On-Site Physiotherapy in Emergency Department Patients Presenting with Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: There is a high incidence of nonspecific Low Back Pain (LBP) in patients visiting Emergency Departments (EDs), but there is a lack of knowledge regarding emergency physiotherapy for LBP. The effect of on-site physiotherapy in these patients was therefore never demonstrated. We assessed short-term outcomes, feasibility and patient satisfaction with physiotherapy in ED patients presenting with nonspecific LBP. Methods: A block-randomized, controlled, open-label trial with a follow-up of 42 days. Patients aged 18 years or older presenting to an ED with nonspecific LBP were prospectively enrolled. Both groups received the same booklet with written information on LBP management and exercises. Patients in the intervention group were given additional instructions by a certified physiotherapist. Results: We included 86 patients in the primary analysis. The median age was 40, and 40.7% were female. At day 7, the median Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was 2 points lower in the intervention group compared to the control group, which was not statistically significant. There was no between-group difference in pain at day 7. Patients who received physiotherapy felt significantly more confident with the exercises they were taught (p = 0.004, effect size = 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.5]). Conclusions: On-site physiotherapy in ED patients presenting with nonspecific low back pain is associated with higher patient satisfaction, compared to standard of care. The effect of physiotherapy was small, with only minimal improvement in disability, but without a reduction in pain. Despite the very small effect size, physiotherapeutic interventions should be investigated in larger cohorts with an extended intervention including patient education, exercises, and other physiotherapeutic modalities.

Screening for elder mistreatment in a Swiss emergency department: a prospective cohort study.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The mistreatment of older adults is a global and complex problem with varying prevalence. As there are no data on the prevalence of elder mistreatment in European emergency department populations, we aimed to translate and culturally adapt the Emergency Department Senior Abuse Identification (ED Senior AID) tool for German use, assess the positive screen rate for elder mistreatment with the German version, and compare characteristics of patients who screened positive and negative. METHODS: To assess the prevalence of elder mistreatment, we created a German version of the ED Senior AID tool. This tool identifies intentional or negligent actions by a caregiver or trusted person that cause harm or risk to an older adult. Then, the German ED Senior AID tool was applied to all consecutively presenting patients aged ≥65 years at our academic emergency department in the Northwest of Switzerland from 25 April to 30 May 2022. Usability was defined as the percentage of patients with completed assessments using the German ED Senior AID tool. RESULTS: We included 1010 patients aged ≥65 years, of whom 29 (2.9%) screened positive with the ED Senior AID tool. The patients who screened positive were older, more severely cognitively impaired, hospitalised more frequently, and presented with higher frailty scores than those who screened negative. Mortality up to 100 days after presentation was comparable in all patients (p = 0.861), regardless of their screening result. The tool showed good usability, with 73% of assessments completed. CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective investigation on the prevalence of elder mistreatment in a European emergency department setting. Overall, 2.9% of patients screened positive using a validated screening tool translated into German. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the National Institute of Health on ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT05400707.

Prognostic value of cognitive impairment, assessed by the Clock Drawing Test, in emergency department patients presenting with non-specific complaints.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment (CI) is common among older patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). The failure to recognize CI at ED presentation constitutes a high risk of additional morbidity, mortality, and functional decline. The Clock Drawing Test (CDT) is a well-established cognitive screening test. AIM: In patients presenting to the ED with non-specific complaints (NSCs), we aimed to investigate the usability of the CDT and its prognostic value regarding length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality. METHOD: Secondary analysis of the Basel Non-specific Complaints (BANC) trial, a prospective delayed type cross-sectional study with a 30-day follow-up. In three EDs, patients presenting with NSCs were enrolled. The CDT was administered at enrollment. RESULTS: In the 1,278 patients enrolled, median age was 81 [74, 87] years and 782 were female (61.19%). A valid CDT was obtained in 737 (57.7%) patients. In patients without a valid CDT median LOS was higher (29 [9, 49] days vs. 22 [9, 45] days), and 30-day mortality was significantly higher than in patients with a valid CDT (n = 45 (8.32%) vs. n = 39 (5.29%)). Of all valid CDTs, 154 clocks (20.9%) were classified as normal, 55 (7.5%) as mildly deficient, 297 (40.3%) as moderately deficient, and 231 (31.3%) as severely deficient. Mortality and LOS increased along with the CDT deficits (p = 0.012 for 30-day mortality; p < 0.001 for LOS). CONCLUSION: The early identification of patients with CI may lead to improved patient management and resource allocation. The CDT could be used as a risk stratification tool for older ED patients presenting with NSCs, as it is a predictor for 30-day mortality and LOS.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of cardiac troponins in emergency department patients presenting after a fall: A prospective, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) presentations after a ground-level fall (GLF) are common. Falls were suggested to be another possible presenting feature of a myocardial infarction (MI), as unrecognized MIs are common in older adults. Elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) concentrations could help determine the etiology of a GLF in ED. We investigated the prevalence of both MI and elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and I (hs-cTnI), as well as the diagnostic accuracy of hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI regarding MI, and their prognostic value in older ED patients presenting after a GLF. METHODS: This was a prospective, international, multicenter, cohort study with a follow-up of up to 1 year. Patients aged 65 years or older presenting to the ED after a GLF were prospectively enrolled. Two outcome assessors independently reviewed all discharge records to ascertain final gold standard diagnoses. Hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI levels were determined from thawed samples for every patient. RESULTS: In total, 558 patients were included. Median (IQR) age was 83 (77-89) years, and 67.7% were female. Elevated hs-cTnT levels were found in 384 (68.8%) patients, and elevated hs-cTnI levels in 86 (15.4%) patients. Three patients (0.5%) were ascertained the gold standard diagnosis MI. Within 30 days, 18 (3.2%) patients had died. Nonsurvivors had higher hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI levels compared with survivors (hs-cTnT 40 [23-85] ng/L in nonsurvivors and 20 [13-33] ng/L in survivors; hs-cTnI 25 [14-54] ng/L in nonsurvivors and 8 [4-16] ng/L in survivors; p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients (n = 364, 68.8%) presenting to the ED after a fall had elevated hs-cTnT levels and 86 (15.4%) elevated hs-cTnI levels. However, the incidence of MI in these patients was low (n = 3, 0.5%). Our data do not support the opinion that falls may be a common presenting feature of MI. We discourage routine troponin testing in this population. However, hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI were both found to have prognostic properties for mortality prediction up to 1 year.

Predictive value and interrater reliability of mental status and mobility assessment in the emergency department.

AIM: To investigate the predictive value of both mental status, assessed with the AVPUC (Alert, responds to Voice, responds to Pain, Unresponsive, and new Confusion) scale, and mobility assessments, and their interrater reliability (IRR) between triage clinicians and a research team. METHOD: Prospective study of consecutive patients who presented to an ED. Mental status and mobility were assessed by triage clinicians and by a dedicated research team. RESULTS: 4,191 patients were included. After adjustment for age and sex, patients with altered mental status have an odds ratio of 6.55 [4.09-10.24] to be admitted in the ICU and an odds ratio of 21.16 [12.06-37.01] to die within 30 days; patients with impaired mobility have an odds ratio of 7.08 [4.60-11.12] to be admitted in the ICU and an odds ratio of 12.87 [5.93-32.30] to die within 30 days. The kappa coefficient between triage clinicians and the research team for mental status assessment was 0.75, and 0.80 for mobility. CONCLUSION: Assessment of mental status by the AVPUC scale, and mobility by a simple dichotomous scale are suitable for ED triage. Both altered mental status and impaired mobility are associated with adverse outcomes. Mental status and mobility assessment have good interrater reliability.

PLUS-IS-LESS project: Procalcitonin and Lung UltraSonography-based antibiotherapy in patients with Lower rESpiratory tract infection in Swiss Emergency Departments: study protocol for a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are among the most frequent infections and a significant contributor to inappropriate antibiotic prescription. Currently, no single diagnostic tool can reliably identify bacterial pneumonia. We thus evaluate a multimodal approach based on a clinical score, lung ultrasound (LUS), and the inflammatory biomarker, procalcitonin (PCT) to guide prescription of antibiotics. LUS outperforms chest X-ray in the identification of pneumonia, while PCT is known to be elevated in bacterial and/or severe infections. We propose a trial to test their synergistic potential in reducing antibiotic prescription while preserving patient safety in emergency departments (ED). METHODS: The PLUS-IS-LESS study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomized, clinical trial conducted in 10 Swiss EDs. It assesses the PLUS algorithm, which combines a clinical prediction score, LUS, PCT, and a clinical severity score to guide antibiotics among adults with LRTIs, compared with usual care. The co-primary endpoints are the proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics and the proportion of patients with clinical failure by day 28. Secondary endpoints include measurement of change in quality of life, length of hospital stay, antibiotic-related side effects, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the algorithm, cost-effectiveness of the intervention, and identification of patterns of pneumonia in LUS using machine learning. DISCUSSION: The PLUS algorithm aims to optimize prescription of antibiotics through improved diagnostic performance and maximization of physician adherence, while ensuring safety. It is based on previously validated tests and does therefore not expose participants to unforeseeable risks. Cluster randomization prevents cross-contamination between study groups, as physicians are not exposed to the intervention during or before the control period. The stepped-wedge implementation of the intervention allows effect calculation from both between- and within-cluster comparisons, which enhances statistical power and allows smaller sample size than a parallel cluster design. Moreover, it enables the training of all centers for the intervention, simplifying implementation if the results prove successful. The PLUS algorithm has the potential to improve the identification of LRTIs that would benefit from antibiotics. When scaled, the expected reduction in the proportion of antibiotics prescribed has the potential to not only decrease side effects and costs but also mitigate antibiotic resistance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on July 19, 2022, on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry using reference number: NCT05463406. TRIAL STATUS: Recruitment started on December 5, 2022, and will be completed on November 3, 2024. Current protocol version is version 3.0, dated April 3, 2023.

Clinical Frailty Scale at presentation to the emergency department: interrater reliability and use of algorithm-assisted assessment.

PURPOSE: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) allows health care providers to quickly stratify older patients, to support clinical decision-making. However, few studies have evaluated the CFS interrater reliability (IRR) in Emergency Departments (EDs), and the freely available smartphone application for CFS assessment was never tested for reliability. This study aimed to evaluate the interrater reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) ratings between experienced and unexperienced staff (ED clinicians and a study team (ST) of medical students supported by a smartphone application to assess the CFS), and to determine the feasibility of CFS assignment in patients aged 65 or older at triage. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using consecutive sampling of ED patients aged 65 or older. We compared assessments by ED clinicians (Triage Clinicians (TC) and geriatric ED trained nurses (geriED-TN)) and a study team (ST) of medical students using a smartphone application for CFS scoring. The study is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05400707). RESULTS: We included 1349 patients aged 65 and older. Quadratic-weighted kappa values for ordinal CFS levels showed a good IRR between TC and ST (Ï° = 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.76), similarly to that between TC and geriED-TN (Ï° = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.82) and between the ST and geriED-TN (Ï° = 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.81). A CFS rating was assigned to 972 (70.2%) patients at triage. CONCLUSION: We found good IRR in the assessment of frailty with the CFS in different ED providers and a team using a smartphone application to support rating. A CFS assessment occurred in more than two-thirds (70.2%) of patients at triage.