Psychometric validation of a patient-reported experience measure for older adults attending the emergency department: the PREM-ED 65 study.

INTRODUCTION: Optimising emergency department (ED) patient experience is vital to ensure care quality. However, there are few validated instruments to measure the experiences of specific patient groups, including older adults. We previously developed a draft 82-item Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM-ED 65) for adults ≥65 attending the ED. This study aimed to derive a final item list and provide initial validation of the PREM-ED 65 survey. METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving patients in 18 EDs in England. Adults aged 65 years or over, deemed eligible for ED discharge, were recruited between May and August 2021 and asked to complete the 82-item PREM at the end of the ED visit and 7-10 days post discharge. Test-retest reliability was assessed 7-10 days following initial attendance. Analysis included descriptive statistics, including per-item proportions of responses, hierarchical item reduction, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability testing and assessment of criterion validity. RESULTS: Five hundred and ten initial surveys and 52 retest surveys were completed. The median respondent age was 76. A similar gender mix (men 47.5% vs women 50.7%) and reason for attendance (40.3% injury vs 49.0% illness) was observed. Most participants self-reported their ethnicity as white (88.6%).Hierarchical item reduction identified 53/82 (64.6%) items for exclusion, due to inadequate engagement (n=33), ceiling effects (n=5), excessive inter-item correlation (n=12) or significant differential validity (n=3). Twenty-nine items were retained.EFA revealed 25 out of the 29 items demonstrating high factor loadings (>0.4) across four scales with an Eigenvalue >1. These scales were interpreted as measuring 'relational care', 'the ED environment', 'staying informed' and 'pain assessment'. Cronbach alpha for the scales ranged from 0.786 to 0.944, indicating good internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was adequate (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.67). Criterion validity was fair (r=0.397) when measured against the Friends and Families Test question. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometric testing demonstrates that the 25-item PREM-ED 65 is suitable for administration to adults ≥65 years old up to 10 days following ED discharge.

The RELIEF feasibility trial: topical lidocaine patches in older adults with rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Lidocaine patches, applied over rib fractures, may reduce pulmonary complications in older patients. Known barriers to recruiting older patients in emergency settings necessitate a feasibility trial. We aimed to establish whether a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating lidocaine patches in older patients with rib fracture(s) was feasible. METHODS: This was a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, feasibility RCT in seven hospitals in England and Scotland. Patients aged ≥65 years, presenting to ED with traumatic rib fracture(s) requiring hospital admission were randomised to receive up to 3×700 mg lidocaine patches (Ralvo), first applied in ED and then once daily for 72 hours in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, retention and adherence. Clinical end points (pulmonary complications, pain and frailty-specific outcomes) and patient questionnaires were collected to determine feasibility of data collection and inform health economic scoping. Interviews and focus groups with trial participants and clinicians/research staff explored the understanding and acceptability of trial processes. RESULTS: Between October 23, 2021 and October 7, 2022, 206 patients were eligible, of whom 100 (median age 83 years; IQR 74-88) were randomised; 48 to lidocaine patches and 52 to standard care. Pulmonary complications at 30 days were determined in 86% of participants and 83% of expected 30-day questionnaires were returned. Pulmonary complications occurred in 48% of the lidocaine group and 59% in standard care. Pain and some frailty-specific outcomes were not feasible to collect. Staff reported challenges in patient compliance, unfamiliarity with research measures and overwhelming the patients with research procedures. CONCLUSION: Recruitment of older patients with rib fracture(s) in an emergency setting for the evaluation of lidocaine patches is feasible. Refinement of data collection, with a focus on the collection of pain, frailty-specific outcomes and intervention delivery are needed before progression to a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14813929.

Cervical spine immobilisation following blunt trauma in pre-hospital and emergency care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether different cervical spine immobilisation strategies (full immobilisation, movement minimisation or no immobilisation), impact neurological and/or other outcomes for patients with suspected cervical spinal injury in the pre-hospital and emergency department setting. DESIGN: Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until September 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All comparative studies (prospective or retrospective) that examined the potential benefits and/or harms of immobilisation practices during pre-hospital and emergency care of patients with a potential cervical spine injury (pre-imaging) following blunt trauma. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. Data were synthesised without meta-analysis. RESULTS: Six observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was variable, with most studies having serious or critical risk of bias. The effect of cervical spine immobilisation practices such as full immobilisation or movement minimisation during pre-hospital and emergency care did not show clear evidence of benefit for the prevention of neurological deterioration, spinal injuries and death compared with no immobilisation. However, increased pain, discomfort and anatomical complications were associated with collar application during immobilisation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited evidence, weak designs and limited generalisability, the available data suggest that pre-hospital cervical spine immobilisation (full immobilisation or movement minimisation) was of uncertain value due to the lack of demonstrable benefit and may lead to potential complications and adverse outcomes. High-quality randomised comparative studies are required to address this important question. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO REGISTRATION Fiona Lecky, Abdullah Pandor, Munira Essat, Anthea Sutton, Carl Marincowitz, Gordon Fuller, Stuart Reid, Jason Smith. A systematic review of cervical spine immobilisation following blunt trauma in pre-hospital and emergency care. PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022349600 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022349600.

The SWiFT trial (Study of Whole Blood in Frontline Trauma)-the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-hospital whole blood versus standard care in patients with life-threatening traumatic haemorrhage: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early blood transfusion improves survival in patients with life-threatening bleeding, but the optimal transfusion strategy in the pre-hospital setting has yet to be established. Although there is some evidence of benefit with the use of whole blood, there have been no randomised controlled trials exploring the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of whole blood versus component therapy for trauma patients with life-threatening bleeding. The aim of this trial is to determine whether pre-hospital leukocyte-depleted whole blood transfusion is better than standard care (blood component transfusion) in reducing the proportion of participants who experience death or massive transfusion at 24 h. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Patients of any age will be eligible if they have suffered major traumatic haemorrhage and are attended by a participating air ambulance service. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with traumatic haemorrhage who have died (all-cause mortality) or received massive transfusion in the first 24 h from randomisation. A number of secondary clinical, process, and safety endpoints will be collected and analysed. Cost (provision of whole blood, hospital, health, and wider care resource use) and outcome data will be synthesised to present incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the trial primary outcome and cost per quality-adjusted life year at 90 days after injury. We plan to recruit 848 participants (a two-sided test with 85% power, 5% type I error, 1-1 allocation, and one interim analysis would require 602 participants-after allowing for 25% of participants in traumatic cardiac arrest and an additional 5% drop out, the sample size is 848). DISCUSSION: The SWiFT trial will recruit 848 participants across at least ten air ambulances services in the UK. It will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whole blood transfusion versus component therapy in the management of patients with life-threatening bleeding in the pre-hospital setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 23657907; EudraCT: 2021-006876-18; IRAS Number: 300414; REC: 22/SC/0072, 21 Dec 2021.

The Randomised Evaluation of early topical Lidocaine patches In Elderly patients admitted to hospital with rib Fractures (RELIEF): feasibility trial protocol.

Background: Topical lidocaine patches, applied over rib fractures, have been suggested as a non-invasive method of local anaesthetic delivery to improve respiratory function, reduce opioid consumption and consequently reduce pulmonary complications. Older patients may gain most benefit from improved analgesic regimens yet lidocaine patches are untested as an early intervention in the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of this trial is to investigate uncertainties around trial design and conduct, to establish whether a definitive randomised trial of topical lidocaine patches in older patients with rib fractures is feasible. Methods: RELIEF is an open label, multicentre, parallel group, individually randomised, feasibility randomised controlled trial with economic scoping and nested qualitative study. Patients aged ≥ 65 years presenting to the ED with traumatic rib fracture(s) requiring admission will be randomised 1:1 to lidocaine patches (intervention), in addition to standard clinical management, or standard clinical management alone. Lidocaine patches will be applied immediately after diagnosis in ED and continued daily for 72 hours or until discharge. Feasibility outcomes will focus on recruitment, adherence and follow-up data with a total sample size of 100. Clinical outcomes, such as 30-day pulmonary complications, and resource use will be collected to understand feasibility of data collection. Qualitative interviews will explore details of the trial design, trial acceptability and recruitment processes. An evaluation of the feasibility of measuring health economics outcomes data will be completed. Discussion: Interventions to improve outcomes in elderly patients with rib fractures are urgently required. This feasibility trial will test a novel early intervention which has the potential of fulfilling this unmet need. The Randomised Evaluation of early topical Lidocaine patches In Elderly patients admitted to hospital with rib Fractures (RELIEF) feasibility trial will determine whether a definitive trial is feasible. ISRCTN Registration: ISRCTN14813929 (22/04/2021).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patches containing a numbing medication (lidocaine), put on the skin over broken ribs, may help to improve outcomes in older people. We will carry out a clinical trial of these patches, to see whether this research would work in Accident and Emergency (A&E) and whether patients will take part. DESIGN: We will ask 100 older people who need to stay in hospital with broken ribs to take part in this research. We will ask permission from relatives to include people with dementia. We will put those who agree to take part into one of two groups by chance. One group will have the patch put over their broken ribs in A&E for up to 3 days, along with usual pain killers if needed. We will treat people in the other group in the normal way, without a patch. We will track how many people are willing to take part. We will collect information on patient recovery in the 30 days after going to A&E and ask people to complete questionnaires about their health. We will interview patients and clinicians to get feedback. Patient and Public Involvement: Patient volunteers helped us design this research and will provide advice throughout. They agreed that including older people was appropriate, people with dementia and their carers should take part, and side-effects of strong pain killers are important to patients. FINDINGS: We will use the research findings to develop a larger trial to see if lidocaine patches help patients with broken ribs. We will write up results for scientific journals, speak at conferences and to our patient group.

Early computed tomography coronary angiography and preventative treatment in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome: A secondary analysis of the RAPID-CTCA trial.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) offers detailed assessment of the presence of coronary atherosclerosis and helps guide patient management. We investigated influences of early CTCA on the subsequent use of preventative treatment in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of early CTCA in intermediate-risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome, prescription of aspirin, P2Y12 receptor antagonist, statin, renin-angiotensin system blocker, and beta-blocker therapies from randomization to discharge were compared within then between those randomized to early CTCA or to standard of care only. Effects of CTCA findings on adjustment of these therapies were further examined. RESULTS: In 1,743 patients (874 randomized to early CTCA and 869 to standard of care only), prescription of P2Y12 receptor antagonist, dual antiplatelet, and statin therapies increased more in the early CTCA group (between-group difference: 4.6% [95% confidence interval, 0.3-8.9], 4.5% [95% confidence interval, 0.2-8.7], and 4.3% [95% confidence interval, 0.2-8.5], respectively), whereas prescription of other preventative therapies increased by similar extent in both study groups. Among patients randomized to early CTCA, there were additional increments of preventative treatment in those with obstructive coronary artery disease and higher rates of reductions in antiplatelet and beta-blocker therapies in those with normal coronary arteries. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription patterns of preventative treatment varied during index hospitalization in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Early CTCA facilitated targeted individualization of these therapies based on the extent of coronary artery disease.

Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities.

BACKGROUND: The priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease pandemic and a significant worsening of the crisis in the urgent and emergency care system. Our aim was to review and refresh the emergency medicine research priorities. METHODS: A steering group including patients, carers and healthcare professionals was established to agree to the methodology of the refresh. An independent adviser from the JLA chaired the steering group. The scope was adult patients in the ED. New questions were invited via an open call using multiple communications methods ensuring that patients, carers and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to contribute. Questions underwent minisystematic (BestBETs) review to determine if the question had been answered, and the original 2017 priorities were reviewed. Any questions that remained unanswered were included in an interim prioritisation survey, which was distributed to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Rankings from this survey were reviewed by the steering group and a shortlist of questions put forward to the final workshop, which was held to discuss and rank the research questions in order of priority. RESULTS: 77 new questions were submitted, of which 58 underwent mini-systematic review. After this process, 49 questions (of which 32 were new, 11 were related to original priorities and 6 unanswered original priorities were carried forward) were reviewed by the steering group and included in an interim prioritisation survey. The interim prioritisation survey attracted 276 individual responses. 26 questions were shortlisted for discussion at the final prioritisation workshop, where the top 10 research priorities were agreed. CONCLUSION: We have redefined the priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK using robust and established methodology, which will inform the agenda for the coming years.

Involving patients and caregivers to develop items for a new patient-reported experience measure for older adults attending the emergency department. Findings from a nominal group technique study.

CONTEXT: Patient experience is an important component of high-quality care and is linked to improved clinical outcomes across a range of different conditions. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are psychometrically validated instruments designed to identify where strengths and vulnerabilities in care exist. Currently, there is no validated instrument available to measure patient experience among people aged over 65 years attending the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe the process of generating, refining and prioritising candidate items for inclusion in a new PREM measuring older adults' experiences in ED (PREM-ED 65). DESIGN: One hundred and thirty-six draft items were generated via a systematic review, interviews with patients and focus groups with ED staff exploring older adults' experiences in the ED. A 1-day multiple stakeholder workshop was then convened to refine and prioritise these items. The workshop entailed a modified nominal groups technique exercise comprised of three discrete parts-(i) item familiarisation and comprehension assessment, (ii) initial voting and (iii) final adjudication. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-nine participants attended the stakeholder workshop, conducted in a nonhealthcare setting (Buckfast Abbey). The average age of participants was 65.6 years. Self-reported prior experiences of emergency care among the participants included attending the ED as a patient (n = 16, 55.2%); accompanying person (n = 11, 37.9%) and/or as a healthcare provider (n = 7, 24.1%). RESULTS: Participants were allocated time to familiarise themselves with the draft items, suggest any improvements to the item structure or content, and suggest new items. Two additional items were proposed by participants, yielding a total of 138 items for prioritisation. Initial prioritisation deemed most items 'critically important' (priority 7-9 out of 9, n = 104, 75.4%). Of these, 70 items demonstrated suitable inter-rater agreement (mean average deviation from the median < 1.04) and were recommended for automatic inclusion. Participants then undertook final adjudication to include or exclude the remaining items, using forced choice voting. A further 29 items were included. Thirty-nine items did not meet the criteria for inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: This study has generated a list of 99 prioritised candidate items for inclusion in the draft PREM-ED 65 instrument. These items highlight areas of patient experience that are particularly important to older adults accessing emergency care. This may be of direct interest to those looking to improve the patient experience for older adults in the ED. For the final stage of development, psychometric validation amongst a real-world population of ED patients is now planned. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Initial item generation was informed using qualitative research, including interviews with patients in the ED. The opinions of patients and members of the public were integral to achieving outcomes from the prioritisation meeting. The lay chair of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine participated in the meeting and reviewed the results of this study.

Initial Development of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Older Adults Attending the Emergency Department: Part II-Focus Groups with Professional Caregivers.

A wide range of healthcare professionals provide care for patients in the emergency department (ED). This study forms part of a wider exploration of the determinants of patient experience for older adults in the ED, to assist the development of a new patient-reported experience measure (PREM). Inter-professional focus groups aimed to build on findings from earlier interviews with patients conducted in the ED, by exploring professional perspectives on caring for older people in this setting. A total of thirty-seven clinicians, comprising nurses, physicians and support staff, participated in seven focus groups across three EDs in the United Kingdom (UK). The findings reinforced that meeting patients' communication, care, waiting, physical, and environmental needs are all central to the delivery of an optimal experience. Meeting older patients' basic needs, such as access to hydration and toileting, is a priority often shared by all ED team members, irrespective of their professional role or seniority. However, due to issues including ED crowding, a gap exists between the desirable and actual standards of care delivered to older adults. This may contrast with the experience of other vulnerable ED user groups such as children, where the provision of separate facilities and bespoke services is commonplace. Therefore, in addition to providing original insights into professional perspectives of delivering care to older adults in the ED, this study demonstrates that the delivery of suboptimal care to older adults may be a significant source of moral distress for ED staff. Findings from this study, earlier interviews, and the literature will be triangulated to formulate a comprehensive list of candidate items for inclusion in a newly developed PREM, for patients aged 65 years and older.

Initial Development of a Patient Reported Experience Measure for Older Adults Attending the Emergency Department: Part I-Interviews with Service Users.

Older adults are a major Emergency Department (ED) user group who may be especially vulnerable to the consequences of crowding and sub-optimal care. Patient experience is a critical component of high-quality ED care and has previously been conceptualised using a framework focusing on patients' needs. This study aimed to explore the experiences of older adults attending the ED in relation to the existing needs-based framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted during an emergency care episode with 24 participants aged over 65 years in a United Kingdom ED with an annual census ~100,000. Questions exploring patient experiences of care confirmed that meeting the communication, care, waiting, physical, and environmental needs were prominent determinants of experience for older adults. A further analytical theme emerged which did not align to the existing framework, focused on 'team attitudes and values'. This study builds on existing knowledge relating to the experience of older adults in the ED. In addition, data will also contribute to the generation of candidate items for the development of a patient reported experience measure for older adults attending the ED.

Paediatric major incident triage: A Delphi process to determine clinicians' attitudes and beliefs within the United Kingdom and Ireland.

AIM: Triage is key to effective management of major incidents, yet there is scarce evidence surrounding the optimal method of paediatric major incident triage (MIT). This study aimed to derive consensus on key components of paediatric MIT among healthcare professionals responsible for triage during paediatric major incidents. METHODS: Two-round online Delphi consensus study delivered July 2021-October 2021, including participants from pre-hospital and hospital specialities responsible for triage during paediatric major incidents. A 5-point Likert scale was used to determine consensus, set a priori at 70%. RESULTS: 111 clinicians completed both rounds; 13 of 17 statements reached consensus. Positive consensus was reached on rescue breaths in mechanisms associated with hypoxia or asphyxiation, mobility assessment as a crude discriminator and use of adult physiology for older children. Whilst positive consensus was reached on the benefits of a single MIT tool across all adult and paediatric age ranges, there was negative consensus in relation to clinical implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study has established consensus among a large group of clinicians involved in the management of major incidents on several key elements of paediatric major incident triage. Further work is required to develop a triage tool that can be implemented based on emerging and ongoing research and which is acceptable to clinicians.

A biomechanical study to compare spinal movement in a healthy volunteer during extrication between 'chain cabling' and 'roof off' methods of extrication.

INTRODUCTION: Following a motor vehicle collision some patients will remain trapped. Traditional extrication methods are time consuming and focus on movement minimisation and mitigation. 'Chain cabling' is an alternative method of extrication used in some countries. The optimal extrication strategy and the effect of extrication methods on spinal movement is unknown. This study compares 'chain cabling' to the established roof removal method of extrication on spinal movement. METHODS: Biomechanical data were collected using Inertial Measurement Units on a single healthy volunteer during multiple experiments. The extrication types examined were chain cabling and roof removal. Measurements were recorded at the cervical and lumbar spine, and in the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LR) planes. Total movement (travel), maximal movement, mean, standard deviation and confidence intervals are reported. RESULTS: Eight experiments were performed using each technique. The smallest mean overall movements were recorded during roof-off extrication (cervical spine 0.6 mm for AP and LR, lumbar spine 3.9 mm AP and 0.3 mm LR). The largest overall mean movements were seen with chain cabling extrication (cervical spine AP 5.3 mm. LR 6.1 mm and lumbar spine 6.8 mm AP and 6.3 mm LR). CONCLUSION: In this study of a healthy volunteer, roof-off extrication was associated with less movement than chain cabling. The movement associated with chain cabling extrication was similar to that previously collected for other extrication types.

Early computed tomography coronary angiography in adults presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome: the RAPID-CTCA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome is a common medical emergency. The optimal strategy to investigate patients who are at intermediate risk of acute coronary syndrome has not been fully determined. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of early computed tomography coronary angiography in the investigation and treatment of adults presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: A prospective, multicentre, open, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with blinded end-point adjudication. SETTING: Thirty-seven hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) presenting to the emergency department, acute medicine services or cardiology department with suspected or provisionally diagnosed acute coronary syndrome and at least one of the following: (1) a prior history of coronary artery disease, (2) a cardiac troponin level > 99th centile and (3) an abnormal 12-lead electrocardiogram. INTERVENTIONS: Early computed tomography coronary angiography in addition to standard care was compared with standard care alone. Participants were followed up for 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: One-year all-cause death or subsequent type 1 (spontaneous) or type 4b (stent thrombosis) myocardial infarction, measured as the time to such event adjudicated by two cardiologists blinded to the computerised tomography coronary angiography ( CTCA ) arm. Cost-effectiveness was estimated as the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Between 23 March 2015 and 27 June 2019, 1748 participants [mean age 62 years (standard deviation 13 years), 64% male, mean Global Registry Of Acute Coronary Events score 115 (standard deviation 35)] were randomised to receive early computed tomography coronary angiography (n = 877) or standard care alone (n = 871). The primary end point occurred in 51 (5.8%) participants randomised to receive computed tomography coronary angiography and 53 (6.1%) participants randomised to receive standard care (adjusted hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.35; p = 0.65). Computed tomography coronary angiography was associated with a reduced use of invasive coronary angiography (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.92; p = 0.001) but no change in coronary revascularisation (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.21; p = 0.76), acute coronary syndrome therapies (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.32; p = 0.63) or preventative therapies on discharge (adjusted odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.32; p = 0.52). Early computed tomography coronary angiography was associated with longer hospitalisations (median increase 0.21 days, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.40 days) and higher mean total health-care costs over 1 year (£561 more per patient) than standard care. LIMITATIONS: The principal limitation of the trial was the slower than anticipated recruitment, leading to a revised sample size, and the requirement to compromise and accept a larger relative effect size estimate for the trial intervention. FUTURE WORK: The potential role of computed tomography coronary angiography in selected patients with a low probability of obstructive coronary artery disease (intermediate or mildly elevated level of troponin) or who have limited access to invasive cardiac catheterisation facilities needs further prospective evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected or provisionally diagnosed acute coronary syndrome, computed tomography coronary angiography did not alter overall coronary therapeutic interventions or 1-year clinical outcomes, but it did increase the length of hospital stay and health-care costs. These findings do not support the routine use of early computed tomography coronary angiography in intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN19102565 and Clinical Trials NCT02284191. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHY DID WE DO THE RESEARCH?: Chest pain is a common medical emergency. It is important to decide if the cause is a heart attack. The two tests that are often used are a heart recording (electrocardiogram) and a blood test (troponin levels). If both are normal, the cause of chest pain is unlikely to be a heart attack and the patient is often discharged home. If either test is positive or if the patient has had previous heart problems, then the patient may require further investigation. We wanted to test whether or not adding a heart scan called a computerised tomography coronary angiogram improved patients' care. HOW DID WE DO THE RESEARCH?: We carried out a randomised trial in which half of the patients attending hospital with chest pain had a computerised tomography coronary angiography scan as part of their assessment and half of the patients did not. In total, 1749 patients were recruited and followed up for 1 year. BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER: The use of an additional early computerised tomography coronary angiography scan for chest pain patients of medium risk produced only small improvements in patient care.

Presentation cardiac troponin and early computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome: a pre-specified secondary analysis of the RAPID-CTCA trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the potential associations between presentation cardiac troponin and the clinical impact of early computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in intermediate-risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a large multicentre randomized controlled trial of patients with intermediate-risk chest pain due to suspected acute coronary syndrome, early CTCA had no effect on the primary outcome-death or subsequent Type 1 or 4b myocardial infarction-but reduced the rate of invasive coronary angiography. In this pre-specified secondary analysis, cardiovascular testing and clinical outcomes were compared between those with or without cardiac troponin elevation at presentation. Of 1748 patients, 1004 (57%) had an elevated cardiac troponin concentration and 744 (43%) had a normal concentration. Patients with cardiac troponin elevation had a higher Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score (132 vs. 91; P < 0.001) and were more likely to have obstructive coronary artery disease (59 vs. 33%; P < 0.001), non-invasive (72 vs. 52%; P < 0.001) and invasive (72 vs. 38%; P < 0.001) testing, coronary revascularization (47 vs. 15%; P < 0.001), and the primary outcome (8 vs. 3%; P = 0.007) at 1 year. However, there was no evidence that presentation cardiac troponin was associated with the relative effects of early CTCA on rates of non-invasive (Pinteraction = 0.33) and invasive (Pinteraction = 0.99) testing, coronary revascularization (Pinteraction = 0.57), or the primary outcome (Pinteraction = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Presentation cardiac troponin had no demonstrable associations between the effects of early CTCA on reductions in non-invasive and invasive testing, or the lack of effect on coronary revascularization or the primary outcome in intermediate-risk patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.

A Delphi study of rescue and clinical subject matter experts on the extrication of patients following a motor vehicle collision.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1.3 million people die each year globally as a direct result of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). Following an MVC some patients will remain trapped in their vehicle; these patients have worse outcomes and may require extrication. Following new evidence, updated multidisciplinary guidance for extrication is needed. METHODS: This Delphi study has been developed, conducted and reported to CREDES standards. A literature review identified areas of expertise and appropriate individuals were recruited to a Steering Group. The Steering Group formulated initial statements for consideration. Stakeholder organisations were invited to identify subject matter experts (SMEs) from a rescue and clinical background (total 60). SMEs participated over three rounds via an online platform. Consensus for agreement / disagreement was set at 70%. At each stage SMEs could offer feedback on, or modification to the statements considered which was reviewed and incorporated into new statements or new supporting information for the following rounds. Stakeholders agreed a set of principles based on the consensus statements on which future guidance should be based. RESULTS: Sixty SMEs completed Round 1, 53 Round 2 (88%) and 49 Round 3 (82%). Consensus was reached on 91 statements (89 agree, 2 disagree) covering a broad range of domains related to: extrication terminology, extrication goals and approach, self-extrication, disentanglement, clinical care, immobilisation, patient-focused extrication, emergency services call and triage, and audit and research standards. Thirty-three statements did not reach consensus. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated consensus across a large panel of multidisciplinary SMEs on many key areas of extrication and related practice that will provide a key foundation in the development of evidence-based guidance for this subject area.

Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle collisions are a common cause of death and serious injury. Many casualties will remain in their vehicle following a collision. Trapped patients have more injuries and are more likely to die than their untrapped counterparts. Current extrication methods are time consuming and have a focus on movement minimisation and mitigation. The optimal extrication strategy and the effect this extrication method has on spinal movement is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the movement at the cervical and lumbar spine for four commonly utilised extrication techniques. METHODS: Biomechanical data was collected using inertial Measurement Units on 6 healthy volunteers. The extrication types examined were: roof removal, b-post rip, rapid removal and self-extrication. Measurements were recorded at the cervical and lumbar spine, and in the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) planes. Total movement (travel), maximal movement, mean, standard deviation and confidence intervals are reported for each extrication type. RESULTS: Data from a total of 230 extrications were collected for analysis. The smallest maximal and total movement (travel) were seen when the volunteer self-extricated (AP max = 2.6 mm, travel 4.9 mm). The largest maximal movement and travel were seen in rapid extrication extricated (AP max = 6.21 mm, travel 20.51 mm). The differences between self-extrication and all other methods were significant (p < 0.001), small non-significant differences existed between roof removal, b-post rip and rapid removal. Self-extrication was significantly quicker than the other extrication methods (mean 6.4 s). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, self-extrication is associated with the smallest spinal movement and the fastest time to complete extrication. Rapid, B-post rip and roof off extrication types are all associated with similar movements and time to extrication in prepared vehicles.

Systematic review of factors influencing decisions to limit treatment in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians are frequently faced with making decisions regarding how aggressive to be in caring for critically ill patients. We aimed to identify factors that influence decisions to limit treatment in the Emergency Department (ED) through a systematic search of the available literature. DESIGN: Prospectively registered systematic review of studies employing any methodology to investigate factors influencing decisions to limit treatment in the ED. Medline and EMBASE were searched from their inception until January 2019. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, but no studies were excluded based on quality. Findings were summarised by narrative analysis. RESULTS: 10 studies published between 1998 and 2016 were identified for inclusion in this review, including seven cross-sectional studies investigating factors associated with treatment-limiting decisions, two surveys of physicians making treatment-limiting decisions and one qualitative study of physicians making treatment-limiting decisions. There was significant heterogeneity in patient groups, outcome measures, methodology and quality. Only three studies received a methodology-specific rating of 'high quality'. Important limitations of the literature include the use of small single-centre retrospective cohorts often lacking a comparison group, and survey studies with low response rates employing closed-response questionnaires. Factors influencing treatment-limiting decisions were categorised into 'patient and disease factors' (age, chronic disease, functional limitation, patient and family wishes, comorbidity, quality of life, acute presenting disorder type, severity and reversibility), 'hospital factors' (colleague opinion, resource availability) and 'non-patient healthcare factors' (moral, ethical, social and cost factors). CONCLUSIONS: Several factors influence decisions to limit treatment in the ED. Many factors are objective and quantifiable, but some are subjective and open to individual interpretation. This review highlights the complexity of the subject and the need for more robust research in this field.

Survey evaluating clinical equipoise around platelet transfusion after head injury and traumatic intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) in patients on antiplatelet medications.

INTRODUCTION: Patients aged 60 or over account for over half of the severely injured trauma patients and a traumatic brain injury is the most common injury sustained. Many of these patients are taking antiplatelet medications but there is clinical equipoise about the role of platelet transfusion in patients with traumatic intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) taking prior antiplatelet medications. METHOD: A prepiloted survey was designed to explore a range of clinical issues in managing patients taking antiplatelet medications admitted with a traumatic brain injury. This was sent via email to consultants and specialty registrar members of a variety of relevant UK societies and working groups in the fields of emergency medicine, critical care, neurosurgery and haematology. RESULTS: 193 responses were received, mostly from colleagues in emergency medicine, neurosurgery, anaesthesia and haematology. Respondents indicated that there is a lack of evidence to support the use of platelet transfusion in this patient population but also lack of evidence of harm. Results also demonstrate uncertainties as to whether platelets should be given to all or some patients and doubt regarding the value of viscoelastic testing. DISCUSSION: Our survey demonstrates equipoise in current practice with regards to platelet transfusion in patients with a traumatic ICH who are taking antiplatelet medication. There is support for additional trials to investigate the effect of platelet transfusion in this rising population of older, high-risk patients, in order to provide a better evidence-base for guideline development.

Injured patients who would benefit from expedited major trauma centre care: a consensus-based definition for the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the importance of treating the 'right patient in the right place at the right time', there is no gold standard for defining which patients should receive expedited major trauma centre (MTC) care. This study aimed to define a reference standard applicable to the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service major trauma networks. METHODS: A one-day facilitated roundtable expert consensus meeting was conducted at the University of Sheffield, UK, in September 2019. An expert panel of 17 clinicians was purposively sampled, representing all specialities relevant to major trauma management. A consultation process was subsequently held using focus groups with Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) representatives to review and confirm the proposed reference standard. RESULTS: Four reference standard domains were identified, comprising: need for critical interventions; presence of significant individual anatomical injuries; burden of multiple minor injuries; and important patient attributes. Specific criteria were defined for each domain. PPI consultation confirmed all aspects of the reference standard. A coding algorithm to allow operationalisation in Trauma Audit and Research Network data was also formulated, allowing classification of any case submitted to their database for future research. CONCLUSIONS: This reference standard defines which patients would benefit from expedited MTC care. It could be used as the target for future pre-hospital injury triage tools, for setting best practice tariffs for trauma care reimbursement and to evaluate trauma network performance. Future research is recommended to compare patient characteristics, management and outcomes of the proposed definition with previously established reference standards.