Trend of mortality and length of stay in the emergency department following implementation of a centralized sepsis alert system.

Introduction: Sepsis alerts based on laboratory and vital sign criteria were found insufficient to improve patient outcomes. While most early sepsis alerts were implemented into smaller scale operating systems, a centralized new approach may provide more benefits, overcoming alert fatigue, improving deployment of staff and resources, and optimizing the overall management of sepsis. The objective of the study was to assess mortality and length of stay (LOS) trends in emergency department (ED) patients, following the implementation of a centralized and automated sepsis alert system. Methods: The automated sepsis alert system was implemented in 2021 as part of a hospital-wide command and control center. Administrative data from the years 2018 to 2021 were collected. Data included ED visits, in-hospital mortality, triage levels, LOS, and the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). Results: Mortality rate for patients classified as CTAS I triage level was the lowest in 2021, after the implementation of the automated sepsis alert system, compared to 2020, 2019, and 2018 (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve revealed that for patients classified as CTAS I triage level, the probability of survival was the highest in 2021, after implementation of the sepsis alert algorithm, compared to previous years (Log Rank, Mantel-Cox, χ²=29.742, p < 0.001). No significant differences in survival rate were observed for other triage levels. Conclusion: Implementing an automated sepsis alert system as part of a command center operation significantly improves mortality rate associated with LOS in the ED for patients in the highest triage level. These findings suggest that a centralized early sepsis alert system has the potential to improve patient outcomes.

Literature review on the use of methoxyflurane in the management of pain in cancer-related procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Self-administered methoxyflurane, also known as Penthrox, at a sub-anesthetic dose is a short-term, fast-acting, and safe analgesic that may provide suitable pain relief for cancer patients. This review aims to compile the existing evidence on methoxyflurane and its efficacy in reducing pain during cancer-related procedures. METHODS: A literature search was conducted through OVID Medline and Embase. The search was limited to articles published between 2012 and 2021 and studies were included if they assessed the efficacy of methoxyflurane to reduce pain in cancer-related procedures. All types of cancer were included. RESULTS: The literature search yielded seven studies published between 2012 and 2021. The studies analyzed assessed methoxyflurane use in prostate biopsy, colonoscopy, removal of brachytherapy rods, and bone marrow biopsy. Various research designs were employed, including three randomized controlled trials, two prospective observational studies, one retrospective, and one non-randomized controlled trial. In all, methoxyflurane has a demonstrated ability to reduce pain in these procedures. CONCLUSION: In the limited studies available in evaluating the efficacy of methoxyflurane for reducing procedural pain during cancer-related procedures, all have demonstrated clinical equivalency or superiority. Pain relief appears to be equivalent however methoxyflurane overcomes the standard limitations of respiratory sedation and has demonstrated quicker procedural recovery times than traditional sedation methods. The accumulated data to date supports the use of methoxyflurane which can supplement or supplant current methods of analgesia in cancer-related procedures.

Demographic characteristics, outcomes and experience of patients using virtual urgent care services from 14 emergency department led sites in Ontario.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, the Ontario Ministry of Health funded a virtual care pilot program intended to support emergency department (ED) diversion of patients with low acuity complaints and reduce the need for face-to-face contact. The objective was to describe the demographic characteristics, outcomes and experience of patients using the provincial pilot program. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of patients using virtual care services provided by 14 ED-led pilot sites from December 2020 to September 2021. Patients who completed a virtual visit were invited by email to complete a standardized, 25-item online survey, which included questions related to satisfaction and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: There were 22,278 virtual visits. When patients were asked why they contacted virtual urgent care, of the 82.7% patients who had a primary care provider, 31.0% said they could not make a timely appointment with their family physician. Rash, fever, abdominal pain, and COVID-19 vaccine queries represented 30% of the presenting complaints. Of 19,613 patients with a known disposition, 12,910 (65.8%) were discharged home and 3,179 (16.2%) were referred to the ED. Of the 2,177 survey responses, 94% rated their overall experience as 8/10 or greater. More than 80% said they had answers to all the questions they had related to their health concern, believed they were able to manage the issue, had a plan they could follow, and knew what to do if the issue got worse or came back. CONCLUSIONS: Many presenting complaints were low acuity, and most patients had a primary care provider, but timely access was not available. Future work should focus on health equity to ensure virtual care is accessible to underserved populations. We question if virtual urgent care can be safely and more economically provided by non-emergency physicians.

RéSUMé: INTRODUCTION: Dans le cadre de la réponse à la pandémie de COVID-19, le ministère de la Santé de l'Ontario a financé un programme pilote de soins virtuels visant à soutenir la réorientation vers les services d'urgence des patients présentant des problèmes de faible acuité et à réduire le besoin de contact en personne. L'objectif était de décrire les caractéristiques démographiques, les résultats et l'expérience des patients utilisant le programme pilote provincial. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte prospective de patients utilisant des services de soins virtuels fournis par 14 sites pilotes dirigés par des services d'urgence, de décembre 2020 à septembre 2021. Les patients qui ont effectué une visite virtuelle ont été invités par courriel à répondre à une enquête en ligne standardisée de 25 questions, qui comprenait des questions relatives à la satisfaction et aux résultats rapportés par les patients. RéSULTATS: Il y a eu 22 278 visites virtuelles. Lorsqu'on a demandé aux patients pourquoi ils avaient contacté les soins urgents virtuels, sur les 82,7 % de patients qui avaient un prestataire de soins primaires, 31,0 % ont répondu qu'ils n'avaient pas pu obtenir un rendez-vous en temps voulu avec leur médecin de famille. Les éruptions cutanées, la fièvre, les douleurs abdominales et les interrogations sur le vaccin COVID-19 représentaient 30 % des plaintes présentées. Sur les 19 613 patients dont la disposition était connue, 12 910 (65,8 %) ont été renvoyés chez eux et 3 179 (16,2 %) ont été orientés vers les urgences. Sur les 2 177 réponses à l'enquête, 94 % ont attribué une note de 8/10 ou plus à leur expérience globale. Plus de 80 % d'entre eux ont déclaré avoir obtenu des réponses à toutes les questions qu'ils se posaient sur leur problème de santé, se croire capables de le gérer, avoir un plan qu'ils pouvaient suivre et savoir quoi faire si le problème s'aggravait ou revenait. CONCLUSIONS: De nombreuses plaintes présentées étaient de faible acuité, et la plupart des patients avaient un fournisseur de soins primaires, mais l'accès en temps opportun n'était pas disponible. Les travaux futurs devraient se concentrer sur l'équité en matière de santé pour s'assurer que les soins virtuels sont accessibles aux populations mal desservies et nous nous demandons si ces services peuvent être fournis en toute sécurité et de manière plus économique par des médecins non urgentistes.

Sahaj Samadhi Meditation versus a Health Enhancement Program for depression in chronic pain: protocol for a randomized controlled trial and implementation evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of comorbid chronic pain and depression, this comorbidity remains understudied. Meditation has demonstrated efficacy for both chronic pain and depression independently, yet there have been few studies examining its effectiveness when both conditions are present concurrently. Furthermore, while meditation is generally accepted as a safe and effective health intervention, little is known about how to implement meditation programs within or alongside the health care system. METHODS: We will conduct a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation evaluation. To measure effectiveness, we will conduct a randomized controlled trial comparing Sahaj Samadhi Meditation and the Health Enhancement Program in 160 people living with chronic pain, clinically significant depressive symptoms, and on long-term opioid therapy. Changes in depressive symptoms will be our primary outcome; pain severity, pain-related function, opioid use, and quality of life will be the secondary outcomes. The primary end point will be at 12 weeks with a secondary end point at 24 weeks to measure the sustainability of acute effects. Patients will be recruited from a community-based chronic pain clinic in a large urban center in Mississauga, Canada. The meditation program will be delivered in the clinical environment where patients normally receive their chronic pain care by certified meditation teachers who are not regulated health care providers. We will use a mixed-methods design using the multi-level framework to understand the implementation of this particular co-location model. DISCUSSION: Results of this hybrid evaluation will add important knowledge about the effectiveness of meditation for managing depressive symptoms in people with chronic pain. The implementation evaluation will inform both effectiveness outcomes and future program development, scalability, and sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04039568. Registered on 31 July 2019.