Effectiveness of oritavancin for management of skin and soft tissue infections in the emergency department: A case series.

Skin and soft tissue infections, such as cellulitis, are commonly diagnosed in the emergency department and these patients are often admitted to the hospital for intravenous antibiotic therapy. Oritavancin is a novel antibiotic approved for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections that is administered as a one-time infusion. While oritavancin has demonstrated comparable efficacy with multi-dose parenteral antibiotics in clinical trials and has been proposed as an alternative to admission for emergency department patients, there is a paucity of available real world effectiveness data. In this case series, we describe the characteristics and outcomes of ten patients with high-risk skin and soft tissue infections who received oritavancin and were discharged from the emergency department.

Multicenter Test of an Emergency Department Trigger Tool for Detecting Adverse Events.

OBJECTIVES: Traditional approaches to safety and quality screening in the emergency department (ED) are porous and low yield for identifying adverse events (AEs). A better approach may be in the use of trigger tool methodology. We recently developed a novel ED trigger tool using a multidisciplinary, multicenter approach. We conducted a multicenter test of this tool and assess its performance. METHODS: In design and participants, we studied the ED trigger tool for a 13-month period at four EDs. All patients 18 years and older with Emergency Severity Index acuity levels of 1 to 3 seen by a provider were eligible. Reviewers completed standardized training modules. Each site reviewed 50 randomly selected visits per month. A first-level reviewer screened for presence of predefined triggers (findings that increase the probability of an AE). If no trigger is present, the review is deemed complete. When present, a trigger prompts an in-depth review for an AE. Any event identified is assigned a level of harm using the Medication Event Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index, ranging from a near miss (A) to patient death (I). Events are noted as present on arrival or in the ED, an act of commission or omission, and are assigned one of four event categories. A second-level physician performs a confirmatory review of all AEs and independently reviews 10% of cases to estimate the false-negative rate. All AEs or potential AEs were reviewed in monthly group calls for consensus on findings. The primary outcome is the proportion of visits in which an AE is identified, overall and by site. Secondary outcomes include categories of events, distribution of harm ratings, and association of AEs with sociodemographic and clinical factors and triggers. We present sociodemographic data and details about AEs and results of logistic regression for associations of AEs with of triggers, sociodemographics, and clinical variables. RESULTS: We captured 2594 visits that are representative, within site, of their patient population. Overall, the sample is 64% white, 54% female, and with a mean age of 51. Variability is observed between sites for age, race, and insurance, but not sex. A total of 240 events were identified in 228 visits (8.8%) of which 53.3% were present on arrival, 19.7% were acts of omission, and 44.6% were medication-related, with some variability across sites. A MERP F score (contributing to need for admission, higher level of care, or prolonged hospitalization) was the most common severity level (35.4% of events). Overall, 185 (77.1%) of 240 events involved patient harm (MERP level ≥ E), affecting 175 visits (6.7%). Triggers were present in 951 visits (36.6%). Presence of any trigger was strongly associated with an AE (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6, 95% confidence interval = 3.2-6.6). Ten triggers were individually associated with AEs (adjusted odds ratio = 2.1-7.7). Variability was observed across sites in individual trigger associations, event rates, and categories, but not in severity ratings of events. The overall false-negative rate was 6.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The trigger tool approach was successful in identifying meaningful events. The ED trigger tool seems to be a promising approach for identifying all-cause harm in the ED.

Effect of a split-flow physician in triage model on abdominal CT ordering rate and yield.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the rate and clinical yield of computed tomography (CT) imaging between patients presenting with abdominal pain initially seen by a physician in triage (PIT) versus those seen only by physicians working in the main emergency department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of all self-arrivals >18 years old presenting to a single ED with abdominal pain. Nine-hundred patients were randomly selected from both the PIT and traditional patient flow groups and rates and yields of CT imaging were compared, both alone and in a model controlling for potential confounders. Predetermined criteria for CT significance included need for admission, consult, or targeted medications. RESULTS: The overall rate of CT imaging (unadjusted) did not differ between the PIT and traditional groups, 48.7% (95% CI 45.4-51.9) vs. 45.1% (95% CI 41.8-48.4), respectively (p = .13). The CT yield for patients seen in in the PIT group was also similar to that of the traditional group: 49.1% (95% CI 44.4-53.8) vs. 50.5% (95% CI 45.6-55.4) (p = .68). In the logistic regression model, when controlling for age, gender, ESI-acuity, race and insurance payor, PIT vs. traditional was not a predictor of CT ordering (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with abdominal pain, we found no significant differences in rates of CT ordering or CT yield for patients seen in a PIT vs. traditional models, suggesting the increased efficiencies offered by PIT models do not come at the cost of increased or decreased imaging utilization.

Comprehensive Care Improvement for Oncologic Fever and Neutropenia from a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Introduction: Rapid time to antibiotics (TTA) for pediatric patients with fever and neutropenia in an emergency department decreases in-hospital mortality. Additionally, national guidelines recommend outpatient antibiotic management strategies for low-risk fever and neutropenia (LRFN). This study had two specific aims: (1) improve the percent of patients with suspected fever and neutropenia who receive antibiotics within 60 minutes of arrival from 55% to 90%, and (2) develop and operationalize a process for outpatient management of LRFN patients by October 2018. Methods: Using Lean methodologies, we implemented Plan-Do-Check-Act cycles focused on guideline development, electronic medical record reminders, order-set development, and a LRFN pathway as root causes for improvements. We used statistical process control charts to assess results. Results: The project conducted from July 2016 to October 2018 showed special cause improvement in December 2016 on a G-chart. Monthly Xbar-chart showed improvement in average TTA from 68.5 minutes to 42.5 minutes. A P-chart showed improvement in patients receiving antibiotics within 60 minutes, from 55% to 86.4%. A LRFN guideline and workflow was developed and implemented in October 2017. Conclusions: Implementation of guidelines, electronic medical record reminders, and order sets are useful tools to improve TTA for suspected fever and neutropenia. Utilizing more sensitive statistical process control charts early in projects with fewer patients can help recognize and guide process improvement. The development of workflows for outpatient management of LRFN may be possible, though it requires further study.

Electronic Health Record-Based Surveillance for Community Transmitted COVID-19 in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus, manifests as a respiratory syndrome (COVID-19) and is the cause of an ongoing pandemic. The response to COVID-19 in the United States has been hampered by an overall lack of diagnostic testing capacity. To address uncertainty about ongoing levels of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission early in the pandemic, we aimed to develop a surveillance tool using readily available emergency department (ED) operations data extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). This involved optimizing the identification of acute respiratory infection (ARI)-related encounters and then comparing metrics for these encounters before and after the confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. METHODS: We performed an observational study using operational EHR data from two Midwest EDs with a combined annual census of over 80,000. Data were collected three weeks before and after the first confirmed case of local SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. To optimize capture of ARI cases, we compared various metrics including chief complaint, discharge diagnoses, and ARI-related orders. Operational metrics for ARI cases, including volume, pathogen identification, and illness severity, were compared between the preand post-community transmission timeframes using chi-square tests of independence. RESULTS: Compared to our combined definition of ARI, chief complaint, discharge diagnoses, and isolation orders individually identified less than half of the cases. Respiratory pathogen testing was the top performing individual ARI definition but still only identified 72.2% of cases. From the pre to post periods, we observed significant increases in ED volumes due to ARI and ARI cases without identified pathogen. CONCLUSION: Certain methods for identifying ARI cases in the ED may be inadequate and multiple criteria should be used to optimize capture. In the absence of widely available SARS-CoV-2 testing, operational metrics for ARI-related encounters, especially the proportion of cases involving negative pathogen testing, are useful indicators for active surveillance of potential COVID-19 related ED visits.

Development of an Emergency Department Trigger Tool Using a Systematic Search and Modified Delphi Process.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an emergency department (ED) trigger tool to improve the identification of adverse events in the ED and that can be used to direct patient safety and quality improvement. This work describes the first step toward the development of an ED all-cause harm measurement tool by experts in the field. METHODS: We identified a multidisciplinary group of emergency medicine safety experts from whom we solicited candidate triggers. We then conducted a modified Delphi process consisting of 4 stages as follows: (1) a systematic literature search and review, including an independent oversampling of review for inclusion, (2) solicitation of empiric triggers from participants, (3) a Web-based survey ranking triggers on specific performance constructs, and (4) a final in-person meeting to arrive at consensus triggers for testing. Results of each step were shared with participants between each stage. RESULTS: Among an initial 804 unique articles found using our search criteria, we identified 94 that were suitable for further review. Interrater reliability was high (κ = 0.80). Review of these articles yielded 56 candidate triggers. These were supplemented by 58 participant-submitted triggers yielding a total of 114 candidate triggers that were shared with team members electronically along with their definitions. Team members then voted on each measure via a Web-based survey, ranking triggers on their face validity, utility for quality improvement, and fidelity (sensitivity/specificity). Participants were also provided the ability to flag any trigger about which they had questions or they felt merited further discussion at the in-person meeting. Triggers were ranked by combining the first 2 categories (face validity and utility), and information on fidelity was reviewed for decision making at the in-person meeting. Seven redundant triggers were eliminated. At an in-person meeting including representatives from all facilities, we presented the 50 top-ranked triggers as well as those that were flagged on the survey by 2 or more participants. We reviewed each trigger individually, identifying 41 triggers about which there was a clear agreement for inclusion. Of the seven additional triggers that required subsequent voting via e-mail, 5 were adopted, arriving at a total of 46 consensus-derived triggers. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified Delphi process resulted in the identification of 46 final triggers for the detection of adverse events among ED patients. These triggers should be pilot field tested to quantify their individual and collective performance in detecting all-cause harm to ED patients.

Description and Yield of Current Quality and Safety Review in Selected US Academic Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: Quality and safety review for performance improvement is important for systems of care and is required for US academic emergency departments (EDs). Assessment of the impact of patient safety initiatives in the context of increasing burdens of quality measurement compels standardized, meaningful, high-yield approaches for performance review. Limited data describe how quality and safety reviews are currently conducted and how well they perform in detecting patient harm and areas for improvement. We hypothesized that decades-old approaches used in many academic EDs are inefficient and low yield for identifying patient harm. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the efficiency and yield of current quality review processes at five academic EDs for a 12-month period. Sites provided descriptions of their current practice and collected summary data on the number and severity of events identified in their reviews and the referral sources that led to their capture. Categories of common referral sources were established at the beginning of the study. Sites used the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's definition in defining an adverse event and a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index for grading severity of events. RESULTS: Participating sites had similar processes for quality review, including a two-level review process, monthly reviews and conferences, similar screening criteria, and a grading system for evaluating cases. In 60 months of data collection, we reviewed a total of 4735 cases and identified 381 events. This included 287 near-misses, errors/events (MERP A-I) and 94 adverse events (AEs) (MERP E-I). The overall AE rate (event rate with harm) was 1.99 (95% confidence interval = 1.62%-2.43%), ranging from 1.24% to 3.47% across sites. The overall rate of quality concerns (events without harm) was 6.06% (5.42%-6.78%), ranging from 2.96% to 10.95% across sites. Seventy-two-hour returns were the most frequent referral source used, accounting for 47% of the cases reviewed but with a yield of only 0.81% in identifying harm. Other referral sources similarly had very low yields. External referrals were the highest yield referral source, with 14.34% (10.64%-19.03%) identifying AEs. As a percentage of the 94 AEs identified, external referrals also accounted for 41.49% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: With an overall adverse event rate of 1.99%, commonly used referral sources seem to be low yield and inefficient for detecting patient harm. Approximately 6% of the cases identified by these criteria yielded a near miss or quality concern. New approaches to quality and safety review in the ED are needed to optimize their yield and efficiency for identifying harm and areas for improvement.

What Are We Measuring? Evaluating Physician-Specific Satisfaction Scores Between Emergency Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Most emergency departments (ED) use patient experience surveys (i.e., Press Ganey) that include specific physician assessment fields. Our ED group currently staffs two EDs - one at a large, tertiary-care hospital, and the other at a small, affiliated, community site. Both are staffed by the same physicians. The goals of this study were to determine whether Press Ganey ED satisfaction scores for emergency physicians working at two different sites were consistent between sites, and to identify factors contributing to any variation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients seen at either ED between September 2015 and March 2016 who returned a Press Ganey satisfaction survey. We compiled a database linking the patient visit with his or her responses on a 1-5 scale to questions that included "overall rating of emergency room care" and five physician-specific questions. Operational metrics including time to room, time to physician, overall length of stay, labs received, prescriptions received, demographic data, and the attending physician were also linked. We averaged scores for physicians staffing both EDs and compared them between sites using t-tests. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine the impact of visit-specific metrics on survey scores. RESULTS: A total of 1,012 ED patients met the inclusion criteria (site 1=457; site 2=555). The overall rating-of-care metric was significantly lower at the tertiary-care hospital ED compared to our lower volume ED (4.30 vs 4.65). The same trend was observed when the five doctor-specific metrics were summed (22.06 vs 23.32). Factors that correlated with higher scores included arrival-to-first-attending time (p=0.013) and arrival-to-ED-departure time (p=0.038), both of which were longer at the tertiary-care hospital ED. CONCLUSION: Press Ganey satisfaction scores for the same group of emergency physicians varied significantly between sites. This suggests that these scores are more dependent on site-specific factors, such as wait times, than a true representation of the quality of care provided by the physician.

Critical Review, Development, and Testing of a Taxonomy for Adverse Events and Near Misses in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: An adverse event (AE) is a physical harm experienced by a patient due to health care, requiring intervention. Describing and categorizing AEs is important for quality and safety assessment and identifying areas for improvement. Safety science suggests that improvement efforts should focus on preventing and mitigating harm rather than on error, which is commonplace but infrequently leads to AEs. Most taxonomies fail to describe harm experienced by patients (e.g., hypoxia, hemorrhage, anaphylaxis), focusing instead on errors, and use categorizations that are too broad to be useful (e.g., "communication error"). We set out to create a patient-centered, emergency department (ED)-specific framework for describing AEs and near misses to advance quality and safety in the acute care setting. METHODS: We performed a critical review of existing taxonomies of harm, evaluating their applicability to the ED. We identified and adopted a classification framework and developed a taxonomy using an iterative process categorizing approximately 600 previously identified AEs and near misses. We reviewed this taxonomy with collaborators at four medical centers, receiving feedback and providing clarification. We then disseminated a set of representative scenarios for these safety experts to categorize independently using the taxonomy. We calculated interrater reliability and performance compared to our criterion standard. RESULTS: Our search identified candidate taxonomies for detailed review. We selected the Adventist Health Systems AE taxonomy and modified this for use in the ED, adopting a framework of categories, subcategories, and up to three modifiers to further describe events. On testing, overall reviewer agreement with the criterion standard was 92% at the category level and 88% at the subcategory level. Three of the four raters concurred in 55 of 59 scenarios (93%) and all four concurred in 46 of 59 scenarios (78%). At the subcategory level, there was complete agreement in 40 of 59 (68%) scenarios and majority agreement in 55 of 59 instances (93%). Performance of individual raters ranged from very good (88%, 52/59) to near perfect (98%, 58/59) at the main category level. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a taxonomy of AEs and near misses for the ED, modified from an existing framework. Testing of the tool with minimal training yielded high performance and good inter-rater reliability. This taxonomy can be adapted and modified by EDs seeking to enhance their quality and safety reviews and characterize harm occurring in their EDs for quality improvement purposes.

By Default: The Effect of Prepopulated Prescription Quantities on Opioid Prescribing in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid prescribing patterns have come under increasing scrutiny with the recent rise in opioid prescriptions, opioid misuse and abuse, and opioid-related adverse events. To date, there have been limited studies on the effect of default tablet quantities as part of emergency department (ED) electronic order entry. Our goal was to evaluate opioid prescribing patterns before and after the removal of a default quantity of 20 tablets from ED electronic order entry. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study at a single academic, urban ED with 58,000 annual visits. We identified all adult patients (18 years or older) seen in the ED and discharged home with prescriptions for tablet forms of hydrocodone and oxycodone (including mixed formulations with acetaminophen). We compared the quantity of tablets prescribed per opioid prescription 12 months before and 10 months after the electronic order-entry prescription default quantity of 20 tablets was removed and replaced with no default quantity. No specific messaging was given to providers, to avoid influencing prescribing patterns. We used two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test, two-sample test of proportions, and Pearson's chi-squared tests where appropriate for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 4,104 adult patients received discharge prescriptions for opioids in the pre-intervention period (151.6 prescriptions per 1,000 discharged adult patients), and 2,464 post-intervention (106.69 prescriptions per 1,000 discharged adult patients). The median quantity of opioid tablets prescribed decreased from 20 (interquartile ration [IQR] 10-20) to 15 (IQR 10-20) (p<0.0001) after removal of the default quantity. While the most frequent quantity of tablets received in both groups was 20 tablets, the proportion of patients who received prescriptions on discharge that contained 20 tablets decreased from 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.48-0.52]) to 0.23 (95% CI [0.21-0.24]) (p<0.001) after default quantity removal. CONCLUSION: Although the median number of tablets differed significantly before and after the intervention, the clinical significance of this is unclear. An observed wider distribution of the quantity of tablets prescribed after removal of the default quantity of 20 may reflect more appropriate prescribing patterns (i.e., less severe indications receiving fewer tabs and more severe indications receiving more). A default value of 20 tablets for opioid prescriptions may be an example of the electronic medical record's ability to reduce practice variability in medication orders actually counteracting optimal patient care.

Pardon the Interruption(s)-Enabling a Safer Emergency Department Sign Out.

INTRODUCTION: Patient "handoffs" or "sign outs" in medicine are widely recognized as highly vulnerable times for medical errors to occur. The Emergency Department (ED) has been identified as an environment where these transitions of care at shift changes are particularly high-risk due to a variety of factors, including frequent interruptions, which can further lead to errors in transfer of information. Our primary objective was to evaluate whether simple interventions could minimize interruptions during the sign out period in an attempt to improve patient safety. METHODS: Multiple low-cost interventions were implemented, including an overhead chime, clerical staff diversion of phone calls and electrocardiograms, and prominent positioning of a movable pedestal sign. Utilizing a before-and-after study design, we directly observed team sign outs at various shift changes throughout the day over 2-month periods before and after implementation. Our primary outcome measure was the number of interruptions that occurred during designated sign out times. We also assessed total time spent in sign out, and a survey was sent to clinicians to assess their perception of sign out safety. RESULTS: Total sign out interruptions were significantly decreased as a result of the above-noted interventions (average 6.1 vs 1.1; P < 0.01). Total time spent during sign out was reduced (14.1 vs 11.4 minutes; P < 0.04), and clinicians' perception of safety improved significantly, with Likert scores of 4 or 5 on a 5 point scale increasing from 47.4% before to 91.7% after implementation. CONCLUSION: Patient sign out at shift change is a vulnerable time for patient safety and transition of care with interruptions further compromising the safe transfer of information. Simple interventions significantly decreased interruptions and were associated with shorter sign out periods and improved provider perception of sign out safety.

The Impact of an Emergency Department Front-End Redesign on Patient-Reported Satisfaction Survey Results.

INTRODUCTION: For emergency department (ED) patients, delays in care are associated with decreased satisfaction. Our department focused on implementing a front-end vertical patient flow model aimed to decrease delays in care, especially care initiation. The physical space for this new model was termed the Flexible Care Area (FCA). The purpose of this study was to quantify the impact of this intervention on patient satisfaction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients discharged from our academic ED over a one-year period (7/1/2013-6/30/2014). Of the 34,083 patients discharged during that period, 14,075 were sent a Press-Ganey survey and 2,358 (16.8%) returned the survey. We subsequently compared these survey responses with clinical information available through our electronic health record (EHR). Responses from the Press-Ganey surveys were dichotomized as being "Very Good" (VG, the highest rating) or "Other" (for all other ratings). Data abstracted from the EHR included demographic information (age, gender) and operational information (e.g. - emergency severity index, length of stay, whether care was delivered entirely in the FCA, utilization of labs or radiology testing, or administration of opioid pain medications). We used Fisher's exact test to calculate statistical differences in proportions, while the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to report odds ratios. RESULTS: Of the returned surveys, 62% rated overall care for the visit as VG. However, fewer patients reported their care as VG if they were seen in FCA (53.4% versus 63.2%, p=0.027). Patients seen in FCA were less likely to have advanced imaging performed (12% versus 23.8%, p=0.001) or labs drawn (24.8% vs. 59.1%, p=0.001). Length of stay (FCA mean 159 ±103.5 minutes versus non-FCA 223 ±117 minutes) and acuity were lower for FCA patients than non-FCA patients (p=0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between patient-reported ratings of physicians or nurses when comparing patients seen in FCA vs. those not seen in FCA. CONCLUSION: Patients seen through the FCA reported a lower overall rating of care compared to patients not seen in the FCA. This occurred despite a shorter overall length of stay for these patients, suggesting that other factors have a meaningful impact on patient satisfaction.

Antimicrobial Stewardship in the Management of Sepsis.

Sepsis represents a unique clinical dilemma with regard to antimicrobial stewardship. The standard approach to suspected sepsis in the emergency department centers on fluid resuscitation and timely broad-spectrum antimicrobials. The lack of gold standard diagnostics and evolving definitions for sepsis introduce a significant degree of diagnostic uncertainty that may raise the potential for inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing. Intervention bundles that combine traditional quality improvement strategies with emerging electronic health record-based clinical decision support tools and rapid molecular diagnostics represent the most promising approach to enhancing antimicrobial stewardship in the management of suspected sepsis in the emergency department.

Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy: Factors Associated with ED Revisits.

INTRODUCTION: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is a condition that commonly affects women in the first trimester of pregnancy. Despite frequently leading to emergency department (ED) visits, little evidence exists to characterize the nature of ED visits or to guide its treatment in the ED. Our objectives were to evaluate the treatment of NVP in the ED and to identify factors that predict return visits to the ED for NVP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database analysis using the electronic medical record from a single, large academic hospital. Demographic and treatment variables were collected using a chart review of 113 ED patient visits with a billing diagnosis of "nausea and vomiting in pregnancy" or "hyperemesis gravidarum." Logistic regression analysis was used with a primary outcome of return visit to the ED for the same diagnoses. RESULTS: There was wide treatment variability of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy patients in the ED. Of the 113 patient visits, 38 (33.6%) had a return ED visit for NVP. High gravidity (OR 1.31, 95% CI [1.06-1.61]), high parity (OR 1.50 95% CI [1.12-2.00]), and early gestational age (OR 0.74 95% CI [0.60-0.90]) were associated with an increase in return ED visits in univariate logistic regression models, while only early gestational age (OR 0.74 95% CI [0.59-0.91]) was associated with increased return ED visits in a multiple regression model. Admission to the hospital was found to decrease the likelihood of return ED visits (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: NVP can be difficult to manage and has a high ED return visit rate. Optimizing care with aggressive, standardized treatment in the ED and upon discharge, particularly if factors predictive of return ED visits are present, may improve quality of care and reduce ED utilization for this condition.

Trends in Stranding and By-Catch Rates of Gray and Harbor Seals along the Northeastern Coast of the United States: Evidence of Divergence in the Abundance of Two Sympatric Phocid Species?

Harbor seals and gray seals are sympatric phocid pinnipeds found in coastal waters of the temperate and sub-Arctic North Atlantic. In the Northwest Atlantic, both species were depleted through a combination of subsistence hunts and government supported bounties, and are now re-occupying substantial portions of their original ranges. While both species appear to have recovered during the past 2 decades, our understanding of their population dynamics in US waters is incomplete. Here we describe trends in stranding and bycatch rates of harbor and gray seals in the North East United States (NEUS) over the past 16 years through an exploratory curve-fitting exercise and structural break-point analysis. Variability in gray seal strandings in Southern New England and bycatch in the Northeast Sink Gillnet Fishery were best described by fitting positive exponential and linear models, and exhibited rates of increase as high as 22%. In contrast, neither linear nor exponential models fit the oscillation of harbor seal strandings and bycatch over the study period. However, a breakpoint Chow test revealed that harbor seal strandings in the Cape Cod, Massachusetts region and harbor seal bycatch in the Northeast Sink Gillnet Fishery increased in the 1990s and then started declining in the early to mid-2000s. Our analysis indicates that ongoing variation in natural and anthropogenic mortality rates of harbor and gray seals in the NEUS is not synchronous, and likely represents diverging trends in abundance of these species as they assume new roles in the marine ecosystems of the region.

Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in the emergency department: case series and literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome (PRES) often has variable presentations and causes, with common radiographic features-namely posterior white matter changes on magnetic resonance (MRI). As MRI becomes a more frequently utilized imaging modality in the Emergency Department, PRES will become an entity that the Emergency Physician must be aware of and be able to diagnose. CASE REPORT: We report three cases of PRES, all of which presented to the emergency department of a single academic medical center over a short period of time, including a 53-year-old woman with only relative hypertension, a 69-year-old woman who ultimately died, and a 46-year-old woman who had a subsequent intraparenchymal hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: PRES is likely much more common than previously thought and is a diagnosis that should be considered in a wide variety of emergency department patient presentations.

Mind the (knowledge) gap: the effect of a communication instrument on emergency department patients' comprehension of and satisfaction with care.

OBJECTIVES: We developed a communication instrument to be used in the Emergency Department (ED) and hypothesized that use of this guide would increase patient comprehension of and satisfaction with care. METHODS: This multi-site trial enrolled 643 patients in treatment and control groups. Comprehension of care was assessed by chart review and satisfaction measured via validated survey. RESULTS: Use of the instrument was not associated with improvements in patient knowledge about their care, with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 4.8-5.8) comprehension defects in the control group and 4.4 (95% CI: 3.9-4.9) in the treatment group. There was no significant effect on patient satisfaction 76.4% versus 76.9%, p=0.34. Elderly patients in both groups were found to have 1.1 (p<0.01) more knowledge gaps than younger patients. CONCLUSION: Patients frequently misunderstand medical care in the ED. Comprehension decreases with increasing age. An isolated communication instrument does not improve satisfaction with or understanding of the care received. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providing a structured place for providers and patients to record details of care does not seem to improve satisfaction with or comprehension of care. Interventions that focus on communication skills and face time with patients may prove more effective.

You've got mail and need follow-up: the effect and patient perception of e-mail follow-up reminders after emergency department discharge.

OBJECTIVES: The hypothesis was that a reminder about recommended primary care physician (PCP) follow-up, sent via e-mail to patients discharged from the emergency department (ED), would increase the proportion of patients who followed up with their PCPs within the recommended time frame. Patient receptiveness to e-mail follow-up reminders was also assessed. METHODS: This was a mixed methods clinical intervention study with subjects randomized either to receive the usual care discharge instructions only or to also receive a reminder e-mail message the day after the ED visit. The reminder e-mail contained the subject's PCP's name and address and the recommended PCP follow-up time interval. A blinded review of outpatient PCP medical records was conducted to determine whether and when follow-up occurred. Researchers attempted to contact patients with a telephone survey 2 weeks after their ED visits. The primary outcomes between groups were compared using chi-square tests and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of the intervention group and 32% of the control group followed-up as recommended (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.81 to 1.33); 52% of the intervention group and 48% of the control group followed-up within 10 days of the recommended time (RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.29). The 334 patients (57%) successfully contacted via telephone demonstrated a high interest in receiving future e-mail reminders (75%), with the group that received e-mail reminders more likely to want one in the future than those who did not receive e-mail reminders (82.5% vs. 69.76%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: E-mail reminders sent after ED visits did not improve patients' adherence to the recommended timing of primary care follow-up contained in discharge instructions. Subjects in both the control and the intervention groups favorably viewed the concept of e-mail reminders, suggesting that the value of e-mail reminders after ED discharge may be in areas such as patient satisfaction that were not specifically targeted for measurement in this study.