Implementing wait-time reductions under Ontario government benchmarks (Pay-for-Results): a Cluster Randomized Trial of the Effect of a Physician-Nurse Supplementary Triage Assistance team (MDRNSTAT) on emergency department patient wait times.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, emergency departments are struggling with crowding and its associated morbidity, mortality, and decreased patient and health-care worker satisfaction. The objective was to evaluate the addition of a MDRNSTAT (Physician (MD)-Nurse (RN) Supplementary Team At Triage) on emergency department patient flow and quality of care. METHODS: Pragmatic cluster randomized trial. From 131 weekday shifts (8:00-14:30) during a 26-week period, we randomized 65 days (3173 visits) to the intervention cluster with a MDRNSTAT presence, and 66 days (3163 visits) to the nurse-only triage control cluster. The primary outcome was emergency department length-of-stay (EDLOS) for patients managed and discharged only by the emergency department. Secondary outcomes included EDLOS for patients initially seen by the emergency department, and subsequently consulted and admitted, patients reaching government-mandated thresholds, time to initial physician assessment, left-without being seen rate, time to investigation, and measurement of harm. RESULTS: The intervention's median EDLOS for discharged, non-consulted, high acuity patients was 4:05 [95th% CI: 3:58 to 4:15] versus 4:29 [95th% CI: 4:19-4:38] during comparator shifts. The intervention's median EDLOS for discharged, non-consulted, low acuity patients was 1:55 [95th% CI: 1:48 to 2:05] versus 2:08 [95th% CI: 2:02-2:14]. The intervention's median physician initial assessment time was 0:55 [95th% CI: 0:53 to 0:58] versus 1:21 [95th% CI: 1:18 to 1:25]. The intervention's left-without-being-seen rate was 1.5% versus 2.2% for the control (p = 0.06). The MDRNSTAT subgroup analysis resulted in significant decreases in median EDLOS for discharged, non-consulted high (4:01 [95th% CI: 3:43-4:16]) and low acuity patients (1:10 95th% CI: 0:58-1:19]), as well as physician initial assessment time (0:25 [95th% CI: 0:23-0:26]). No patients returned to the emergency department after being discharged by the MDRNSTAT at triage. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention reduced delays and left-without-being-seen rate without increased return visits or jeopardizing urgent care of severely ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00991471 ClinicalTrials.gov.

Central serous retinopathy: an unusual cause of acute visual loss.

Ophthalmologic complaints represent approximately 2% of emergency department (ED) visits. Acute vision loss is the most serious of such presentations and requires prompt assessment for a treatable cause. The differential diagnosis for acute vision loss includes retinal detachment, macular disorders, vaso-occlusive disorders, temporal arteritis, neuro-ophthalmologic disorders, and functional disorders. We report the case of a previously healthy 33-year-old man who presented to the ED with acute bilateral vision loss that was ultimately diagnosed as central serous retinopathy (CSR), an idiopathic, self-limited condition that typically affects males age 20 to 50 years. This condition is not mentioned in standard emergency medicine textbooks or the emergency medicine literature, and our hope is that our report will serve to illustrate a typical case of CSR and help prompt emergency physicians to consider this diagnosis in the appropriate circumstances.

Development of the BACKIE questionnaire: a measure of children's behaviors, attitudes, cognitions, knowledge, and injury experiences.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a standardized questionnaire (BACKIE) that would assess the Behaviors (B), Attitudes (A), Cognitions (C), Knowledge (K), and Injury Experiences (IE) that elementary-school children possess pertaining to seven types of injuries, including: falls; motor vehicle collisions; burns; drowning; choking/suffocation; poisoning; and bicycle/pedestrian injuries. METHODS: Over 500 children in grades two through seven completed the questionnaire, with a sub-sample repeating it two months later to assess test-retest reliability of the measure. RESULTS: Psychometric assessment of the instrument revealed acceptable internal and test-retest reliabilities and results of a Confirmatory Factor Analysis provided support for the hypothesized factor structure. CONCLUSION: Having a psychometrically sound measure that allows one to assess attitudes, cognitions, and knowledge is an essential first step to exploring the relative influence of these factors on children's risk and safety practices.

Comparison of the 20-hour intravenous and 72-hour oral acetylcysteine protocols for the treatment of acute acetaminophen poisoning.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes after acute acetaminophen poisoning in 2 large cohorts of patients treated with either the 20-hour intravenous or 72-hour oral acetylcysteine protocol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with historical control comparing patients treated with one of 2 acetylcysteine regimens. Data for the 20-hour group were obtained from a medical record review of patients on whom the 20-hour intravenous protocol was initiated in Canadian hospitals from 1980 to 2005. The 72-hour group consisted of a historical cohort of patients treated in US hospitals with the 72-hour oral protocol from 1976 to 1985. The primary outcome was hepatotoxicity (aminotransferase levels >1,000 IU/L). RESULTS: Of the 4,048 patients analyzed, 2,086 were in the 20-hour group and 1,962 were in the 72-hour group. The incidence of hepatotoxicity was 13.9% in the 20-hour group and 15.8% in the 72-hour group (-1.9% absolute difference; 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.2 to 0.3). The relative risk of hepatotoxicity was lower in the 20-hour group when acetylcysteine was initiated within 12 hours of ingestion. The relative risk was lower in the 72-hour group when acetylcysteine was initiated later than 18 hours after ingestion. There was no significant risk difference between groups when acetylcysteine treatment was started 12 to 18 hours after ingestion. One patient in the 20-hour group received a liver transplant and died because of acetaminophen toxicity compared with no liver transplants and 3 deaths in the 72-hour group. Anaphylactoid reactions to intravenous acetylcysteine were reported in 148 of 2,086 patients (7.1%; 95% CI 6.1% to 8.3%). This study is limited by comparison of 2 separate data sets from different countries and study years. CONCLUSION: The risk of hepatotoxicity differed between the 20-hour and 72-hour protocols according to the time to initiation of acetylcysteine. It favored the 20-hour protocol for patients presenting early and favored the 72-hour protocol for patients presenting late after acute acetaminophen overdose.