72 research outputs found

    Emergency Department Ultrasound Is not a Sensitive Detector of Solid Organ Injury

    Get PDF
    Objective: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of emergency department (ED) ultrasound for the detection of solid organ injury following blunt abdominal trauma.Methods: A prospective cohort study performed in the ED of an urban Level I trauma center on patients who sustained blunt abdominal trauma. Following initial standard trauma evaluation, patients underwent a secondary ultrasound examination performed specifically to identify injury to the liver or spleen, followed by computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen. Ultrasound examinations were performed by emergency medicine residents or attending physicians experienced in the use of ultrasound for detecting hemoperitoneum. Ultrasonographers prospectively determined the presence or absence of liver or spleen injury. CT findings were used as the criterion standard to evaluate the ultrasound results.Results: From July 1998 through June 1999, 152 patients underwent secondary ultrasound examination and CT. Of the 152 patients, nine (6%) had liver injuries and 10 (7%) had spleen injuries. Ultrasound correctly detected only one of the liver injuries for a sensitivity of 11% (95% CI: 0%-48%) and a specificity of 98% (95% CI: 94%-100%). Ultrasound correctly detected eight spleen injuries for a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 44%-98%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI: 95%-100%).Conclusion: Emergency ultrasound is not sensitive or specific for detecting liver or spleen injuries following blunt abdominal trauma.[WestJEM. 2009;10:1-5.

    Blunt Abdominal Trauma Patients Are at Very Low Risk for Intra-Abdominal Injury after Emergency Department Observation

    Get PDF
    <p>Introduction: Patients are commonly admitted to the hospital for observation following blunt abdominal trauma (BAT), despite initially negative emergency department (ED) evaluations. With the current use of screening technology, such as computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, ultrasound, and laboratory evaluations, it is unclear which patients require observation. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of intra-abdominal injury (IAI) and death in hemodynamically normal and stable BAT patients with initially negative ED evaluations admitted to an ED observation unit and to define a low-risk subgroup of patients and assess whether they may be discharged without abdominal/pelvic CT or observation. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study performed at an urban level 1 trauma center and included all BAT patients admitted to an ED observation unit as part of a BAT key clinical pathway. All were observed for at least 8 hours as part of the key clinical pathway, and only minors and pregnant women were excluded. Outcomes included the presence of IAI or death during a 40-month follow-up period. Prior to data collection, low-risk criteria were defined as no intoxication, no hypotension or tachycardia, no abdominal pain or tenderness, no hematuria, and no distracting injury. To be considered low risk, patients needed to meet all low-risk criteria. Results: Of the 1,169 patients included over the 2-year study period, 29% received a CT of the abdomen and pelvis, 6% were admitted to the hospital from the observation unit for further management, 0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1%–1%) were diagnosed with IAI, and 0% (95% CI, 0%–0.3%) died. Patients had a median combined ED and observation length of stay of 9.5 hours. Of the 237 (20%) patients who met low-risk criteria, 7% had a CT of the abdomen and pelvis and 0% (95% CI, 0%–1.5%) were diagnosed with IAI or died. Conclusion: Most BAT patients who have initially negative ED evaluations are at low risk for IAI but still require some combination of observation and CT. A subgroup of BAT patients may be safely discharged without CT or observation after the initial evaluation. [West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(4):496–504.]</p

    Structural factors and best practices in implementing a linkage to HIV care program using the ARTAS model

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Implementation of linkage to HIV care programs in the U.S. is poorly described in the literature despite the central role of these programs in delivering clients from HIV testing facilities to clinical care sites. Models demonstrating success in linking clients to HIV care from testing locations that do not have co-located medical care are especially needed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from the Antiretroviral Treatment Access Studies-II project ('ARTAS-II') as well as site visit and project director reports were used to describe structural factors and best practices found in successful linkage to care programs. Successful programs were able to identify recently diagnosed HIV-positive persons and ensure that a high percentage of persons attended an initial HIV primary care provider visit within six months of enrolling in the linkage program.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eight categories of best practices are described, supplemented by examples from 5 of 10 ARTAS-II sites. These five sites highlighted in the best practices enrolled a total of 352 HIV+ clients and averaged 85% linked to care after six months. The other five grantees enrolled 274 clients and averaged 72% linked to care after six months. Sites with co-located HIV primary medical care services had higher linkage to care rates than non-co-located sites (87% vs. 73%). Five grantees continued linkage to care activities in some capacity after project funding ended.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>With the push to expand HIV testing in all U.S. communities, implementation and evaluation of linkage to care programs is needed to maximize the benefits of expanded HIV testing efforts</p

    Practical guide to survey research

    No full text

    Eliminating Prevention Counseling to Improve HIV Screening

    No full text
    corecore