Less Emergency Department Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography for Patients With Crohn's Disease: A New Scoring System.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the use of abdominal pelvic computed tomography (APCT) in the emergency department (ED) for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) has risen steadily. Thus, exposing these patients to recurrent radiation, despite studies showing that only 30% to 40% had significant findings in ED APCT. GOAL: Our aim was to find clinical and laboratory variables that can predict substantial findings on ED APCT, which may require invasive intervention. METHODS: We analyzed ED visits of patients with known CD that underwent an emergent APCT for gastrointestinal complaints, over a 10-year period. Patients with positive and negative findings in the APCT were compared in order to evaluate independent effects of different variables, including patients' characteristics, CD history, ED complaints, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: In 44% of 183 ED visits, there were significant findings on ED APCT, however, only 22% of them underwent invasive intervention. Laboratory tests: C-reactive protein >50 mg/L, neutrophil count >75%, platelet count >350×10 9 /L, and ileocolon location at diagnosis were all positive predicting factors. Whereas, smoking or ED complaints of diarrhea/fever reduced the risk for significant findings. CONCLUSIONS: Using the 7 most significant predicting factors, we built an easy to use scoring system-Crohn Assessment Tool for CT upon Hospitalization (CATCH) for ED clinicians. This scoring system could have prevented unnecessary ED APCT from 42% of the patients in our study, without missing those who required invasive intervention.

Rudeness and Medical Team Performance.

OBJECTIVES: Rudeness is routinely experienced by medical teams. We sought to explore the impact of rudeness on medical teams' performance and test interventions that might mitigate its negative consequences. METHODS: Thirty-nine NICU teams participated in a training workshop including simulations of acute care of term and preterm newborns. In each workshop, 2 teams were randomly assigned to either an exposure to rudeness (in which the comments of the patient's mother included rude statements completely unrelated to the teams' performance) or control (neutral comments) condition, and 2 additional teams were assigned to rudeness with either a preventative (cognitive bias modification [CBM]) or therapeutic (narrative) intervention. Simulation sessions were evaluated by 2 independent judges, blind to team exposure, who used structured questionnaires to assess team performance. RESULTS: Rudeness had adverse consequences not only on diagnostic and intervention parameters (mean therapeutic score 3.81 ± 0.36 vs 4.31 ± 0.35 in controls, P < .01), but also on team processes (such as information and workload sharing, helping and communication) central to patient care (mean teamwork score 4.04 ± 0.34 vs 4.43 ± 0.37, P < .05). CBM mitigated most of these adverse effects of rudeness, but the postexposure narrative intervention had no significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: Rudeness has robust, deleterious effects on the performance of medical teams. Moreover, exposure to rudeness debilitated the very collaborative mechanisms recognized as essential for patient care and safety. Interventions focusing on teaching medical professionals to implicitly avoid cognitive distraction such as CBM may offer a means to mitigate the adverse consequences of behaviors that, unfortunately, cannot be prevented.