Availability and quality of procedural sedation and analgesia in emergency departments without emergency physicians: A national survey in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians have been successful in implementing procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) to treat emergency department (ED) patients who need to undergo painful procedures. However, 25% of the EDs in the Netherlands are not staffed by emergency physicians. The aim of this study was to investigate PSA availability and quality in EDs without emergency physicians. METHODS: We performed an exploratory cross-sectional study amongst ED nurses and physicians in all 13 EDs without emergency physicians in the Netherlands. Data were gathered using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rate was 34.3% (148/432). Of the respondents, 84/148 (56.8%) provided adult PSA and 30/148 (20.3%) provided paediatric PSA. Main reasons for not providing PSA were insufficient numbers of trained staff to support PSA in the ED and insufficient training and exposure. The providers agreed significantly stronger when reflecting their PSA competencies in adults compared to paediatric patients. CONCLUSION: The key to improve pain management in the ED-setting may lay in investing in continuous training of ED health care professionals and/or acquiring professionals who are both qualified in PSA and available in the ED.

Cola therapy for oesophageal food bolus impactions a case series.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective case series describes the use of cola to immediately treat complete oesophageal food bolus obstructions in the emergency centre. Short of emergent endoscopy - which is invasive, expensive, not without adverse events, and often unavailable in low-resource settings - no other proven therapies exist to relieve oesophageal food impactions. METHODS: We performed a chart review of adults with complete oesophageal food bolus obstructions presenting to two Dutch emergency centres. Our primary outcome was cola's success rate in resolving the obstruction. Our secondary outcome was adverse event occurrence. RESULTS: We identified 22 cola interventions in 19 patients, the majority of whom (77.3%) were male. The median age was 59 years (IQR 29-73). All presentations were due to meat impaction. Endoscopy revealed relevant upper gastrointestinal pathology in 54.5%. When initiated in the emergency centre, cola successfully resolved 59% of complete oesophageal obstructions. No adverse events were reported in patients successfully treated with cola. DISCUSSION: While keenly aware of our retrospective study's limitations, we found a promising success rate for cola as an acute intervention for oesophageal food bolus impactions. We registered no adverse events attributable to cola. Also, given that cola is cheap, widely available and seemingly safe we believe it can be considered in patients with oesophageal obstructions due to food, either as pre-endoscopy treatment or in case endoscopy is not available at all. We think our findings provide an impetus for prospective research on this intervention.

Different Perspectives on Predictability and Preventability of Surgical Readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Although unscheduled readmissions are increasingly being used as a quality indicator, only few readmission studies have focused on surgical patient populations. METHODS: An observational study "CURIOS@" was performed at three centers in the Netherlands. Readmitted patients and treating doctors were surveyed to assess the discharge process during index admission and their opinion on predictability and preventability of the readmission. Risk factors associated with predictability and preventability as judged by patients and their doctor were identified. Cohen's kappa was calculated to measure pairwise agreement of considering readmission as predictable/preventable. PRISMA root cause categories were used to qualify the reasons for readmission. RESULTS: In 237 unscheduled surgical readmissions, more patients assessed their readmissions to be likely preventable compared with their treating doctors (28.7% versus 6.8%; kappa, 0.071). This was also reflected in poor consensus about risk factors and root causes of these readmissions. When patients reported that they did not feel ready for discharge or requested their doctor to allow them to stay longer at discharge during index admission, they deemed their readmission more likely predictable and preventable. Doctors focused on measurable factors such as the clinical frailty scale and biomarkers during discharge process. Health-care worker failures were strongly associated with preventable readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus between readmitted patients and treating doctors about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor about associated risk factors and root causes. Patients should be more effectively involved in their discharge process, and the relevance of optimal communication between them should be emphasized to create a safe and efficient discharge process.