Assessment of physician compliance to the CAEP 2021 Atrial Fibrillation Best Practices Checklist for rate and rhythm control in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Acute atrial fibrillation and flutter (AF/AFL) are common arrhythmias treated in the emergency department (ED). The 2021 CAEP Best Practices Checklist provides clear recommendations for management of patients with acute AF/AFL. This study aimed to evaluate physician compliance to Checklist recommendations for risk assessment and ED management of AF/AFL. METHODS: This health records review assessed the management of adult patients presenting to two tertiary care EDs for management of acute AF/AFL from January to August, 2022. All ECGs demonstrating AF/AFL with a heart rate greater than 100 were compiled to capture primary and secondary causes. All visits were assessed for rate and rhythm control management, adverse events, return to ED, and safety criteria. Study physicians classified safety criteria from the Checklist into high and moderate concerns. The primary outcome was the proportion of cases with safety concerns and adverse events occurring during management in the ED. Data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We included 429 patients with a mean age of 67.7 years and 57.1% male. ED management included rate control (20.4%), electrical (40.1%), and pharmacological (20.1%) cardioversion. Adverse events occurred in 9.5% of cases: 12.5% in rate control, 13.4% in electrical cardioversion, and 6.9% in pharmacologic cardioversion. Overall, 7.9% of cases had management safety concerns. Moderate safety concerns occurred in 4.9% of cases including failure to attain recommended heart rate at time of discharge (3.9%). Severe concerns were identified in 3.0% of cases including failure to cardiovert unstable patients (1.2%). The 30-day return-to-ED rate was 16.5% secondary to AF/AFL. CONCLUSION: ED management of AF/AFL was consistent with the CAEP Checklist and was safe overall. Opportunities for optimizing care include attaining recommended targets during rate control, avoidance of calcium channel and beta blockers in patients with systolic dysfunction, and earlier cardioversion for clinically unstable patients.

ABSTRAIT: OBJECTIFS: La fibrillation auriculaire aiguë et le flutter (FA/FAT) sont des arythmies courantes traitées aux urgences (SU). La liste de vérification des pratiques exemplaires 2021 du CAEP fournit des recommandations claires pour la prise en charge des patients atteints de FA/FAT aiguës. Cette étude visait à évaluer la conformité des médecins aux recommandations de la liste de contrôle pour l'évaluation des risques et la gestion de la FA/FAT. MéTHODES: Cet examen des dossiers de santé a évalué la prise en charge des patients adultes qui se sont présentés à deux urgences de soins tertiaires pour la prise en charge des FA/FAT aiguës de janvier à août 2022. Tous les ECG démontrant une FA/FAT avec une fréquence cardiaque supérieure à 100 ont été compilés pour capturer les causes primaires et secondaires. Toutes les visites ont été évaluées pour la gestion du contrôle des taux et du rythme, les événements indésirables, le retour à l'urgence et les critères de sécurité. Les médecins de l'étude ont classé les critères d'innocuité de la liste de contrôle en préoccupations élevées et modérées. Le résultat principal était la proportion de cas présentant des préoccupations en matière de sécurité et des événements indésirables survenant pendant la prise en charge à l'urgence. Les données ont été analysées à l'aide de statistiques descriptives simples. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 429 patients avec un âge moyen de 67.7 ans et 57.1% d'hommes. La prise en charge de l'urgence comprenait une cardioversion contrôlée (20.4 %), électrique (40.1 %) et pharmacologique (20.1 %). Des événements indésirables se sont produits dans 9.5% des cas : 12.5% dans le contrôle du taux, 13.4% dans la cardioversion électrique et 6.9% dans la cardioversion pharmacologique. Dans l'ensemble, 7.9 % des cas concernaient la sécurité de la direction. Des problèmes de sécurité modérés sont survenus dans 4.9 % des cas, y compris l'incapacité d'atteindre la fréquence cardiaque recommandée au moment du congé (3.9 %). Des préoccupations graves ont été identifiées dans 3.0 % des cas, y compris l'échec à cardiovert patients instables (1.2 %). Le taux de retour aux urgences après 30 jours était de 16,5 % secondaire aux FA/FAT. CONCLUSION: La gestion de l'AF/AFL par le DG était conforme à la liste de vérification du CAEP et était sécuritaire dans l'ensemble. Les possibilités d'optimisation des soins comprennent l'atteinte des cibles recommandées lors du contrôle des taux, l'évitement du canal calcique et des bêtabloquants chez les patients présentant une dysfonction systolique et une cardioversion antérieure pour les patients cliniquement instables.

How well do ED physician practices align with the CAEP acute atrial fibrillation checklist for stroke prevention and disposition?

OBJECTIVES: Acute atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (AFL) is a common emergency department (ED) presentation. In 2021, an updated version of CAEP's Acute AF/AFL Best Practices Checklist was published, seeking to guide management. We assessed the alignment with and safety of application of the Checklist, regarding stroke prevention and disposition. METHODS: This health records review included adults presenting to two tertiary care academic EDs between January and August 2022 with a diagnosis of acute AF/AFL. Patients were excluded if their initial heart rate was < 100 or if they were hospitalized. Data extracted included: demographics, CHADS-65 score, clinical characteristics, ED treatment and disposition, and outpatient prescriptions and referrals. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patient encounters with one or more identified safety issues. Each case was assessed according to seven predetermined criteria from elements of the CAEP Checklist and either deemed "safe" or to contain one or more safety issues. We used descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: 358 patients met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 66.9 years, 59.2% were male and 77.4% patients had at least one of the CHADS-65 criteria. 169 (47.2%) were not already on anticoagulation and 99 (27.6%) were discharged home with a new prescription for anticoagulation. The primary outcome was identified in 6.4% (95% CI 4.3-9.5) of encounters, representing 28 safety issues in 23 individuals. The safety concerns included: failure to prescribe anticoagulation when indicated (n = 6), inappropriate dosing of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) (n = 2), inappropriate prescription of rate or rhythm control medication (n = 9), and failure to recommend appropriately timed follow-up for new rate control medication (n = 11). CONCLUSIONS: There was a very high level of ED physician alignment with CAEP's Best Practices Checklist regarding disposition and stroke prevention. There are opportunities to further improve care with respect to recommendation of anticoagulation and reducing inappropriate prescriptions of rate or rhythm medications.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: La fibrillation auriculaire aiguë (FA)/flutter (FAT) est une présentation courante aux urgences (SU). En 2021, une version mise à jour de la liste de vérification des pratiques exemplaires en matière de FA/FAT aiguë du CAEP a été publiée, dans le but de guider la direction. Nous avons évalué l'harmonisation et la sécurité de l'application de la liste de contrôle en ce qui concerne la prévention et la disposition des AVC. MéTHODES: Cet examen des dossiers de santé comprenait des adultes qui se sont présentés à deux urgences universitaires de soins tertiaires entre janvier et août 2022 avec un diagnostic d'AF/AFL aigu. Les patients étaient exclus si leur fréquence cardiaque initiale était inférieure à 100 ou s'ils étaient hospitalisés. Les données extraites comprenaient les données démographiques, le score CHADS-65, les caractéristiques cliniques, le traitement et la disposition des urgences, ainsi que les prescriptions et les références ambulatoires. Notre résultat principal était la proportion de patients qui rencontraient un ou plusieurs problèmes de sécurité identifiés. Chaque cas a été évalué selon sept critères prédéterminés à partir des éléments de la liste de vérification du PPVE et jugé « sécuritaire ¼ ou comportant un ou plusieurs problèmes de sécurité. Nous avons utilisé des statistiques descriptives avec des intervalles de confiance de 95 %. RéSULTATS: 358 patients répondaient aux critères d'inclusion. L'âge moyen était de 66.9 ans, 59.2% étaient des hommes et 77.4% des patients avaient au moins un des critères CHADS-65. 169 (47.2%) n'étaient pas déjà sous anticoagulation et 99 (27.6%) ont été renvoyés à la maison avec une nouvelle prescription d'anticoagulation. Le critère de jugement principal a été identifié dans 6.4 % (IC à 95 % 4.3­9.5) des rencontres, ce qui représente 28 problèmes d'innocuité chez 23 personnes. Parmi les préoccupations en matière d'innocuité, mentionnons l'omission de prescrire un anticoagulant lorsque cela est indiqué (n = 6), l'administration inappropriée d'un anticoagulant oral direct (n = 2), la prescription inappropriée d'un médicament pour contrôler le rythme ou le rythme (n = 9), et l'omission de recommander un suivi bien chronométré vers le haut pour le nouveau médicament de contrôle de taux (n = 11). CONCLUSIONS: Il y avait un très haut niveau d'harmonisation des médecins de l'urgence avec la liste de vérification des pratiques exemplaires de l'ACMU en ce qui concerne la disposition et la prévention des accidents vasculaires cérébraux. Il est possible d'améliorer davantage les soins en ce qui concerne la recommandation d'anticoagulation et de réduire les prescriptions inappropriées de médicaments à taux ou à rythme.

Does spaced education improve clinical knowledge among Family Medicine residents? A cluster randomized controlled trial.

Spaced education is a learning strategy to improve knowledge acquisition and retention. To date, no robust evidence exists to support the utility of spaced education in the Family Medicine residency. We aimed to test whether alerts to encourage spaced education can improve clinical knowledge as measured by scores on the Canadian Family Medicine certification examination. METHOD: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to empirically and pragmatically test spaced education using two versions of the Family Medicine Study Guide mobile app. 12 residency training programs in Canada agreed to participate. At six intervention sites, we consented 335 of the 654 (51%) eligible residents. Residents in the intervention group were sent alerts through the app to encourage the answering of questions linked to clinical cases. At six control sites, 299 of 586 (51%) residents consented. Residents in the control group received the same app but with no alerts. Incidence rates of case completion between trial arms were compared using repeated measures analysis. We linked residents in both trial arms to their knowledge scores on the certification examination of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. RESULTS: Over 67 weeks, there was no statistically significant difference in the completion of clinical cases by participants. The difference in mean exam scores and the associated confidence interval did not exceed the pre-defined limit of 4 percentage points. CONCLUSION: Further research is recommended before deploying spaced educational interventions in the Family Medicine residency to improve knowledge.

Complications following chin laceration reparation using tissue adhesive compared to suture in children.

BACKGROUND: Tissue adhesive is widely used in the emergency department to repair minor lacerations but there exists a debate as to whether it should be used for chin lacerations. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of wound dehiscence of chin lacerations repaired with tissue adhesive in comparison to sutures. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review including all children requiring a facial laceration reparation in a single tertiary care paediatric hospital. The primary outcome was wound dehiscence in the 30 days following reparation, comparing the use of tissue adhesive and sutures. The independent variable of interest was the use of tissue adhesive vs suture. A random sample of charts was reviewed in duplicate to insure reliability of the chart review. RESULTS: Among the 2044 children presenting with a facial laceration requiring an intervention, 1804 (88%) were repaired using tissue adhesive. The laceration was located on the chin in 360 (18%) of patients. The use of tissue adhesive was not statistically associated with a higher risk of dehiscence for all facial lacerations (difference: 0.2; 95%CI: -1.9 to 0.8%), nor for chin lacerations (difference 2.2%; 95%CI: -7.5 to 4.4%). However, the probability of dehiscence was higher for chin laceration in comparison to other localizations (difference of 1.6%; 95%CI: 0.5-3.6%). CONCLUSION: While the rate of dehiscence was higher for chin lacerations compared to other facial localizations, the risk of dehiscence was not statistically different for chin laceration repaired with tissue adhesive or sutures.

Efficacy of the Buzzy Device for Pain Management During Needle-related Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of the Buzzy device combining cold and vibration for needle-related procedural pain in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases search was conducted from inception to December 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials using the Buzzy device for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures. Selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence were independently performed by 2 reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies involving 1138 participants aged between 3 and 18 years old were included in the systematic review and 7 were suitable for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis compared the Buzzy device with a no-treatment comparator and the effect of the device was significant in reducing self-report procedural pain (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.52 to -0.70; P<0.0001), parent-reported procedural pain (SMD: -0.94; 95% CI: -1.62 to -0.27; P=0.006), observer-report procedural pain (SMD: -1.19; 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.47; P=0.001), observer-reported procedural anxiety (SMD -1.37; 95% CI: -1.77 to -0.96; P<0.00001), and parent-reported procedural anxiety (SMD -1.36; 95% CI: -2.11 to -0.61; P=0.0004). There was no significant difference for the success of the procedure at first attempt and the occurrence of adverse events. DISCUSSION: The Buzzy device seems to be a promising intervention for procedural pain management in children. However, the comparative effect is uncertain due to the presence of significant heterogeneity and very low-quality evidence. There is a need to improve the methodological quality and rigor in the design of future trials to conclude to the efficacy of the Buzzy device.

External cold and vibration for pain management of children undergoing needle-related procedures in the emergency department: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Needle-related procedures are considered as the most important source of pain and distress in children in hospital settings. Considering the physiological and psychological consequences that could result from these procedures, management of pain and distress through pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods is essential. Therefore, it is important to have interventions that are rapid, easy-to-use and likely to be translated into clinical practice for routine use. The aim of this study will be to determine whether a device combining cold and vibration (Buzzy) is non-inferior to a topical anaesthetic (liposomal lidocaine 4% cream) for pain management of children undergoing needle-related procedures in the emergency department. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the Buzzy device to liposomal lidocaine 4% cream for needle-related pain management. A total of 346 participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two study groups. The primary outcome will be the mean difference in pain intensity between groups during needle-related procedures. A non-inferiority margin of 0.70 on the Color Analogue Scale will be considered. A Non-inferiority margin of 0.70 on the Color Analogue Scale will be considered. The secondary outcomes will be the level of distress during the procedure, the success of the procedure at first attempt, the occurrence of adverse events, the satisfaction of both interventions and the memory of pain 24 hours after the procedure. The primary outcome will be assessed for non-inferiority and the secondary outcomes for superiority. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of the study setting. Findings of this trial will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02616419.

Efficacy of the Buzzy® device for pain management of children during needle-related procedures: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Needle-related procedures are the most important source of pain in children in hospital setting. Unmanaged pain could result in short- and long-term physiological, psychological, and emotional consequences. Although the efficacy of numerous interventions has been evaluated, procedural pain management is often suboptimal in children undergoing needle-related procedures. The main objective of this systematic review is to examine the evidence for the efficacy of the Buzzy® device for needle-related procedural pain in children. METHODS: An electronic search will be conducted in the following databases: CENTRAL, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. There will be no restriction regarding the language, date of publication, and publication status. Eligible studies will be randomized controlled trials using the Buzzy® device for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures. Selection of studies, data extraction and management, assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence will be performed by two independent reviewers. A third researcher will be consulted in case of discrepancies. Depending on the availability and quality of the data as well as clinical and statistical heterogeneity, a meta-analysis will be performed. Otherwise, findings will be qualitatively reported. DISCUSSION: This will be the first systematic review to examine the efficacy of the Buzzy® device on pain management of children during needle-related procedures. Results of this review will guide clinical practice and recommendations for further research to improve procedural pediatric pain management. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017076531.