CAEP 2015 Academic Symposium: Leadership within the emergency medicine academic community and beyond.

OBJECTIVES: A panel of emergency medicine (EM) leaders endeavoured to define the key elements of leadership and its models, as well as to formulate consensus recommendations to build and strengthen academic leadership in the Canadian EM community in the areas of mentorship, education, and resources. METHODS: The expert panel comprised EM leaders from across Canada and met regularly by teleconference over the course of 9 months. From the breadth of backgrounds and experience, as well as a literature review and the development of a leadership video series, broad themes for recommendations around the building and strengthening of EM leadership were presented at the CAEP 2015 Academic Symposium held in Edmonton, Alberta. Feedback from the attendees (about 80 emergency physicians interested in leadership) was sought. Subsequently, draft recommendations were developed by the panel through attendee feedback, further review of the leadership video series, and expert opinion. The recommendations were distributed to the CAEP Academic Section for further feedback and updated by consensus of the expert panel. RESULTS: The methods informed the panel who framed recommendations around four themes: 1) leadership preparation and training, 2) self-reflection/emotional intelligence, 3) academic leadership skills, and 4) gender balance in academic EM leadership. The recommendations aimed to support and nurture the next generation of academic EM leaders in Canada and included leadership mentors, availability of formal educational courses/programs in leadership, self-directed education of aspiring leaders, creation of a Canadian subgroup with the AACEM/SAEM Chair Development Program, and gender balance in leadership roles. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations serve as a roadmap for all EM leaders (and aspiring leaders) to build on their success, inspire their colleagues, and foster the next generation of Canadian EM academic leaders.

A prospective cluster-randomized trial to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule in emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian CT Head Rule was developed to allow physicians to be more selective when ordering computed tomography (CT) imaging for patients with minor head injury. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing this validated decision rule at multiple emergency departments. METHODS: We conducted a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial that compared the outcomes of 4531 patients with minor head injury during two 12-month periods (before and after) at hospital emergency departments in Canada, six of which were randomly allocated as intervention sites and six as control sites. At the intervention sites, active strategies, including education, changes to policy and real-time reminders on radiologic requisitions were used to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule. The main outcome measure was referral for CT scan of the head. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of patients were similar when comparing control to intervention sites. At the intervention sites, the proportion of patients referred for CT imaging increased from the "before" period (62.8%) to the "after" period (76.2%) (difference +13.3%, 95% CI 9.7%-17.0%). At the control sites, the proportion of CT imaging usage also increased, from 67.5% to 74.1% (difference +6.7%, 95% CI 2.6%-10.8%). The change in mean imaging rates from the "before" period to the "after" period for intervention versus control hospitals was not significant (p = 0.16). There were no missed brain injuries or adverse outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Our knowledge-translation-based trial of the Canadian CT Head Rule did not reduce rates of CT imaging in Canadian emergency departments. Future studies should identify strategies to deal with barriers to implementation of this decision rule and explore more effective approaches to knowledge translation. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00993252).

Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: prevalence in skin and soft tissue infections at emergency departments in the Greater Toronto Area and associated risk factors.

OBJECTIVE: Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA), which is caused primarily by the Canadian methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-10 (CMRSA-10) strain (also known as the USA300 strain) has emerged rapidly in the United States and is now emerging in Canada. We assessed the prevalence, risk factors, microbiological characteristics and outcomes of CA-MRSA in patients with purulent skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) presenting to emergency departments (EDs) in the Greater Toronto Area. METHODS: Patients with Staphylococcus aureus SSTIs who presented to 7 EDs between Mar. 1 and Jun. 30, 2007, were eligible for inclusion in this study. Antimicrobial susceptibilities and molecular characteristics of MRSA strains were identified. Demographic, risk factor and clinical data were collected through telephone interviews. RESULTS: MRSA was isolated from 58 (19%) of 299 eligible patients. CMRSA-10 was identified at 6 of the 7 study sites and accounted for 29 (50%) of all cases of MRSA. Telephone interviews were completed for 161 of the eligible patients. Individuals with CMRSA-10 were younger (median 34 v. 63 yr, p = 0.002), less likely to report recent antibiotic use (22% v. 67%, p = 0.046) or health care-related risk factors (33% v. 72%, p = 0.097) and more likely to report community-related risk factors (56% v. 6%, p = 0.008) than patients with other MRSA strains. CMRSA-10 SSTIs were treated with incision and drainage (1 patient), antibiotic therapy (3 patients) or both (5 patients), and all resolved. CMRSA-10 isolates were susceptible to clindamycin, tetracycline and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. CONCLUSION: CA-MRSA is a significant cause of SSTIs in the Greater Toronto Area, and can affect patients without known community-related risk factors. The changing epidemiology of CA-MRSA necessitates further surveillance to inform prevention strategies and empiric treatment guidelines.

Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule: prospective 12 centre cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an active strategy to implement the validated Canadian C-Spine Rule into multiple emergency departments. DESIGN: Matched pair cluster randomised trial. SETTING: University and community emergency departments in Canada. Participants 11 824 alert and stable adults presenting with blunt trauma to the head or neck at one of 12 hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Six hospitals were randomly allocated to the intervention and six to the control. At the intervention sites, active strategies were used to implement the Canadian C-Spine Rule, including education, policy, and real time reminders on radiology requisitions. No specific intervention was introduced to alter the behaviour of doctors requesting cervical spine imaging at the control sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic imaging rate of the cervical spine during two 12 month before and after periods. RESULTS: Patients were balanced between control and intervention sites. From the before to the after periods, the intervention group showed a relative reduction in cervical spine imaging of 12.8% (95% confidence interval 9% to 16%; 61.7% v 53.3%; P=0.01) and the control group a relative increase of 12.5% (7% to 18%; 52.8% v 58.9%; P=0.03). These changes were significant when both groups were compared (P<0.001). No fractures were missed and no adverse outcomes occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule led to a significant decrease in imaging without injuries being missed or patient morbidity. Final imaging rates were much lower at intervention sites than at most US hospitals. Widespread implementation of this rule could lead to reduced healthcare costs and more efficient patient flow in busy emergency departments worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials NCT00290875.

Comparison of the 20-hour intravenous and 72-hour oral acetylcysteine protocols for the treatment of acute acetaminophen poisoning.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes after acute acetaminophen poisoning in 2 large cohorts of patients treated with either the 20-hour intravenous or 72-hour oral acetylcysteine protocol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with historical control comparing patients treated with one of 2 acetylcysteine regimens. Data for the 20-hour group were obtained from a medical record review of patients on whom the 20-hour intravenous protocol was initiated in Canadian hospitals from 1980 to 2005. The 72-hour group consisted of a historical cohort of patients treated in US hospitals with the 72-hour oral protocol from 1976 to 1985. The primary outcome was hepatotoxicity (aminotransferase levels >1,000 IU/L). RESULTS: Of the 4,048 patients analyzed, 2,086 were in the 20-hour group and 1,962 were in the 72-hour group. The incidence of hepatotoxicity was 13.9% in the 20-hour group and 15.8% in the 72-hour group (-1.9% absolute difference; 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.2 to 0.3). The relative risk of hepatotoxicity was lower in the 20-hour group when acetylcysteine was initiated within 12 hours of ingestion. The relative risk was lower in the 72-hour group when acetylcysteine was initiated later than 18 hours after ingestion. There was no significant risk difference between groups when acetylcysteine treatment was started 12 to 18 hours after ingestion. One patient in the 20-hour group received a liver transplant and died because of acetaminophen toxicity compared with no liver transplants and 3 deaths in the 72-hour group. Anaphylactoid reactions to intravenous acetylcysteine were reported in 148 of 2,086 patients (7.1%; 95% CI 6.1% to 8.3%). This study is limited by comparison of 2 separate data sets from different countries and study years. CONCLUSION: The risk of hepatotoxicity differed between the 20-hour and 72-hour protocols according to the time to initiation of acetylcysteine. It favored the 20-hour protocol for patients presenting early and favored the 72-hour protocol for patients presenting late after acute acetaminophen overdose.

SARS assessment clinic: a rapid response to an infectious outbreak.

The Toronto SARS outbreak began in February 2003 and lasted more than 16 weeks. The city and its health care system faced enormous challenges in responding to this new infectious disease, learning about its transmission, diagnosis and treatment, in containing its spread and in coping with its socioeconomic impact. As the site of a significant cluster of cases in the second wave of the outbreak, North York General Hospital (NYGH) quickly adapted many components of its operations, focusing on the fight against SARS. In order to assess potential SARS cases in a safe, efficient and effective manner, NYGH established a SARS assessment clinic. We describe the design features, construction, layout and operation of this clinic. This type of clinic can be rapidly deployed and may be of great value during future infectious outbreaks, including pandemic influenza.

Hospital preparedness and SARS.

On May 23, 2003, Toronto experienced the second phase of a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak. Ninety cases were confirmed, and >620 potential cases were managed. More than 9,000 persons had contact with confirmed or potential case-patients; many required quarantine. The main hospital involved during the second outbreak was North York General Hospital. We review this hospital's response to, and management of, this outbreak, including such factors as building preparation and engineering, personnel, departmental workload, policies and documentation, infection control, personal protective equipment, training and education, public health, management and administration, follow-up of SARS patients, and psychological and psychosocial management and research. We also make recommendations for other institutions to prepare for future outbreaks, regardless of their origin.

Sterile versus nonsterile gloves for repair of uncomplicated lacerations in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although sterile technique for laceration management continues to be recommended, studies supporting this practice are lacking. Using clean nonsterile gloves rather than individually packaged sterile gloves for uncomplicated wound repair in the emergency department may result in cost and time savings. This study is designed to determine whether the rate of infection after repair of uncomplicated lacerations in immunocompetent patients is comparable using clean nonsterile gloves versus sterile gloves. METHODS: A prospective multicenter trial enrolled 816 individuals who were randomized to have their wounds repaired by using sterile or clean nonsterile gloves. The attending physician or resident completed a checklist describing patient, wound, and management characteristics. The patients were provided with a questionnaire to be completed by the physician who removed their sutures at the prescribed time and indicated the presence or absence of infection. When follow-up forms were not returned, a telephone call was made to the patient to determine whether he or she had experienced any wound complications. RESULTS: Follow-up was obtained for 98% of the sterile gloves group and 96.6% of the clean gloves group. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infection between the 2 groups. The infection rate in the sterile gloves group was 6.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8% to 8.4%) and was 4.4% in the clean gloves group (95% CI 2.4% to 6.4%). The relative risk of infection was 1.37 (95% CI 0.75 to 2.52). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that there is no clinically important difference in infection rates between using clean nonsterile gloves and sterile gloves during the repair of uncomplicated traumatic lacerations.