Intubator Performance and Contamination with the Use of Barrier Enclosure Devices: Results from a Simulated COVID-19 Resuscitation.

INTRODUCTION: Medical institutions are using barrier enclosure devices during intubation procedures and other aerosol-generating medical procedures without evidence of their effectiveness or usability, potentially compromising patient care, and provider safety. Our objective was to determine the degree of protection offered by these devices and explore other usability factors for two popular barrier systems. METHODS: A simulated trial comparing an intubation box, a frame and plastic tarp system, and unprotected intubation was performed in an academic emergency department. Ten emergency physicians were recruited to participate. Our primary outcome was the degree of contamination from secretions measured by average surface area exposed to phosphorescent material. Secondary outcomes included: laryngoscopy time and time to barrier application, unsuccessful intubation attempts, and usability ratings for each system. Descriptive statistics were reported for all variables of interest and a linear mixed model was used to analyze contamination and laryngoscopy time. Usability was captured through electronic questionnaires using a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Contamination was more prevalent with the box, compared to the frame and tarp, and no device, however, this did not achieve statistical significance (13.2% versus 8.1% versus 12.2%, P = 0.17). A barrier system delayed intubation when compared to using no system (no system = 24.4 s [95% CI 17.3-27.5], frame = 54.4 s [95% CI 13.8-95.0], box = 33.8 s [95% CI 21.4-46.1], P = 0.02). In assessing usability, 30% of users preferred the use of a box barrier, 40% of users preferred the frame, and 30% would not use either in future intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no barrier protection, an intubation box enclosure offers limited additional protection. A frame and tarp system reduces exposure at the expense of visibility and operator comfort. Finally, barrier systems do not appear to have a clinically significant impact on airway management.

Barrier enclosure use during aerosol-generating medical procedures: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Barrier enclosure devices were introduced to protect against infectious disease transmission during aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMP). Recent discussion in the medical community has led to new designs and adoption despite limited evidence. A scoping review was conducted to characterize devices being used and their performance. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of formal databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Scopus), grey literature, and hand-searched relevant journals. Forward and reverse citation searching was completed on included articles. Article/full-text screening and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorized by publication type, device category, intended medical use, and outcomes (efficacy - ability to contain particles; efficiency - time to complete AGMP; and usability - user experience). RESULTS: Searches identified 6489 studies and 123 met criteria for inclusion (k = 0.81 title/abstract, k = 0.77 full-text). Most articles were published in 2020 (98%, n = 120) as letters/commentaries (58%, n = 71). Box systems represented 42% (n = 52) of systems described, while plastic sheet systems accounted for 54% (n = 66). The majority were used for airway management (67%, n = 83). Only half of articles described outcome measures (54%, n = 67); 82% (n = 55) reporting efficacy, 39% (n = 26) on usability, and 15% (n = 10) on efficiency. Efficacy of devices in containing aerosols was limited and frequently dependent on use of suction devices. CONCLUSIONS: While use of various barrier enclosure devices has become widespread during this pandemic, objective data of efficacy, efficiency, and usability is limited. Further controlled studies are required before adoption into routine clinical practice.

Regional anesthesia in Canadian emergency departments: Emergency physician practices, perspectives, and barriers to use.

OBJECTIVES: Regional anesthesia has many applications in the emergency department (ED). It has been shown to reduce general anesthetic dose, requirement for post-procedural opioids, and recovery time. We sought to characterize the use of regional anesthesia by Canadian emergency physicians, including practices, perspectives and barriers to use in the ED. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP), consisting of sixteen multiple choice and numerical response questions. Responses were summarized descriptively as percentages and as the median and inter quartile range (IQR) for quantitative variables. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 149/1144 staff emergency physicians, with a response rate of 13%. Respondents used regional anesthesia a median of 2 (IQR 0-4) times in the past ten shifts. The most broadly used applications were soft tissue repair (84.5% of respondents, n = 126), fracture pain management (79.2%, n = 118) and orthopedic reduction (72.5%, n = 108). Respondents agreed that regional anesthesia is safe to use in the ED (98.7%) and were interested in using it more frequently (78.5%). Almost all (98.0%) respondents had point of care ultrasound available, however less than half (49.0%) felt comfortable using it for RA. Respondents indicated that they required more training (76.5%), a departmental protocol (47.0%), and nursing assistance (30.2%) to increase their use of RA. CONCLUSION: Canadian emergency physicians use regional anesthesia infrequently but express an interest in expanding their use. While equipment is available, additional training, protocols, and increased support from nursing staff are modifiable factors that could facilitate uptake.

Prinzmetal angina (Coronary vasospasm) associated with 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy.

Several chemotherapeutic agents are known to be cardiotoxic. One of them, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), has been associated with coronary ischemia and reversible vasospasm. In this report, we describe a 54-year-old man with rectal cancer who developed chest pain during 5-FU infusion. His initial electrocardiogram (ECG), obtained while he was experiencing chest pain, showed hyperacute T waves in the anterolateral leads. Those waves disappeared along with the chest pain after administration of sublingual nitroglycerine. An urgent coronary angiogram revealed that the patient had no significant flow-limiting coronary artery disease to account for this chest pain. The final diagnosis was coronary artery spasm with moderate global left ventricular dilatation suggestive of nonischemic cardiomyopathy. During 3days of hospitalization, the patient remained pain free and therefore was discharged. To our knowledge, this is the first case report in the emergency medicine literature demonstrating a coronary vasospastic event associated with 5-FU cardiac toxicity.

Emergency Point-of-Care Ultrasound Detection of Papilledema in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

The application of emergency point-of-care ultrasound has been expanding in pediatric emergency medicine for a decade. In this case series, we describe the detection of papilledema in patients presenting to the pediatric emergency department using this technology and its potential impact on their clinical care.

The Association Between Emergency Department Crowding and the Disposition of Patients With Transient Ischemic Attack or Minor Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) crowding has been associated with adverse events, including short-term death and hospitalization among discharged patients. The mechanisms are poorly understood, but may include altered physician decision-making about ED discharge of higher-risk patients. One example is patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke, who are at high risk of subsequent stroke. While hospitalization is frequently recommended, little consensus exists on which patients require admission. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine the association of ED crowding with the disposition of patients with minor stroke or TIA. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data from the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network at 12 EDs in Ontario, Canada, between 2003 and 2008, linked to administrative health databases. A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to determine the association between crowding at the time the patient was seen in the ED (defined as mean ED length of stay) and patient disposition (admission/discharge), after adjusting for patient and hospital-level variables. RESULTS: The study cohort included 9,759 patients (4,607 with TIA and 5,152 with minor stroke); 49.5% were discharged from the ED. The mean (±SD) age of study patients was 70.78 (±13.40) years, with 52.9% being male, 37.3% arriving by emergency medical services, and 92.3% triaged as emergent or urgent. Greater severity of ED crowding was associated with a lower likelihood of discharge, regardless of ED size. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that crowding may influence clinical decision-making in the disposition of patients with TIA or minor stroke and that, as crowding worsens, the likelihood of hospitalization increases.

Do emergency physicians and medical students find it unethical to 'look up' their patients on facebook or Google?

INTRODUCTION: The use of search engines and online social media (OSM) websites by healthcare providers is increasing and may even be used to search for patient information. This raises several ethical issues. The objective of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of OSM and web-searching for patient information and to explore attitudes towards the ethical appropriateness of these practices by physicians and trainees in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted an online survey study of Canadian emergency physicians and trainees listed under then Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) and senior medical students at the University of Toronto. RESULTS: We received 530 responses (response rate 49.1%): 34.9% medical students, 15.5% residents, 49.6% staff physicians. Most had an active Facebook account (74%). Sixty-four participants (13.5%) had used Google to research a patient and 10 (2.1%) had searched for patients on Facebook. There were no differences in these results based on level of training, and 25% of physicians considered using Facebook to learn about a patient "very unethical." The most frequent ethical concerns were with violation of patient confidentiality, dignity, and consent. The practice was usually not disclosed to patients (14%), but often disclosed to senior colleagues (83%). CONCLUSION: This is the first study examining the prevalence of and attitudes towards online searching for obtaining patient information in the ED. This practice occurs among staff physicians and trainees despite ethical concerns. Future work should explore the utility and desirability of searching for patient information online.

How Facebook saved our day!

Facebook and social media networking applications use is ubiquitous across all ages and cultures. Facebook has finally begun to appear in the medical-scientific press. Today's medical literature is focused on concerns of professionalism in young health care practitioners vis-à-vis the lay public as they continuously expose themselves through this online social medium. With over 500 million users, Facebook hosts many of our patients, who are also exposed to the Internet and social media. Nobody so far has considered the opposite issue: that of physician invasion of privacy by "looking-up" a patient on Facebook during clinical practice for purposes of history-taking or diagnostic clues in situations where patients are too ill to provide needed information. We need to consider the ethical implications of privacy invasion in the current era of information technology. We need to acquire and maintain a certain level of "social media competency" to better debate the issues around Facebook and how we integrate on-line content with our patients' histories of present illness (HPI) or past medical histories (if at all).