Publications

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks (UGNBs) are a core component of multimodal analgesia for acute pain management in emergency departments (EDs). In addition to using standard local anesthetics, adjuncts have been demonstrated to extend the duration of UGNBs. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone and epinephrine as anesthetic adjuncts in UGNBs in the ED.

METHODS: Data were analyzed from the National Ultrasound-guided neRVE (NURVE) Block Registry, a retrospective, multicenter, observational registry evaluating UGNBs performed in 11 EDs from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. A generalized linear mixed effects model (GLMER) with a binomial family examined factors associated with pain reduction when comparing adjunct vs. non-adjunct UGNBs. The dependent variable and primary outcome were pain reduction. Secondary outcomes included safety, dosing of adjuncts, and complications.

RESULTS: A total of 29.6% (812/2742) of UGNBs received adjuncts, most commonly dexamethasone (72.5%, 589/812) and epinephrine (23.5%, 191/812). Dexamethasone had a 1.99 odds ratio of > 50% pain reduction versus isolated local anesthetic blocks, while epinephrine had an odds ratio of 0.99 for > 50% pain reduction. There was no association between adjunct use and complications.

CONCLUSION: Compared to isolated local anesthetic nerve blocks, dexamethasone had an association with improved pain control within 60 min; without additional safety concerns in a large retrospective dataset. Prospective studies are needed to further investigate these findings in the ED setting.

AIM: Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) excels in the assessment of patients with hypotension and shock. Whether using real patients or a manikin simulator to teach POCUS skills is preferable is not completely clear. We designed a randomized-controlled trial to compare these two different teaching methods of POCUS.

METHODS: We enrolled 47 medical students on an internal medicine sub-internship in this randomized-controlled trial. Twenty-four students were randomly assigned to the experimental group to learn from volunteer patients in the emergency department (ED), and 23 were randomly assigned to the control group to learn from a manikin simulator in a simulation center. All students received a didactic workshop focused on hypotension and shock, followed by supervised learning from either volunteer patients in the ED or a manikin simulator in a simulation center. Student knowledge and confidence were assessed through a pre-survey before the workshop, post-survey after the workshop, and a 3-month longitudinal survey after both the workshop and supervised POCUS learning were completed. The primary end point was assessment of student knowledge and confidence at the 3-month longitudinal time period.

RESULTS: At the 3-month longitudinal survey, there was no statistical difference in the primary end point of questions correctly answered by students in the experimental group compared to those in the control group (88% vs 86.5%, p = 0.713, NS), and no statistical difference in reported confidence between students in the experimental group from those in the control group (4.22 vs 4.10, p = 0.846, NS).

CONCLUSION: In this randomized-controlled trial using POCUS to assess hypotension and shock, there were no significant differences in learner knowledge and confidence between students in the ED experimental group learning from volunteer patients versus the control group learning from a manikin simulator indicating that the methods may be equally effective in teaching POCUS.

BACKGROUND: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is a critical skill for physicians across multiple medical specialties, yet substantial heterogeneity exists in how competency is assessed. Computer-based approaches can be used to deliver, grade, and analyze learner performance, and may be more objective and reliable than traditional approaches using expert assessments. This study aimed to systematically review and summarize the existing literature surrounding computer-based approaches to assessing POCUS competency.

METHODS: We searched six online databases (MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, PsycINFO (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection). We included original peer-reviewed studies that assessed computer-based metrics of POCUS competence among any learner group performing POCUS. We also reviewed reference lists of all included studies. We extracted data elements that included the specialty of participants, POCUS experience, POCUS modality used, and type and results of computer-based competency assessments. At least two authors conducted title and abstract screening, full text review, and data extraction, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third author. We present a qualitative synthesis of study findings.

RESULTS: Of 7375 identified studies, we included 28 in our final analysis. Computer-based metrics were used to assess knowledge (n = 10), skills (n = 25), and cognitive load (n = 1) using hand tracking (n = 14), eye tracking (n = 7), image analysis (n = 6), and simulation scores (n = 1). In general, hand tracking analysis showed that experts had shorter probe path lengths, took less time to identify areas of interest, and had fewer discrete movements compared with novices. Eye tracking assessment showed increased dwell time was associated with successful completion of procedures and increased accuracy in interpreting images.

CONCLUSION: We identified four computer-based metrics for assessing POCUS competence, many of which demonstrated consistent performance in distinguishing skill level. Further work is needed to standardize and validate those approaches.

BACKGROUND: Many patients require inter-hospital transfer (IHT) to tertiary Emergency Departments (EDs) to access specialty services. The purpose of this study is to determine operational outcomes for patients undergoing IHT to a tertiary academic ED, with an emphasis on timing and specialty consult utilization.

METHODS: This study was a retrospective observational cohort study at a tertiary academic hospital from 10/1/21-9/30/22. Key operational metrics, including specialty consultations, were queried from the ED Information System (EDIS). Data were analyzed for temporal variation in operational metrics and consulting patterns between transferred and non-transferred patients, stratified by time of day and week.

RESULTS: During the study period there were 50,589 ED patient encounters, of which 3196 (6.3 %) were identified as IHTs. Transferred patients made up a larger proportion of patient arrivals in off-hours compared to daytime hours (p < 0.001). Transferred patients were more likely to be admitted to the hospital (76 % vs 35 %, p < 0.001), go directly to a procedure (6 % vs 2 %, p < 0.001), or receive a specialty consult (90 % vs 42 %, p < 0.001), regardless of the day of week or time of day. Relative risk of consults amongst transferred patients varied by service, though was particularly increased amongst surgical sub-specialties.

CONCLUSIONS: Transferred patients represented a larger proportion of ED volume during evening and overnight hours, received more consults, and had higher likelihood of admission. Consults for transfers were disproportionately surgical subspecialties, though few patients went directly to a procedure. These findings may have operational implications in optimizing availability of specialty services across regionalized health systems.

OBJECTIVES: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic surge, alternate care sites (ACS) such as the waiting room or hospital lobby were created amongst hospitals nationwide to help alleviate emergency department (ED) overflow. Despite the end of the pandemic surge, many of these ACS remain functional given the burden of prolonged ED wait times, with providers now utilizing the waiting room or ACS to initiate care. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate if initiating patient care in ACS helps to decrease time to disposition.

METHODS: Retrospective data were collected on 61,869 patient encounters presenting to an academic medical center ED. Patients with an emergency severity index (ESI) of 1 were excluded. The "pre-ACS" or control data consisted of 38,625 patient encounters from September 30, 2018 to October 1, 2019, prior to the development of ACS, in which the patient was seen by a physician after they were brought to an assigned ED room. The "post-ACS" study cohort consisted of 23,244 patient encounters from September 30, 2022 to October 1, 2023, after the initiation of ACS, during which patients were initially seen by a provider in an ACS. ACS at this institution included the three following areas: waiting room, ambulance waiting area, and a newly constructed ACS that was built next to the ED entrance on the first floor of the hospital. The newly constructed ACS consisted of 16 care spaces each containing an upright exam chair with dividers between each care space. Door-to-disposition time (DTD) was calculated by identifying the time when the patient entered the ED and the time when disposition was decided (admission requested or patient discharged). Using regression analysis, we compared the two data sets to determine significant differences among DTD time.

RESULTS: The largest proportion of encounters were among ESI 3 patients, that is, 56.1%. There was a significant increase in median DTD for ESI 2 and 3 patients who were seen initially in an ACS compared to those who were not seen until they were in an assigned ER room. Specifically, there was a median increase of 40.9 min for ESI 2 patients and 18.8 min for ESI 3 patients who were seen initially in an ACS (p < 0.001). There was a 29-min decrease in median DTD for ESI 5 patients who were seen in ACS (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS: Initiating patient care earlier in ACS did not appear to decrease DTD time for patients in the ED. Overall, the benefits of early initiation of care likely lie elsewhere within patient care and the ED throughput process.

BACKGROUND: In the emergency department (ED), certain anatomical and physiological airway characteristics may predispose patients to tracheal intubation complications and poor outcomes. We hypothesized that both anatomically difficult airways (ADAs) and physiologically difficult airways (PDAs) would have lower first-attempt success than airways with neither in a cohort of ED intubations.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study using the National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR) to examine the association between anticipated difficult airways (ADA, PDA, and combined ADA and PDA) vs those without difficult airway findings (neither ADA nor PDA) with first-attempt success. We included adult (age ≥14 years) ED intubations performed with sedation and paralysis from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018 using either direct or video laryngoscopy. We excluded patients in cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was first-attempt success, while secondary outcomes included first-attempt success without adverse events, peri-intubation cardiac arrest, and the total number of airway attempts. Mixed-effects models were used to obtain adjusted estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome. Fixed effects included the presence of a difficult airway type (independent variable) and covariates including laryngoscopy device type, intubator postgraduate year, trauma indication, and patient age as well as the site as a random effect. Multiplicative interaction between ADAs and PDAs was assessed using the likelihood ratio (LR) test.

RESULTS: Of the 19,071 subjects intubated during the study period, 13,938 were included in the study. Compared to those without difficult airway findings (neither ADA nor PDA), the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for first-attempt success were 0.53 (95% CI, 0.40-0.68) for ADAs alone, 0.96 (0.68-1.36) for PDAs alone, and 0.44 (0.34-0.56) for both. The aORs for first-attempt success without adverse events were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.59-0.89) for ADAs alone, 0.79 (0.62-1.01) for PDAs alone, and 0.44 (0.37-0.54) for both. There was no evidence that the interaction between ADAs and PDAs for first-attempt success with or without adverse events was different from additive (ie, not synergistic/multiplicative or antagonistic).

CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no difficult airway characteristics, ADAs were inversely associated with first-attempt success, while PDAs were not. Both ADAs and PDAs, as well as their interaction, were inversely associated with first-attempt success without adverse events.