Pain experiences of marginalized children in the emergency department: A scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pain affects all children, and in hospitals across North America, this pain is often undertreated. Children who visit the emergency department (ED) experience similar undertreatment, and they will often experience a painful procedure as part of their diagnostic journey. Further, children and their caregivers who experience social injustices through marginalization are more likely to experience healthcare disparities in their pain management. Still, most of our knowledge about children's pain management comes from research focused on well-educated, white children and caregivers from a middle- or upper-class background. The aim of this scoping review is to identify, map, and describe existing research on (a) how aspects of marginalization are documented in randomized controlled trials related to children's pain and (b) to understand the pain treatment and experiences of marginalized children and their caregivers in the ED setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews using the Participant, Concept, Context (PCC) framework and key terms related to children, youth, pain, ED, and aspects of marginalization. We will search Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library Trials, iPortal, and Native Health Database for articles published in the last 10 years to identify records that meet our inclusion criteria. We will screen articles in a two-step process using two reviewers during the abstract and full-text screening stages. Data will be extracted using Covidence for data management and we will use a narrative approach to synthesize the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. Findings will be disseminated in academic manuscripts, at academic conferences, and with partners and knowledge users including funders of pain research and healthcare professionals. Results of this scoping review will inform subsequent quantitative and qualitative studies regarding pain experiences and treatment of marginalized children in the ED.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who return to the emergency department: a multicentre observational study by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN).

OBJECTIVE: Unplanned return emergency department (ED) visits can reflect clinical deterioration or unmet need from the original visit. We determined the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who return to the ED for COVID-19-related revisits. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data for all adult patients visiting 47 Canadian EDs with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 March 2022. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the characteristics associated with having a no return visit (SV=single visit group) versus at least one return visit (MV=return visit group) after being discharged alive at the first ED visit. RESULTS: 39 809 patients with COVID-19 had 44 862 COVID-19-related ED visits: 35 468 patients (89%) had one visit (SV group) and 4341 (11%) returned to the ED (MV group) within 30 days (mean 2.2, SD=0.5 ED visit). 40% of SV patients and 16% of MV patients were admitted at their first visit, and 41% of MV patients not admitted at their first ED visit were admitted on their second visit. In the MV group, the median time to return was 4 days, 49% returned within 72 hours. In multivariable modelling, a repeat visit was associated with a variety of factors including older age (OR=1.25 per 10 years, 95% CI (1.22 to 1.28)), pregnancy (1.86 (1.46 to 2.36)) and presence of comorbidities (eg, 1.72 (1.40 to 2.10) for cancer, 2.01 (1.52 to 2.66) for obesity, 2.18 (1.42 to 3.36) for organ transplant), current/prior substance use, higher temperature or WHO severe disease (1.41 (1.29 to 1.54)). Return was less likely for females (0.82 (0.77 to 0.88)) and those boosted or fully vaccinated (0.48 (0.34 to 0.70)). CONCLUSIONS: Return ED visits by patients with COVID-19 within 30 days were common during the first two pandemic years and were associated with multiple factors, many of which reflect known risk for worse outcomes. Future studies should assess reasons for revisit and opportunities to improve ED care and reduce resource use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04702945.

Development of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network population-based registry: a methodology study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians lack high-quality evidence for many diagnostic and treatment decisions made for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective is to describe the methods used to collect and ensure the data quality of a multicentre registry of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: This methodology study describes a population-based registry that has been enrolling consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since Mar. 1, 2020. Most data are collected from retrospective chart review. Phone follow-up with patients at 30 days captures the World Health Organization clinical improvement scale and contextual, social and cultural variables. Phone follow-up also captures patient-reported quality of life using the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey at 30 days, 60 days, 6 months and 12 months. Fifty participating emergency departments from 8 provinces in Canada currently enrol patients into the registry. INTERPRETATION: Data from the registry of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network will be used to derive and validate clinical decision rules to inform clinical decision-making, describe the natural history of the disease, evaluate COVID-19 diagnostic tests and establish the real-world effectiveness of treatments and vaccines, including in populations that are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials. This registry has the potential to generate scientific evidence to inform our pandemic response, and to serve as a model for the rapid implementation of population-based data collection protocols for future public health emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

Primary care professionals providing non-urgent care in hospital emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: In many countries emergency departments (EDs) are facing an increase in demand for services, long waits, and severe crowding. One response to mitigate overcrowding has been to provide primary care services alongside or within hospital EDs for patients with non-urgent problems. However, it is unknown how this impacts the quality of patient care and the utilisation of hospital resources, or if it is cost-effective. This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of locating primary care professionals in hospital EDs to provide care for patients with non-urgent health problems, compared with care provided by regularly scheduled emergency physicians (EPs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library; 2017, Issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and King's Fund, from inception until 10 May 2017. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP for registered clinical trials, and screened reference lists of included papers and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies that evaluated the effectiveness of introducing primary care professionals to hospital EDs attending to patients with non-urgent conditions, as compared to the care provided by regularly scheduled EPs.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four trials (one randomised trial and three non-randomised trials), one of which is newly identified in this update, involving a total of 11,463 patients, 16 general practitioners (GPs), 9 emergency nurse practitioners (NPs), and 69 EPs. These studies evaluated the effects of introducing GPs or emergency NPs to provide care to patients with non-urgent problems in the ED, as compared to EPs for outcomes such as resource use. The studies were conducted in Ireland, the UK, and Australia, and had an overall high or unclear risk of bias. The outcomes investigated were similar across studies, and there was considerable variation in the triage system used, the level of expertise and experience of the medical practitioners, and type of hospital (urban teaching, suburban community hospital). Main sources of funding were national or regional health authorities and a medical research funding body.There was high heterogeneity across studies, which precluded pooling data. It is uncertain whether the intervention reduces time from arrival to clinical assessment and treatment or total length of ED stay (1 study; 260 participants), admissions to hospital, diagnostic tests, treatments given, or consultations or referrals to hospital-based specialist (3 studies; 11,203 participants), as well as costs (2 studies; 9325 participants), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low-certainty for all outcomes.No data were reported on adverse events (such as ED returns and mortality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the evidence from the four included studies as of very low-certainty overall, as the results are inconsistent and safety has not been examined. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions for practice or policy regarding the effectiveness and safety of care provided to non-urgent patients by GPs and NPs versus EPs in the ED to mitigate problems of overcrowding, wait times, and patient flow.

Primary care professionals providing non-urgent care in hospital emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: In many countries emergency departments (EDs) are facing an increase in demand for services, long-waits and severe crowding. One response to mitigate overcrowding has been to provide primary care services alongside or within hospital EDs for patients with non-urgent problems. It is not known, however, how this impacts the quality of patient care, the utilisation of hospital resources, or if it is cost-effective.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of locating primary care professionals in the hospital ED to provide care for patients with non-urgent health problems, compared with care provided by regular Emergency Physicians (EPs), SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialized register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane library, 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to March 21 2012); EMBASE (1980 to April 28 2011); CINAHL (1980 to April 28 2011); PsychINFO (1967 to April 28 2011); Sociological Abstracts (1952 to April 28 2011); ASSIA (1987 to April 28 2011); SSSCI (1945 to April 28 2011); HMIC (1979 to April 28 2011), sources of unpublished literature, reference lists of included papers and relevant systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field for any published or unpublished studies, and hand searched ED conference abstracts from the last three years. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies that evaluated the effectiveness of introducing primary care professionals to hospital EDs to attend to non-urgent patients, as compared to the care provided by regular EPs.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each included study. We contacted authors of included studies to obtain additional data. Dichotomous outcomes are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous outcomes are presented as mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs. Pooling was not possible due to heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Three non randomised controlled studies involving a total of 11 203 patients, 16 General Practioners (GPs), and 52 EPs, were included. These studies evaluated the effects of introducing GPs to provide care to patients with non-urgent problems in the ED, as compared to EPs for outcomes such as resource use. The quality of evidence for all outcomes in this review was low, primarily due to the non-randomised design of included studies.The outcomes investigated were similar across studies; however there was high heterogeneity (I(2)>86%). Differences across studies included the triage system used, the level of expertise and experience of the medical practitioners and type of hospital (urban teaching, suburban community hospital).Two of the included studies report that GPs used significantly fewer healthcare resources than EPs, with fewer blood tests (RR 0.22; 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.33; N=4641; RR 0.35; 95%CI 0.29 to 0.42; N=4684), x-rays (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.54; N=4641; RR 0.77 95% CI 0.72 to 0.83; N=4684), admissions to hospital (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.58; N=4641; RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.56; N=4684) and referrals to specialists (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.63; N=4641; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.73; N=4684). One of the two studies reported no statistically significant difference in the number of prescriptions made by GPs compared with EPs, (RR 0.95 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; N=4641), while the other showed that GPs prescribed significantly more medications than EPs (RR 1.45 95% CI 1.35 to 1.56; N=4684). The results from these two studies showed marginal cost savings from introducing GPs in hospital EDs.The third study (N=1878) failed to identify a significant difference in the number of blood tests ordered (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.2), x-rays (RR 1.07; 95%CI 0.99 to 1.15), or admissions to hospital (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.76), but reported a significantly greater number of referrals to specialists (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33) and prescriptions (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23) made by GPs as compared with EPs.No data were reported on patient wait-times, length of hospital stay, or patient outcomes, including adverse effects or mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence from the three included studies is weak, as results are disparate and neither safety nor patient outcomes have been examined. There is insufficient evidence upon which to draw conclusions for practice or policy regarding the effectiveness and safety of care provided to non-urgent patients by GPs versus EPs in the ED to mitigate problems of overcrowding, wait-times and patient flow.