External validation of the Ottawa subarachnoid hemorrhage clinical decision rule in patients with acute headache ☆

We aim to externally validate the Ottawa subarachnoid hemorrhage (OSAH) clinical decision rule. This rule identifies patients with acute nontraumatic headache who require further investigation. We conducted a medical record review of all patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with headache from January 2011 to November 2013. Per the OSAH rule, patients with any of the following predictors require further investigation: age 40 years or older, neck pain, stiffness or limited flexion, loss of consciousness, onset during exertion, or thunderclap. The rule was applied following the OSAH rule criteria. Patients were followed up for repeat visits within 7 days of initial presentation. Data were electronically harvested from the electronic medical record and manually abstracted from individual patient charts using a standardized data abstraction form. Calibration between trained reviewers was performed periodically. A total of 5034 ED visits with acute headache were reviewed for eligibility. There were 1521 visits that met exclusion criteria, and 3059 had headache of gradual onset or time to maximal intensity greater than or equal to 1 hour. The rule was applied to 454 patients (9.0%). There were 9 cases of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), yielding an incidence of 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0%-3.9%) in the eligible cohort. The sensitivity for SAH was 100% (95% CI, 62.9%-100%); specificity, 7.6% (95% CI, 5.4%-10.6%); positive predictive value, 2.1% (95% CI 1.0%-4.2%); and negative predictive value, 100% (95% CI, 87.4%-100%). The OSAH rule was 100% sensitive for SAH in the eligible cohort. However, its low specificity and applicability to only a minority of ED patients with headache (9%) reduce its potential impact on practice

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

A Comparison of Chest Compression Quality Delivered During On-Scene and Ground Transport Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Introduction: American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) chest compressions 1.5 to 2 inches (3.75-5 cm) deep at 100 to 120 per minute. Recent studies demonstrated that manual CPR by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel is substandard. We hypothesized that transport CPR quality is significantly worse than on-scene CPR quality.Methods: We analyzed adult patients receiving on-scene and transport chest compressions from nine EMS sites across two Midwestern states from May 2008 to July 2010. Two periods were analyzed: before and after visual feedback. CPR data were collected and exported with the Zoll M series monitor and a sternally placed accelerometer measuring chest compression rate and depth. We compared compression data with 2010 AHA guidelines and Zoll RescueNet Code Review software. CPR depth and rate were “above (deep),” “in,” or “below (shallow)” the target range according to AHA guidelines. We paired on-scene and transport data for each patient; paired proportions were compared with the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test.Results: In the pre-feedback period, we analyzed 105 of 140 paired cases (75.0%); in the post-feedback period, 35 of 140 paired cases (25.0%) were analyzed. The proportion of correct depths during on-scene compressions (median, 41.9%; interquartile range [IQR], 16.1-73.1) was higher compared to the paired transport proportion (median, 8.7%; IQR 2.7-48.9). Proportions of on-scene median correct rates and transport median correct depths did not improve in the post-feedback period.Conclusion: Transport chest compressions are significantly worse than on-scene compressions. Implementation of visual real-time feedback did not affect performance. [West J Emerg Med. 2016;17(5)634-639.

Compassion Fatigue is Similar in Emergency Medicine Residents Compared to other Medical and Surgical Specialties

Introduction: Compassion fatigue (CF) is the emotional and physical burden felt by those helping others in distress, leading to a reduced capacity and interest in being empathetic towards future suffering. Emergency care providers are at an increased risk of CF secondary to their first responder roles and exposure to traumatic events. We aimed to investigate the current state of compassion fatigue among emergency medicine (EM) resident physicians, including an assessment of contributing factors.Methods: We distributed a validated electronic questionnaire consisting of the Professional Quality of Life Scale with subscales for the three components of CF (compassion satisfaction, burnout and secondary traumatic stress), with each category scored independently. We collected data pertaining to day- versus night-shift distribution, hourly workload and child dependents. We included residents in EM, neurology, orthopedics, family medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, and general surgery.Results: We surveyed 255 residents, with a response rate of 75%. Of the 188 resident respondents, 18% worked a majority of their clinical shifts overnight, and 32% had child dependents. Burnout scores for residents who worked greater than 80 hours per week, or primarily worked overnight shifts, were higher than residents who worked less than 80 hours (mean score 25.0 vs 21.5; p=0.013), or did not work overnight (mean score 23.5 vs 21.3; p=0.022).  EM residents had similar scores in all three components of CF when compared to other specialties. Secondary traumatic stress scores for residents who worked greater than 80 hours were higher than residents who worked less than 80 hours (mean score 22.2 vs 19.5; p=0.048), and those with child dependents had higher secondary traumatic stress than those without children (mean score 21.0 vs 19.1; p=0.012).Conclusion: CF scores in EM residents are similar to residents in other surgical and medical specialties. Residents working primarily night shifts and those working more than 80 hours per week appear to be at high risk of developing compassion fatigue. Residents with children are more likely to experience secondary traumatic stress. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(6):–0]

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.The aim of this study was to inform vaccination prioritization by modelling the impact of vaccination on elective inpatient surgery. The study found that patients aged at least 70 years needing elective surgery should be prioritized alongside other high-risk groups during early vaccination programmes. Once vaccines are rolled out to younger populations, prioritizing surgical patients is advantageous