An evaluation of the effectiveness of an advanced practice physiotherapist in the emergency department setting in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: One of the means of easing increased pressure on emergency care worldwide has been the development of advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice in the emergency department setting. This model of care is in its infancy in Ireland. AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of an advanced practice physiotherapist working as a primary contact clinician in the emergency department at St. James's Hospital, Dublin. METHODS: A three-month retrospective chart review was undertaken for patients assigned the advanced practice physiotherapist as their primary clinician during their emergency department attendance. Three widely accepted measures of quality in emergency medicine were used to evaluate effectiveness, namely, time from attendance to discharge, time from triage to assessment, and unplanned reattendance within seven days. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were included in this study. Time from attendance to discharge was significantly less in the APP group (mean 208.5 min, standard deviation 122.4 min) than in the ED group (mean 377.1 min, standard deviation 314.7 min) (mean difference - 168.61 (95% C.I - 191.24- - 145.98)) (p < 0.001). Time from triage to assessment was significantly less in the APP group (mean 72.1 min, standard deviation 51.9 min) than in the ED group (mean 94.1 min, standard deviation 96.5 min) (mean difference - 22.08 (95% C.I - 31.28- - 12.89)) (p < 0.001). The unplanned reattendance rate was 3.9%. No adverse events were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that an advanced practice physiotherapist can provide a timely, effective, and safe service for patients attending the emergency department with musculoskeletal complaints in Ireland.

Scoring the Clinical Frailty Scale in the Emergency Department: The Home FIRsT Experience.

We evaluated predictors of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scored by an interdisciplinary team (Home FIRsT) performing comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in our Emergency Department (ED). This was a retrospective observational study (service evaluation) utilising ED-based CGA data routinely collected by Home FIRsT between January and October 2020. A linear regression model was computed to establish independent predictors of CFS. This was complemented by a classification and regression tree (CRT) to evaluate the main predictors. There were 799 Home FIRsT episodes, of which 740 were unique patients. The CFS was scored on 658 (89%) (median 4, range 1-8; mean age 81 years, 61% women). Independent predictors of higher CFS were older age (p<0.001), history of dementia (p<0.001), mobility (p≤0.007), disability (p<0.001), and higher acuity of illness (p=0.009). Disability and mobility were the main classifiers in the CRT. Results suggest appropriate CFS scoring informed by functional baseline.

Home FIRsT: interdisciplinary geriatric assessment and disposition outcomes in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Older people in the Emergency Department (ED) are clinically heterogenous and some presentations may be better suited to alternative out-of-hospital pathways. A new interdisciplinary comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) team (Home FIRsT) was embedded in our acute hospital's ED in 2017. AIM: To evaluate if routinely collected CGA metrics were associated with ED disposition outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: We included all first patients seen by Home FIRsT between 7th May and 19th October 2018. Collected measures were sociodemographic, baseline frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale), major diagnostic categories, illness acuity (Manchester Triage Score) and cognitive impairment/delirium (4AT). Multivariate binary logistic regression models were computed to predict ED disposition outcomes: hospital admission; discharge to GP and/or community services; discharge to specialist geriatric outpatients; discharge to the Geriatric Day Hospital. RESULTS: In the study period, there were 1,045 Home FIRsT assessments (mean age 80.1 years). For hospital admission, strong independent predictors were acute illness severity (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.50-2.70, P<0.001) and 4AT (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.13 - 1.42, P<0.001). Discharge to specialist outpatients (e.g. falls/bone health) was predicted by musculoskeletal/injuries/trauma presentations (OR 6.45, 95% CI 1.52 - 27.32, P=0.011). Discharge to the Geriatric Day Hospital was only predicted by frailty (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.17 - 1.97, P=0.002). Age and sex were not predictive in any of the models. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected CGA metrics are useful to predict ED disposition. The ability of baseline frailty to predict ED outcomes needs to be considered together with acute illness severity and delirium.

The use of propofol for procedural sedation in emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that propofol is efficacious and safe for procedural sedation (PS) in the emergency department (ED) setting. However, propofol has a narrow therapeutic window and lacks of a reversal agent. The aim of this review was to cohere the evidence base regarding the efficacy and safety profile of propofol when used in the ED setting for PS. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to September week 2 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 2 2013). We searched the Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of Clinical Trials (compiled by Current Science) (September 2013). We checked the reference lists of trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restriction. We re-ran the search in February 2015. We will deal with the one study awaiting classification when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing propofol to alternative drugs (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etomidate and ketamine) used in the ED setting for PS in participants of all ages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction. Two authors performed trial quality assessment. We used mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure effect sizes. Two authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (813 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies only included participants 18 years and younger; six studies only included participants 18 years and older; one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age and one study included only adults but did not specify the age range. Eight of the included studies had a high risk of bias. The included studies were clinically heterogeneous. We undertook no meta-analysis.The primary outcome measures of this review were: adverse effects (as defined by the study authors) and participant satisfaction (as defined by the study authors). In one study comparing propofol/fentanyl with ketamine/midazolam, delayed adverse reactions (nightmares and behavioural change) were noted in 10% of the ketamine/midazolam group and none in the propofol/fentanyl group. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in adverse effects between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. Three individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in pain at the injection site between intravenous propofol and alternative interventions. Four individual studies reported no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions (ketamine, etomidate, midazolam). All the studies employed propofol without the use of an adjunctive analgesic and all, except one, were small (fewer than 100 participants) studies. The quality of evidence for the adverse effects and participant satisfaction outcomes was very low.Nine included studies (eight comparisons) reported all the secondary outcome measures of the review except mortality. It was not possible to pool the results of the included studies for any of the secondary outcome measures because the comparator interventions were different and the measures were reported in different ways. Seven individual studies reported no evidence of difference in incidence of hypoxia between intravenous propofol, with and without adjunctive analgesic agents, and alternative interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the comparative effects of administering intravenous propofol, with or without an adjunctive analgesic agent, with alternative interventions in participants undergoing PS in the ED setting on adverse effects (including pain at the injection site) and participant satisfaction. The review was limited because no two included studies employed the same comparator interventions, and because the number of participants in eight of the included studies were small (fewer than 100 participants).

Development of key performance indicators for emergency departments in Ireland using an electronic modified-Delphi consensus approach.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a consensus among emergency medicine (EM) specialists working in Ireland for emergency department (ED) key performance indicators (KPIs). METHODS: The method employed was a three-round electronic modified-Delphi process. An online questionnaire with 54 potential KPIs was set up for round 1 of the Delphi process. The Delphi panel consisted of all registered EM specialists in Ireland. Each indicator on the questionnaire was rated using a five-point Likert-type rating scale. Agreement was defined as at least 70% of the responders rating an indicator as 'agree' or 'strongly agree' on the rating scale. Data were analysed using standard descriptive statistics. Data were also analysed as the mean of the Likert rating with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Sensitivity of the ratings was examined for robustness by bootstrapping the original sample. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS version 16.0. RESULTS: The response rates in rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 86, 88 and 88%, respectively. Ninety-seven potential indicators reached agreement after the three rounds. In the context of the Donabedian structure-process-outcome framework of performance indicators, 41 (42%) of the agreed indicators were structure indicators, 52 (54%) were process indicators and four (4%) were outcome indicators. Overall, the top-three highest rated indicators were: presence of a dedicated ED clinical information system (4.7; 95% CI 4.6-4.9), ED compliance with minimum design standards (4.7; 95% CI 4.5-4.8) and time from ED arrival to first ECG in suspected cardiac chest pain (4.7; 95% CI 4.5-4.9). The top-three highest rated indicators specific to clinical care of children in EDs were: time to administration of antibiotics in children with suspected bacterial meningitis (4.6; 95% CI 4.5-4.8), separate area available within EDs (seeing both adults and children) to assess children (4.4; 95% CI 4.2-4.6) and time to administration of analgesia in children with forearm fractures (4.4; 95% CI 4.2-4.7). CONCLUSION: Employing a Delphi consensus process, it was possible to reach a consensus among EM specialists in Ireland on a suite of 97 KPIs for EDs.

Venous vs arterial blood gases in the assessment of patients presenting with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical correlation between arterial and venous blood gas (VBG) values in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: A prospective study of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease presenting to the ED with acute ventilatory compromise was done. Patients were included if their attending physician considered arterial blood gas sampling important in their initial assessment. Data from arterial and venous samples were compared using Spearman correlation and bias plot (Bland-Altman) methods. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were enrolled in the study. Eighty-nine patients had complete data sets for analysis. Arterial hypercarbia was present in 30 patients (33.7%; range, 51-140.19 mm Hg). All cases of arterial hypercarbia were detected using VBG sampling when a screening cutoff of 45 mm Hg was applied (sensitivity, 100%; 95% confidence interval, 88.7%-100% and specificity, 34%; 95% confidence interval, 23.1%-46.6%). Bias plot revealed moderate agreement between arterial and venous Pco(2) with an average difference of 8.6 mm Hg and 95% limits of agreement of -7.84 to 25.05 mm Hg. For pH, mean difference between each group was 0.039 (range, -0.12 to 0.03). Linear regression analysis for pH demonstrated very close equivalence with a regression coefficient of 0.955, and Spearman correlation showed significant correlation of 0.826 (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Venous pH and HCO(3) values show excellent correlation with arterial values. Using a previously validated screening cutoff of 45 mm Hg, venous CO(2) has 100% sensitivity in detecting arterial hypercarbia. There is insufficient agreement between venous and arterial CO(2) for VBG to replace arterial blood gas in determining the degree of hypercarbia.