-region injury at various cut-offs of age, systolic blood pressure, GCS, heart rate and respiratory rate. Patients were further categorised according to mechanism of injury and clinical findings, and specific physiological scores were applied to each category to determine which patients in these categories required WBCT. 'High risk' injury mechanisms included high falls and unprotected road traffic collisions. Clinical signs of injury were categorised by body region, including the head, chest, abdomen and pelvis (figure 1). The overall sensitivity of the clinical decision rule for the primary objective was 96.0% (95% CI:94.8 to 97.2) while the specificity was36.1% (95% CI:33.3 to 39.0). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.11. For the secondary objective the sensitivity was 98.5%, the negative likelihood ratio 0.04.emermed;34/12/A861-a/F1F1F1Figure 1 CONCLUSION: This study derived a two stage CDR which was highly sensitive for identifying patients at high risk of multiregion injury. A prospective external validation study is now required to further refine and improve this model. This could provide a useful screening tool in the future.
-
Review Meta Analysis
1 Patient acceptability and feasibility of HIV testing in emergency departments in the UK - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
NICE 2016 HIV testing guidelines now include the recommendation to offer HIV testing in Emergency Departments, in areas of high prevalence,1 to everyone who is undergoing blood tests. 23% of England's local authorities are areas of high HIV prevalence (>2/1000) and are therefore eligible.2 So far very few Emergency Departments have implemented routine HIV testing. This systematic review assesses evidence for two implementation considerations: patient acceptability (how likely a patient will accept an HIV test when offered in an Emergency Department), and feasibility, which incorporates staff training and willingness, and department capacity, (how likely Emergency Department staff will offer an HIV test to an eligible patient), both measured by surrogate quantitative markers. ⋯ For an Emergency Department considering introducing routine HIV testing, this review suggests an opt-out publicity-lead strategy. Utilising oral fluid and blood tests would lead to the greatest proportion of eligible patients accepting an HIV test. For individual staff who are consenting patients for HIV testing, it may be encouraging to know that there is >50% chance the patient will accept an offer of testing.emermed;34/12/A860-a/T1F1T1Table 1Summary table of data extracted from final 7 studies, with calculated acceptability and feasibility if appropriate, and GRADE score. Studies listed in chronological order of data collection. GRADE working group evidence grades: 4= high quality, 3= moderate quality, 2= low quality, 1 or below = very low quality. (*study conclusion reports this figure is inaccurate)emermed;34/12/A860-a/F1F2F1Figure 1Patients accepting HIV tests, and being offered HIV tests, as a proportion of the eligible sample REFERENCES: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Public Health England. HIV testing: Increasing uptake among people who may have undiagnosed HIV. 2016 1 December 2016.Public Health England. HIV prevalence by Local Authority of residence to end December 2015. Table No.1: 2016. Public Health Engand; 2016.
-
Advances in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy have resulted in increasing numbers of adult LVAD recipients in the community. However, device failure, stroke, bleeding, LVAD thrombosis and systemic infection can be life-threatening emergencies. ⋯ In order to improve patient safety, a consortium of UK healthcare professionals with expertise in LVADs developed universally applicable prehospital emergency algorithms. Guidance was framed as closely as possible on the standard ABCDE approach to the assessment of critically ill patients.
-
Review
BET 2: Sharing decisions for patients with suspected cardiac chest pain in the emergency department.
A short-cut review was carried out to establish whether shared decision making used alongside a decision aid can lead to greater patient satisfaction, lower healthcare resource use and non-inferior clinical outcomes in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes. Four studies were directly relevant to the question. ⋯ The clinical bottom line is that the use of shared decision-making tools in the ED for management of patients with low-risk chest pain appears to be beneficial to the patient and the physician. Use of these shared decision-making tools appears to increase patient knowledge and satisfaction, while decreasing decision conflict and resource use, without causing additional negative outcomes for the patient.