Publications

OBJECTIVES: To characterize emergency department sedation practices in mechanically ventilated patients, and test the hypothesis that deep sedation in the emergency department is associated with worse outcomes.

DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective cohort study.

SETTING: The emergency department and ICUs of 15 medical centers.

PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adult emergency department patients.

INTERVENTIONS: None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All data involving sedation (medications, monitoring) were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or Sedation-Agitation Scale of 2 or 1. A total of 324 patients were studied. Emergency department deep sedation was observed in 171 patients (52.8%), and was associated with a higher frequency of deep sedation in the ICU on day 1 (53.8% vs 20.3%; p < 0.001) and day 2 (33.3% vs 16.9%; p = 0.001), when compared to light sedation. Mean (SD) ventilator-free days were 18.1 (10.8) in the emergency department deep sedation group compared to 20.0 (9.8) in the light sedation group (mean difference, 1.9; 95% CI, -0.40 to 4.13). Similar results according to emergency department sedation depth existed for ICU-free days (mean difference, 1.6; 95% CI, -0.54 to 3.83) and hospital-free days (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.26-4.32). Mortality was 21.1% in the deep sedation group and 17.0% in the light sedation group (between-group difference, 4.1%; odds ratio, 1.30; 0.74-2.28). The occurrence rate of acute brain dysfunction (delirium and coma) was 68.4% in the deep sedation group and 55.6% in the light sedation group (between-group difference, 12.8%; odds ratio, 1.73; 1.10-2.73).

CONCLUSIONS: Early deep sedation in the emergency department is common, carries over into the ICU, and may be associated with worse outcomes. Sedation practice in the emergency department and its association with clinical outcomes is in need of further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches in the evaluation of patient experience are increasingly important priorities for quality improvement in health-care delivery. Our objective was to investigate common themes in patient-reported data to better understand areas for improvement in the emergency department (ED) experience.

METHODS: A large urban, tertiary-care ED conducted phone interviews with 2607 patients who visited the ED during 2015. Patients were asked to identify one area that would have significantly improved their visit. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis, and the results were summarized with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: The most commonly cited themes for improvement in the patient experience were wait time (49.4%) and communication (14.6%). Related, but more nuanced, themes emerged around the perception of ED crowding and compassionate care as additional important contributors to the patient experience. Other frequently cited factors contributing to a negative experience were the discharge process and inability to complete follow-up plan (8.0%), environmental factors (7.9%), perceived competency of providers in the evaluation or treatment (7.4%), and pain management (7.4%).

CONCLUSIONS: Wait times and perceptions of ED crowding, as well as provider communication and compassionate care, are significant factors identified by patients that affect their ED experience.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of video laryngoscopy (VL) may impact emergency medicine (EM) residents' intubation practices.

METHODS: We analyzed 14,313 intubations from 11 EM training sites, July 1, 2002, to December 31, 2012, assessing the likelihood of first-attempt success and likelihood of having a second attempt, by rank and device. We determined whether direct laryngoscopy (DL) first-attempt success decreased as VL became more prevalent using a logistic regression model with proportion of encounters initiated with VL at that center in the prior 90 and 365 days as predictors of DL first-attempt success.

RESULTS: First-attempt success by PGY-1s was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63% to 78%); PGY-2s, 82% (95% CI = 78% to 86%); and PGY-3+, 89% (95% CI = 85% to 92%). Residents' first-attempt success rate was higher with the C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC) versus DL, 92% versus 84% (risk difference [RD] = 8%, 95% CI = 4% to 11%), but there was no statistical difference between the GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) and DL, 80% versus 84% (RD = -4%, 95% CI = -10% to 1%). PGY-1s were more likely to have a second intubation attempt after first-attempt failure with VL versus DL: 32% versus 18% (RD = 14%, 95% CI = 5% to 23%). DL first-attempt success rates did not decrease as VL became more prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS: First-attempt success increases with training. Interns are more likely to have a second attempt when using VL. The C-MAC may be associated with increased first-attempt success for EM residents compared with DL or GVL. The increasing prevalence of VL is not accompanied by a decrease in DL success.

OBJECTIVE: Head-up positioning for preoxygenation and ramping for morbidly obese patients are well-accepted techniques, but the effect of head-up positioning with full torso elevation for all intubations is controversial. We compared first-pass success, adverse events, and glottic view between supine (SP) and nonsupine (NSP) positioning for emergency department (ED) patients undergoing orotracheal intubation.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for ED intubations over a 2-year period from 25 participating centers in the National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR). We compared characteristics and outcomes for adult patients intubated orotracheally in SP and NSP positions with either a direct or video laryngoscope. We report odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical variables and interquartile ranges with 95% CI for continuous variables. Our primary outcome was first-attempt intubation success and secondary outcomes were glottic views and peri-intubation adverse events.

RESULTS: Of 11,480 total intubations, 5.8% were performed in NSP. The NSP group included significantly more obese patients (OR = 2.2 [95% CI = 1.9-2.6]) and patients with a suspected difficult airway (OR = 1.8 [95% CI = 1.6-2.2]). First-pass success (adjusted OR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.9-1.4]) and overall rate of grade I glottic views (OR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.9-1.2]) were similar between groups while NSP had a significantly higher rate of grade I views when direct laryngoscopy was employed (OR = 1.27 [95% CI = 1.04-1.54]). NSP was associated with higher odds of any adverse event (OR = 1.4 [95% CI = 1.1-1.7]).

CONCLUSIONS: ED providers utilized SP in most ED intubations but were more likely to use NSP for patients who were obese or in whom they predicted a difficult airway. We found no differences in first-pass success between groups but total adverse events were more likely in NSP. A randomized trial comparing patient positioning during intubation in the ED is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches in the evaluation of patient experience are increasingly important priorities for quality improvement in health-care delivery. Our objective was to investigate common themes in patient-reported data to better understand areas for improvement in the emergency department (ED) experience.

METHODS: A large urban, tertiary-care ED conducted phone interviews with 2607 patients who visited the ED during 2015. Patients were asked to identify one area that would have significantly improved their visit. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis, and the results were summarized with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: The most commonly cited themes for improvement in the patient experience were wait time (49.4%) and communication (14.6%). Related, but more nuanced, themes emerged around the perception of ED crowding and compassionate care as additional important contributors to the patient experience. Other frequently cited factors contributing to a negative experience were the discharge process and inability to complete follow-up plan (8.0%), environmental factors (7.9%), perceived competency of providers in the evaluation or treatment (7.4%), and pain management (7.4%).

CONCLUSIONS: Wait times and perceptions of ED crowding, as well as provider communication and compassionate care, are significant factors identified by patients that affect their ED experience.