Publications

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have validated the efficacy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) as an alternative diagnostic imaging approach to computed tomography (CT) for patients with suspected acute diverticulitis. This study aimed to quantify the national impact of this approach in cost savings, ED length-of-stay (LOS), and radiation risk mitigation using a POCUS-first approach for acute diverticulitis in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS: Using published data, we constructed a Monte Carlo simulation model to compare two POCUS-first strategies (nonselective and selective approaches) for evaluating patients with suspected acute diverticulitis in the ED. Primary outcomes were cost savings, reduction in ED LOS, and radiation risk mitigation.

RESULTS: In our simulation model, both nonselective and selective POCUS-first strategies showed substantial potential reductions in the annual number of CTs. Notably, the selective approach led to significantly fewer estimated POCUS examinations (433,847 ± 45,103 exams vs 720,048 ± 55,815 exams, p < 0.001) resulting in greater cost savings ($94,620,235 ± $10,090,807 vs $70,017,473 ± $11,583,911, p < 0.001) and greater reductions in ED LOS (508,569 ± 640,048 bed-hours vs 332,518 ± 774,485 bed-hours, p < 0.001). Reduction in radiation exposure was comparable between the two approaches (8,779,414 ± 2,389,982 mSv vs 8,846,058 ± 2,420,185 mSv, p = 0.536).

CONCLUSION: Both POCUS-first models can achieve substantial national annual cost savings, ED LOS reduction, and decreases in radiation exposure compared to the traditional CT-first approach. POCUS should be strongly considered as a first-line imaging modality for acute diverticulitis especially among low-risk patients.

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: 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.

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.

OBJECTIVES: This needs assessment aimed to improve understanding of flexible endoscopic intubation training and practice in emergency medicine (EM), providing insights to educators and practice leaders seeking to improve education and practices.

METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, mixed-methods needs assessment of emergency physicians (EPs) incorporating focus groups and a survey. Focus groups comprised community EPs, academic EPs, and resident EPs. We analyzed focus group transcripts using grounded theory, qualitatively describing EM endoscopic intubation. The qualitative analysis shaped our survey instrument, which we deployed in cross-sectional fashion. We report survey data with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: Focus groups with 13 EPs identified three themes: indications for use of endoscopic intubation, factors impacting a physician's decision to endoscopically intubate, and attaining and maintaining endoscopic intubation competency. Of 257 surveyed EPs (33% response rate), 79% had received endoscopic intubation training during residency, though 82% had performed this procedure 10 or fewer times in their career. Despite 97% acknowledging the necessity of competency, only 23% felt highly confident in their ability to perform endoscopic intubation. Participants (93%) reported scarce opportunities to perform the procedure and identified factors believed to facilitate competency acquisition and maintenance, including opportunities to perform endoscopic intubation in practice (98%), local champions (93%), and performing nasopharyngoscopy (87%).

CONCLUSIONS: While most EPs acknowledged the importance of competency in endoscopic intubation, they reported scarce procedural opportunities and commonly expressed low confidence. Further research is needed on this topic, and we propose avenues to enhance education and practices related to endoscopic intubation. These include development of robust procedural curricula, support of local champions, and incorporating nasopharyngoscopy into EM practice.

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to provide consensus and expert clinical practice statements related to airway management in critically ill adults with a physiologically difficult airway (PDA).

METHODS: An international Steering Committee involving seven intensivists and one Delphi methodology expert was convened by the Society of Critical Care Anaesthesiologists (SOCCA) Physiologically Difficult Airway Task Force. The committee selected an international panel of 35 expert clinician-researchers with expertise in airway management in critically ill adults. A Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus statements.

RESULTS: The Delphi process included seven survey rounds. A stable consensus was achieved for 53 (87%) out of 61 statements. The experts agreed that in addition to pathophysiological conditions, physiological alterations associated with pregnancy and obesity also constitute a physiologically difficult airway. They suggested having an intubation team consisting of at least three healthcare providers including two airway operators, implementing an appropriately designed checklist, and optimizing hemodynamics prior to tracheal intubation. Similarly, the experts agreed on the head elevated laryngoscopic position, routine use of videolaryngoscopy during the first attempt, preoxygenation with non-invasive ventilation, careful mask ventilation during the apneic phase, and attention to cardiorespiratory status for post-intubation care.

CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, agreement among a panel of international experts was reached for 53 statements providing guidance to clinicians worldwide on safe tracheal intubation practices in patients with a physiologically difficult airway to help improve patient outcomes. Well-designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

OBJECTIVE: Peri-intubation complications are important sequelae of airway management in the emergency department (ED). Our objective was to quantify the increased risk of complications with multiple attempts at emergency airway intubation in the ED.

METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospectively collected multicenter registry (National Emergency Airway Registry) consisting of attempted ED intubations among subjects aged >14 years. The primary exposure variable was the number of intubation attempts. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of peri-intubation major complications within 15 min of intubation including hypotension, hypoxemia, vomiting, dysrhythmias, cardiac arrest, esophageal intubation, and failed airway with cricothyrotomy. We constructed multivariable logistic regression models to determine the associations between complications and the number of intubation attempts while controlling for measured pre-exposure variables.

RESULTS: There were 19,071 intubations in the NEAR database, of which 15,079 met inclusion for this analysis. Of these, 13,459 were successfully intubated on the first attempt, 1,268 on the second attempt, 269 on the third attempt, 61 on the fourth attempt, and 22 on the fifth or more attempt. A complication occurred in 2,137 encounters (14 %). Major complications accompanied 1,968 encounters (13 %) whereas minor complications affected 315 encounters (2 %). The most common major complication was hypoxia. In our multivariable logistic regression model, odds ratios with 95 % confidence intervals for the occurrence of major complications for multiple attempts compared to first-pass success were 4.4 (3.6-5.3), 7.4 (5.0-10.7), 13.9 (5.6-34.3), and 9.3 (2.1-41.7) for attempts 2-5+ (reference attempt 1), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: We found an independent association between the number of intubation attempts among ED patients undergoing emergency airway intubation and the risk of complications.

IMPORTANCE: Ultrasonography-guided nerve blocks (UGNBs) have become a core component of multimodal analgesia for acute pain management in the emergency department (ED). Despite their growing use, national adoption of UGNBs has been slow due to a lack of procedural safety in the ED.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the complication rates and patient pain scores of UGNBs performed in the ED.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included data from the National Ultrasound-Guided Nerve Block Registry, a retrospective multicenter observational registry encompassing procedures performed in 11 EDs in the US from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023, of adult patients who underwent a UGNB.

EXPOSURE: UGNB encounters.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome of this study was complication rates associated with ED-performed UGNBs recorded in the National Ultrasound-Guided Nerve Block Registry from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. The secondary outcome was patient pain scores of ED-based UGNBs. Data for all adult patients who underwent an ED-based UGNB at each site were recorded. The volume of UGNB at each site, as well as procedural outcomes (including complications), were recorded. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics of all variables.

RESULTS: In total, 2735 UGNB encounters among adult patients (median age, 62 years [IQR, 41-77 years]; 51.6% male) across 11 EDs nationwide were analyzed. Fascia iliaca blocks were the most commonly performed UGNBs (975 of 2742 blocks [35.6%]). Complications occurred at a rate of 0.4% (10 of 2735 blocks). One episode of local anesthetic systemic toxicity requiring an intralipid was reported. Overall, 1320 of 1864 patients (70.8%) experienced 51% to 100% pain relief following UGNBs. Operator training level varied, although 1953 of 2733 procedures (71.5%) were performed by resident physicians.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this cohort study of 2735 UGNB encounters support the safety of UGNBs in ED settings and suggest an association with improvement in patient pain scores. Broader implementation of UGNBs in ED settings may have important implications as key elements of multimodal analgesia strategies to reduce opioid use and improve patient care.

BACKGROUND: Many institutions have developed operation-specific guidelines for opioid prescribing. These guidelines rarely incorporate in-hospital opioid consumption, which is highly correlated with consumption. We compare outcomes of several patient-centered approaches to prescribing that are derived from in-hospital consumption, including several experimental, rule-based prescribing guidelines and our current institutional guideline.

STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective, cohort study of all adults undergoing surgery at a single-academic medical center. Several rule-based guidelines, derived from in-hospital consumption (quantity of opioids consumed within 24 hours of discharge), were used to specify the theoretical quantity of opioid prescribed on discharge. The efficacy of the experimental guidelines was compared with 3 references: an approximation of our institution's tailored prescribing guideline; prescribing all patients the typical quantity of opioids consumed for patients undergoing the same operation; and a representative rule-based, tiered framework. For each scenario, we calculated the penalized residual sum of squares (reflecting the composite deviation from actual patient consumption, with 15% penalty for overprescribing) and the proportion of opioids consumed relative to prescribed.

RESULTS: A total of 1,048 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean (SD) and median (interquartile range [IQR]) quantity of opioids consumed within 24 hours of discharge were 11.2 (26.9) morphine milligram equivalents and 0 (0 to 15) morphine milligram equivalents. Median (IQR) postdischarge consumption was 16 (0 to 150) morphine milligram equivalents. Our institutional guideline and the previously validated rule-based guideline outperform alternate approaches, with median (IQR) differences in prescribed vs consumed opioids of 0 (-60 to 27.25) and 37.5 (-37.5 to 37.5), respectively, corresponding to penalized residual sum of squares of 39,817,602 and 38,336,895, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Rather than relying on fixed quantities for defined operations, rule-based guidelines offer a simple yet effective method for tailoring opioid prescribing to in-hospital consumption.

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.