Primary survey: Highlights from this issue

Byrne et al have explored this in more depth, completing a systematic review into the willingness and preparation of medical students in relation to disaster medicine. Tolhurst-Cleaver et al have reviewed UK guidelines on the management of this condition and found a significant degree of variability, often with variation between written and verbal accounts of practice. [...]we have another paper from Vassallo et al on a comparative analysis of major incident tools in children, an area that I’ve been interested in for many years.

Journal update monthly top five

Correspondence to Dr Gabrielle Prager, Emergency Department, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK;lgprager@doctors.org.uk This month’s update has been prepared by the Emergency Medicine & Intensive Care Research Group (EMERGING) from Manchester. Head turner Predicting which patients will survive an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with good functional outcomes could help guide resuscitative efforts. Lack of blinding is a potential source of bias, but the apparent preference of parents for immobilisation may influence physician choice of treatment.2 Bottom line In children treated for Torus fractures, there is no difference in self-reported pain or function using a simple bandage versus a splint or cast. Notably, since this paper was published, the UK RECOVERY trial suggested a probable benefit in using them together.5 6 Bottom line In patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and receiving remdesivir, there was no difference in ventilator-free survival between those treated with baricitinib or dexamethasone.

Systematic literature search, review and dissemination methodology for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Purpose of the study: SARS-CoV-2 has caused healthcare systems globally to reorganise. A pandemic paradox emerged; while clinicians were desperate for information on a new disease, they had less time to find and evaluate the vast volume of publications at times of significant strain on healthcare systems.A multidisciplinary team undertook a weekly literature search capturing all COVID-19 publications. We also monitored free open access medical education (FOAMed) sources for emerging themes. Title and abstract screening pooled the most relevant papers for emergency medicine. Three summary types were created, a 'Top 5 Flash Update', a journal club and a rapid response to emerging FOAMed themes. From these summaries, three modes of dissemination were used: short written summaries, blogs and podcasts. These were amplified through social media. Study design: A retrospective review was conducted assessing the impact of this knowledge dissemination strategy for the period of March to September 2020. Results: In total, 64 687 papers were identified and screened. Of the papers included in the 'Top 5', 28.3% were on epidemiology, 23.6% treatment, 16.7% diagnostics, 12% prognosis, 8.7% pathophysiology with the remaining 10.7% consisting of PPE, public health, well-being and 'other'. We published 37 blogs, 17 podcasts and 18 Top 5 Flash Updates. The blogs were read 138 343 times, the Top 5 Flash Updates 68 610 times and the podcasts had 72 501 listens. Conclusion: A combination of traditional academic and novel social media approaches can address the pandemic paradox clinicians are facing.

Evidence-based medicine and COVID-19: what to believe and when to change.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge of information being presented to clinicians regarding this novel and deadly disease. There is a clear urgency to collate, review, appraise and act on this information if we are to do the best for clinicians and patients. However, the speed of the pandemic is a threat to traditional models of knowledge translation and practice change. In this concepts paper, we argue that clinicians need to be agile in their thinking and practice in order to find the right time to change. Adoption of new methods should be based on clinical judgement, the weight of evidence and the balance of probabilities that any new technique, test or treatment might work. The pandemic requires all of us to reach a new level of evidence-based medicine characterised by scepticism, thoughtfulness, responsiveness and clinically agility in practice.

117 COVID-19 RCEM research summaries: taking the burden off busy clinicians

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundEntering lockdown on 23rd March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic marked an unprecedented period for healthcare evidence. An exponential increase in published work, pre-prints, guidelines, online information portals and more, has been overwhelming especially when combined with the ever-changing local emergency department responses to COVID-19. Many research projects were either suspended in favour of clinical work or re-routed into pandemic-oriented studies. All the while, the gap between clinical providers and a mountain of information was growing. Our team developed a strategy to deliver the most pertinent evidence to those working in emergency medicine, taking some stress out this aspect of COVID-19 working.Methods/DesignEach week a search was conducted using PubMed of everything produced in the previous 7 days. The number of titles varied from approximately 800 to 2500. A 3 to 5 person team distilled titles and then reviewed abstracts for papers of importance and relevance to emergency medicine. Relevant and high impact journals were individually searched over the same time period. Summaries of the short-listed papers were produced and the weekly editorial team selected 5 for inclusion in the weekly RCEM Top 5 and others were combined for extra reading as part of a 2–3 weekly ‘Director’s Cut’.Results/ConclusionsThe RCEM Top 5 (at time of writing) has been run for 13 weeks. The summaries themselves were accessed by between 3000 and 6000 RCEM members/fellows each week. The work has also fed into online journal clubs and blogs (combined views of over 30,000) and has attracted interest from wider colleagues nationally and internationally to both join and even replicate the approach to other relevant areas. The positive feedback is best summarised in the following quote: ‘when I’m too mentally overcooked to do any reading on my own this helps me feel I am doing some keeping up. Please continue!’

131 Rapid and sustained increase in #FOAMed based education during COVID-19 on the St Emlyn’s blog and podcast

131 Figure 1Results/ConclusionsThe data shows similar levels of between year activity from July 2018 through to February 2019. It then shows a rapid and profound increase in activity from March 2019, coinciding with the rapid spread of the pandemic in Europe and an early blog/podcast with colleagues from Northern Italy. Since then activity has fallen but still remains roughly 1.5 times higher than in previous years. Combined visits to the blog and podcast peaked at 162,019 engagements, representing a near 6.9 fold increase in podcast engagement and a 2.7 increase in blog activity during May 2019.The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid and sustained engagement with the St Emlyn’s platform. The reasons for this are unclear from the data presented here, but we believe reflect the superior agility of modern educational tools such as blogs and podcasts to share and disseminate information as compared to traditional academic publishing methods.

Combatting COVID-19: is ultrasound an important piece in the diagnostic puzzle?

The current COVID-19 pandemic is causing diagnostic and risk stratification difficulties in Emergency Departments (ED) worldwide. Molecular tests are not sufficiently sensitive, and results are usually not available in time for decision making in the ED. Chest x-ray (CXR) is a poor diagnostic test for COVID-19, and computed tomography (CT), while sensitive, is impractical as a diagnostic test for all patients. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has an established role in the evaluation of acute respiratory failure and has been used during the COVID-19 outbreak as a decision support tool. LUS shows characteristic changes in viral pneumonitis, and while these changes are not specific for COVID-19, it may be a useful adjunct during the diagnostic process. It is quick to perform and repeat and may be done at the bedside. The authors believe that LUS can help to mitigate uncertainty in undifferentiated patients with respiratory symptoms. This review aims to provide guidance regarding indications for LUS, describe the typical sonographic abnormalities seen in patients with COVID-19 and provide recommendations around the logistics of performing LUS on patients with COVID-19 and managing the infection control risk of the procedure. The risk of anchoring bias during a pandemic and the need to consider alternative pathologies are emphasised throughout this review. LUS may be a useful point-of-care test for emergency care providers during the current COVID-19 pandemic if used within a strict framework that governs education, quality assurance and proctored scanning protocols.