Single-operator ultrasound-guided intravenous line placement by emergency nurses reduces the need for physician intervention in patients with difficult-to-establish intravenous access.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians (EPs) have become facile with ultrasound-guided intravenous line (USIV) placement in patients for whom access is difficult to achieve, though the procedure can distract the EP from other patient care activities. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that adequately trained Emergency Nurses (ENs) can effectively perform single-operator USIV placement with less physician intervention than is required with blind techniques. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter pilot study. Interested ENs received a 2-h tutorial from an experienced EP. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had either two failed blind peripheral intravenous (i.v.) attempts, or if they reported or had a known history of difficult i.v. placement. Consenting patients were assigned to have either EN USIV placement or standard of care (SOC). RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled, of which 29 were assigned to USIV and 21 to SOC. There were no significant differences in age, race, gender, or reason for inclusion. Physicians were called to assist in 11/21 (52.4%) of SOC cases and 7/29 (24.1%) of USIV cases (p = 0.04). Mean time to i.v. placement (USIV 27.6 vs. SOC 26.4 minutes, p = 0.88) and the number of skin punctures (USIV 2.0 vs. SOC 2.1, p = 0.70) were not significantly different. Patient satisfaction was higher in the USIV group, though the difference did not reach statistical significance (USIV 86.2% vs. SOC 63.2%, p = 0.06). Patient perception of pain on a 10-point scale was also similar (USIV 4.9 vs. SOC 5.5, p = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: ENs performing single-operator USIV placement in patients with difficult-to-establish i.v. access reduces the need for EP intervention.

How (un)useful is the pelvic ring stability examination in diagnosing mechanically unstable pelvic fractures in blunt trauma patients?

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to evaluate the utility of the pelvic ring stability examination for detection of mechanically unstable pelvic fractures in blunt trauma patients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review. RESULTS: We enrolled 1,502 consecutive blunt trauma patients and found 115 patients with pelvic fractures including 34 patients with unstable pelvic fractures (Tile classification B and C). Unstable pelvic ring on physical examination had a sensitivity and specificity of 8% (95% CI 4-14) and 99% (95% CI 99-100), respectively, for detection of any pelvic fracture and 26% (95% CI 15-43) and 99.9% (95% 99-100), respectively, for detection of mechanically unstable pelvic fractures. The sensitivity and specificity of pelvic pain or tenderness in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale >13 were 74% (95% CI 64-82) and 97% (95% CI 96-98), respectively for diagnosing any pelvic fractures, and 100% (95% CI 85-100) and 93% (95% CI 92-95), respectively for diagnosing of mechanically unstable pelvic fractures. The sensitivity and specificity of the presence of pelvic deformity were 30% (95% CI 22-39) and 98% (95% CI 98-99), respectively for detection of any pelvic fracture and 55% (95% CI 38-70) and 97% (95% CI 96-98), respectively for detection of mechanically unstable pelvic fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of either pelvic deformity or unstable pelvic ring on physical examination has poor sensitivity for detection of mechanically unstable pelvic fractures in blunt trauma patients. Our study suggests that blunt trauma patients with Glasgow Coma Scale >13 and without pelvic pain or tenderness are unlikely to suffer an unstable pelvic fracture. A prospective study is needed to determine whether a set of clinical criteria can safely detect or exclude the presence of an unstable pelvic fracture.

Lack of evidence to support routine digital rectal examination in pediatric trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Current advanced trauma life support guidelines recommend that a digital rectal examination (DRE) should be performed as part of the initial evaluation of all trauma patients. Our primary goal was to estimate the test characteristics of the DRE in pediatric patients for the following injuries: (1) spinal cord injuries, (2) bowel injuries, (3) rectal injuries, (4) pelvic fractures, and (5) urethral disruptions. METHODS: We conducted a nonconcurrent, observational, chart review study of a consecutive series of pediatric trauma patients. We enrolled all patients younger than 18 years seen in our ED from January 2003 to February 2005, for whom the trauma team was activated and who had a documented DRE. For each patient, we reviewed all available clinical documents in a computerized medical record system to identify the DRE findings followed by review of radiological reports, operative reports, and discharge summaries to identify specific injuries. RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen patients met our selection criteria and were included in the analysis. We identified 3 patients with spinal cord injury (1% prevalence), 13 patients with bowel injury (6%), 5 patients with rectal injury (2%), 12 patients with a pelvic fracture (6%), and 1 patient with urethral disruption (0.5%). The DRE failed to diagnose (false-negative rate) 66% of spinal cord injuries, 100% of bowel injuries, 100% of rectal wall injuries, 100% of pelvic fractures, and 100% of urethral disruption injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The DRE has poor sensitivity for the diagnosis of spinal cord, bowel, rectal, bony pelvis, and urethral injuries. Our findings suggest that the DRE should not be routinely used in pediatric trauma patients.

Poor test characteristics for the digital rectal examination in trauma patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Current advanced trauma life support guidelines recommend that a digital rectal examination be performed as part of the initial evaluation of all trauma patients. Our goal is to estimate the test characteristics of the digital rectal examination in trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective medical record review study of consecutive trauma patients treated in our emergency department from January 2003 to February 2005 for whom the trauma team was activated and who had a documented digital rectal examination. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred one patients met our selection criteria and were included in the analysis. We estimated the composite sensitivity of the digital rectal examination (any abnormal finding) for detecting any of the index injuries to be 22.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16% to 30%) and the specificity to be 94.7% (95% CI 93% to 96%). The calculated sensitivity and specificity for the digital rectal examination were 37% (95% CI 23% to 50%) and 96% (95% CI 95% to 97%), respectively, for detection of spinal cord injury, 5.7% (95% CI 0% to 13%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98% to 99%) for detection of bowel injury, 33.3% (95% CI 0% to 87%) and 99.8% (95% CI 99% to 100%) for detection of rectal injury, 0% and 99.8% (95% CI 99% to 100%) for detection of pelvic fracture, and 20% (95% CI 0% to 55%) and 99% (95% CI 98% to 100%) for detection of urethral disruption. CONCLUSION: The digital rectal examination has poor sensitivity for the diagnosis of spinal cord, bowel, rectal, bony pelvis, and urethral injuries. Our findings suggest that the digital rectal examination should not be used as a screening tool for detecting injuries in trauma patients.