Publications

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.

IMPORTANCE: Emergency department (ED) visits by older adults with life-limiting illnesses are a critical opportunity to establish patient care end-of-life preferences, but little is known about the optimal screening criteria for resource-constrained EDs.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate the Geriatric End-of-Life Screening Tool (GEST) in an independent population and compare it with commonly used serious illness diagnostic criteria.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prognostic study assessed a cohort of patients aged 65 years and older who were treated in a tertiary care ED in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2017 to 2021. Patients arriving in cardiac arrest or who died within 1 day of ED arrival were excluded. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2023, to March 27, 2024.

EXPOSURE: GEST, a logistic regression algorithm that uses commonly available electronic health record (EHR) datapoints and was developed and validated across 9 EDs, was compared with serious illness diagnoses as documented in the EHR. Serious illnesses included stroke/transient ischemic attack, liver disease, cancer, lung disease, and age greater than 80 years, among others.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 6-month mortality following an ED encounter. Statistical analyses included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration analyses, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and decision curves.

RESULTS: This external validation included 82 371 ED encounters by 40 505 unique individuals (mean [SD] age, 76.8 [8.4] years; 54.3% women, 13.8% 6-month mortality rate). GEST had an external validation area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.78-0.79) that was stable across years and demographic subgroups. Of included encounters, 53.4% had a serious illness, with a sensitivity of 77.4% (95% CI, 76.6%-78.2%) and specificity of 50.5% (95% CI, 50.1%-50.8%). Varying GEST cutoffs from 5% to 30% increased specificity (5%: 49.1% [95% CI, 48.7%-49.5%]; 30%: 92.2% [95% CI, 92.0%-92.4%]) at the cost of sensitivity (5%: 89.3% [95% CI, 88.8-89.9]; 30%: 36.2% [95% CI, 35.3-37.1]). In a decision curve analysis, GEST outperformed serious illness criteria across all tested thresholds. When comparing patients referred to intervention by GEST with serious illness criteria, GEST reclassified 45.1% of patients with serious illness as having low risk of mortality with an observed mortality rate 8.1% and 2.6% of patients without serious illness as having high mortality risk with an observed mortality rate of 34.3% for a total reclassification rate of 25.3%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this study suggest that both serious illness criteria and GEST identified older ED patients at risk for 6-month mortality, but GEST offered more useful screening characteristics. Future trials of serious illness interventions for high mortality risk in older adults may consider transitioning from diagnosis code criteria to GEST, an automatable EHR-based algorithm.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the different respiratory rate (RR) monitoring methods used in the emergency department (ED): manual documentation, telemetry, and capnography.

METHODS: This is a retrospective study using recorded patient monitoring data. The study population includes patients who presented to a tertiary care ED between January 2020 and December 2022. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were patients with simultaneous recorded RR data from all three methods and less than 10 min of recording, respectively. Linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis were performed between different methods.

RESULTS: A total of 351 patient encounters met study criteria. Linear regression yielded an R-value of 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.12) between manual documentation and telemetry, 0.07 (95% CI 0.01-0.13) between manual documentation and capnography, and 0.82 (95% CI 0.79-0.85) between telemetry and capnography. The Bland-Altman analysis yielded a bias of -0.8 (95% limits of agreement [LOA] -12.2 to 10.6) between manual documentation and telemetry, bias of -0.6 (95% LOA -13.5 to 12.3) between manual documentation and capnography, and bias of 0.2 (95% LOA -6.2 to 6.6) between telemetry and capnography.

CONCLUSION: There is a poor correlation between manual documentation and both automated methods, while there is relatively good agreement between the automated methods. This finding highlights the need to further investigate the methodology used by the ED staff in monitoring and documenting RR and ways to improve its reliability given that many important clinical decisions are made based on these assessments.

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.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Prior work has found first-attempt success improves with emergency medicine (EM) postgraduate year (PGY). However, the association between PGY and laryngoscopic view - a key step in successful intubation - is unknown. We examined the relationship among PGY, laryngoscopic view (ie, Cormack-Lehane view), and first-attempt success.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the National Emergency Airway Registry, including adult intubations by EM PGY 1 to 4 resident physicians. We used inverse probability weighting with propensity scores to balance confounders. We used weighted regression and model comparison to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between PGY and Cormack-Lehane view, tested the interaction between PGY and Cormack-Lehane view on first-attempt success, and examined the effect modification of Cormack-Lehane view on the association between PGY and first-attempt success.

RESULTS: After exclusions, we included 15,453 first attempts. Compared to PGY 1, the aORs for a higher Cormack-Lehane grade did not differ from PGY 2 (1.01; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.07), PGY 3 (0.92; 0.31 to 2.73), or PGY 4 (0.80; 0.31 to 2.04) groups. The interaction between PGY and Cormack-Lehane view was significant (P-interaction<0.001). In patients with Cormack-Lehane grade 3 or 4, the aORs for first-attempt success were higher for PGY 2 (1.80; 95% CI 1.17 to 2.77), PGY 3 (2.96; 1.66 to 5.27) and PGY 4 (3.10; 1.60 to 6.00) groups relative to PGY 1.

CONCLUSION: Compared with PGY 1, PGY 2, 3, and 4 resident physicians obtained similar Cormack-Lehane views but had higher first-attempt success when obtaining a grade 3 or 4 view.

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.

<sec id="st1"><title>BACKGROUND</title>Despite the high morbidity and mortality globally, standard microbiologic diagnosis for TB requires laboratory infrastructure inaccessible in many resource-limited areas and may be insufficient for identifying extrapulmonary disease. Point-of-care (POC) ultrasound facilitates visualization of extrapulmonary manifestations, permitting laboratory-independent diagnosis, but its diagnostic utility remains unclear.</sec><sec id="st2"><title>METHODS</title>We conducted a systematic review of five online databases for studies reporting ultrasound findings among cases with and without extrapulmonary TB (EPTB). A minimum of two authors independently screened and reviewed each article, and extracted data elements of interest. We conducted a series of univariate meta-analyses using a random-effects model to calculate the pooled effect estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).</sec><sec id="st3"><title>RESULTS</title>Of 279 articles identified, 6 were included. There were 699 cases of EPTB among 1,633 participants. The pooled sensitivity estimate was 0.72 (95% CI 0.57-0.88). The pooled specificity estimate was 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.90). The pooled PPV and NPV estimates were respectively 0.67 (95% CI 0.47-0.87) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.93).</sec><sec id="st4"><title>CONCLUSION</title>POC ultrasound showed modest test characteristics for diagnosing EPTB, which may constitute an improvement over some currently available diagnostics.</sec>.

Despite the growing use of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in contemporary medical practice and the existence of clinical guidelines addressing its specific applications, there remains a lack of standardization and agreement on optimal practices for several areas of POCUS use. The Society of Point of Care Ultrasound (SPOCUS) formed a working group in 2022 to establish a set of recommended best practices for POCUS, applicable to clinicians regardless of their training, specialty, resource setting, or scope of practice. Using a three-round modified Delphi process, a multi-disciplinary panel of 22 POCUS experts based in the United States reached consensus on 57 statements in domains including: (1) The definition and clinical role of POCUS; (2) Training pathways; (3) Credentialing; (4) Cleaning and maintenance of POCUS devices; (5) Consent and education; (6) Security, storage, and sharing of POCUS studies; (7) Uploading, archiving, and reviewing POCUS studies; and (8) Documenting POCUS studies. The consensus statements are provided here. While not intended to establish a standard of care or supersede more targeted guidelines, this document may serve as a useful baseline to guide clinicians, leaders, and systems considering initiation or enhancement of POCUS programs.