Development and External Validation of the International Early Warning Score for Improved Age- and Sex-Adjusted In-Hospital Mortality Prediction in the Emergency Department

Objectives: Early Warning Scores (EWSs) have a great potential to assist clinical decision-making in the emergency department (ED). However, many EWS contain methodological weaknesses in development and validation and have poor predictive performance in older patients. The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate an International Early Warning Score (IEWS) based on a recalibrated National Early warning Score (NEWS) model including age and sex and evaluate its performance independently at arrival to the ED in three age categories (18-65, 66-80, &gt; 80 yr). Design: International multicenter cohort study. Setting: Data was used from three Dutch EDs. External validation was performed in two EDs in Denmark. Patients: All consecutive ED patients greater than or equal to 18 years in the Netherlands Emergency department Evaluation Database (NEED) with at least two registered vital signs were included, resulting in 95,553 patients. For external validation, 14,809 patients were included from a Danish Multicenter Cohort (DMC). Measurements and Main Results: Model performance to predict in-hospital mortality was evaluated by discrimination, calibration curves and summary statistics, reclassification, and clinical usefulness by decision curve analysis. In-hospital mortality rate was 2.4% (n = 2,314) in the NEED and 2.5% (n = 365) in the DMC. Overall, the IEWS performed significantly better than NEWS with an area under the receiving operating characteristic of 0.89 (95% CIs, 0.89-0.90) versus 0.82 (0.82-0.83) in the NEED and 0.87 (0.85-0.88) versus 0.82 (0.80-0.84) at external validation. Calibration for NEWS predictions underestimated risk in older patients and overestimated risk in the youngest, while calibration improved for IEWS with a substantial reclassification of patients from low to high risk and a standardized net benefit of 5-15% in the relevant risk range for all age categories. Conclusions: The IEWS substantially improves in-hospital mortality prediction for all ED patients greater than or equal to18 years.</p

Procedural sedation and analgesia practices by emergency physicians in the Netherlands: a nationwide survey

Background Several efforts have been made to assure and to improve the quality of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) performed by emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. This study investigated the current PSA practice and competences of EPs in both adult and paediatric patients. In particular, if residency and current training, awareness of guidelines is sufficient for registered EPs to adequately perform PSA and if the availability of both adult and paediatric PSA in the ED is adequate. Methods A cross-sectional nationwide survey was performed amongst Dutch EPs (n = 463) in June 2016. We collected data on background, training, practice, and competencies of both adult and paediatric PSA. We investigated guideline adherence, reasons for not performing PSA, and desired improvements. Results The respondents (n = 191) represented 84.6% hospitals with EPs and 41.3% of all EPs in The Netherlands. Nearly all EPs (97.8%) performed PSA in adult patients compared to only 59.1% who performed PSA in paediatric patients (p < 0.001). The major reason for not performing paediatric PSA was caused by a lack of exposure during the training-program (74.1%). PSA-guideline knowledge (98.3%) and PSA related adverse event registration (98.3%) were excellent. Lack of 24/7-availability of both adult and paediatric emergency department PSA was mainly caused by a shortage of EPs. Self-reflection indicated that EPs feel less competent in performing paediatric PSA when compared to adult PSA. Conclusion This nationwide survey demonstrates that there is still a significant gap between the performance of adult and paediatric PSA even though guideline adherence and registration of PSA-related adverse events appear to be adequate. Enhancement of paediatric PSA training in combination with an increase of EP-staffing can help improve the availability of adult and paediatric PSA in the emergency department

Procedural sedation and analgesia practices by emergency physicians in the Netherlands: a nationwide survey

Background Several efforts have been made to assure and to improve the quality of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) performed by emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. This study investigated the current PSA practice and competences of EPs in both adult and paediatric patients. In particular, if residency and current training, awareness of guidelines is sufficient for registered EPs to adequately perform PSA and if the availability of both adult and paediatric PSA in the ED is adequate. Methods A cross-sectional nationwide survey was performed amongst Dutch EPs (n = 463) in June 2016. We collected data on background, training, practice, and competencies of both adult and paediatric PSA. We investigated guideline adherence, reasons for not performing PSA, and desired improvements. Results The respondents (n = 191) represented 84.6% hospitals with EPs and 41.3% of all EPs in The Netherlands. Nearly all EPs (97.8%) performed PSA in adult patients compared to only 59.1% who performed PSA in paediatric patients (p &lt; 0.001). The major reason for not performing paediatric PSA was caused by a lack of exposure during the training-program (74.1%). PSA-guideline knowledge (98.3%) and PSA related adverse event registration (98.3%) were excellent. Lack of 24/7-availability of both adult and paediatric emergency department PSA was mainly caused by a shortage of EPs. Self-reflection indicated that EPs feel less competent in performing paediatric PSA when compared to adult PSA. Conclusion This nationwide survey demonstrates that there is still a significant gap between the performance of adult and paediatric PSA even though guideline adherence and registration of PSA-related adverse events appear to be adequate. Enhancement of paediatric PSA training in combination with an increase of EP-staffing can help improve the availability of adult and paediatric PSA in the emergency department. Background Several efforts have been made to assure and to improve the quality of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) performed by emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. This study investigated the current PSA practice and competences of EPs in both adult and paediatric patients. In particular, if residency and current training, awareness of guidelines is sufficient for registered EPs to adequately perform PSA and if the availability of both adult and paediatric PSA in the ED is adequate. Methods A cross-sectional nationwide survey was performed amongst Dutch EPs (n = 463) in June 2016. We collected data on background, training, practice, and competencies of both adult and paediatric PSA. We investigated guideline adherence, reasons for not performing PSA, and desired improvements. Results The respondents (n = 191) represented 84.6% hospitals with EPs and 41.3% of all EPs in The Netherlands. Nearly all EPs (97.8%) performed PSA in adult patients compared to only 59.1% who performed PSA in paediatric patients (p &lt; 0.001). The major reason for not performing paediatric PSA was caused by a lack of exposure during the training-program (74.1%). PSA-guideline knowledge (98.3%) and PSA related adverse event registration (98.3%) were excellent. Lack of 24/7-availability of both adult and paediatric emergency department PSA was mainly caused by a shortage of EPs. Self-reflection indicated that EPs feel less competent in performing paediatric PSA when compared to adult PSA. Conclusion This nationwide survey demonstrates that there is still a significant gap between the performance of adult and paediatric PSA even though guideline adherence and registration of PSA-related adverse events appear to be adequate. Enhancement of paediatric PSA training in combination with an increase of EP-staffing can help improve the availability of adult and paediatric PSA in the emergency department

Additional file 1: of Procedural sedation and analgesia practices by emergency physicians in the Netherlands: a nationwide survey

Procedural sedation survey for Dutch emergency physicians. (PDF 102 kb

Paediatric procedural sedation and analgesia by emergency physicians in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric patients receive less procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department compared with adults, especially in countries where emergency medicine is at an early stage of development. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the adverse events and efficacy of paediatric PSA in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine and to describe which factors aided implementation. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicentre, observational study of paediatric patients undergoing PSA by the first trained emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. A standardized data collection form was used at all participating hospitals to collect data on adverse events, amnesia, pain scores, and procedure completion. A survey was used to interpret which factors had aided PSA implementation. RESULTS: We recorded 351 paediatric PSA. The mean age was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval: 9.1-10.0). Esketamine was most frequently used (42.4%), followed by propofol (34.7%). The adverse event rate was low (3.0%). Amnesia was present in 86.8%. The median pain score was 2 (out of 10) for patients without amnesia. Procedures were successfully completed in 93.9% of the cases. CONCLUSION: Paediatric PSA provided by the first EPs in The Netherlands showed appropriate levels of sedation and analgesia with a high rate of procedure completion and a low rate of adverse events. Our paper suggests that EPs provided with a proper infrastructure of mentorship, training and guidelines can implement effective paediatric PSA

Paediatric procedural sedation and analgesia by emergency physicians in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine

OBJECTIVES:\u3cbr/\u3ePaediatric patients receive less procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department compared with adults, especially in countries where emergency medicine is at an early stage of development. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the adverse events and efficacy of paediatric PSA in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine and to describe which factors aided implementation.\u3cbr/\u3eMETHODS:\u3cbr/\u3eThis is a prospective, multicentre, observational study of paediatric patients undergoing PSA by the first trained emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. A standardized data collection form was used at all participating hospitals to collect data on adverse events, amnesia, pain scores, and procedure completion. A survey was used to interpret which factors had aided PSA implementation.\u3cbr/\u3eRESULTS:\u3cbr/\u3eWe recorded 351 paediatric PSA. The mean age was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval: 9.1-10.0). Esketamine was most frequently used (42.4%), followed by propofol (34.7%). The adverse event rate was low (3.0%). Amnesia was present in 86.8%. The median pain score was 2 (out of 10) for patients without amnesia. Procedures were successfully completed in 93.9% of the cases.\u3cbr/\u3eCONCLUSION:\u3cbr/\u3ePaediatric PSA provided by the first EPs in The Netherlands showed appropriate levels of sedation and analgesia with a high rate of procedure completion and a low rate of adverse events. Our paper suggests that EPs provided with a proper infrastructure of mentorship, training and guidelines can implement effective paediatric PSA. OBJECTIVES:\u3cbr/\u3ePaediatric patients receive less procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department compared with adults, especially in countries where emergency medicine is at an early stage of development. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the adverse events and efficacy of paediatric PSA in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine and to describe which factors aided implementation.\u3cbr/\u3eMETHODS:\u3cbr/\u3eThis is a prospective, multicentre, observational study of paediatric patients undergoing PSA by the first trained emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. A standardized data collection form was used at all participating hospitals to collect data on adverse events, amnesia, pain scores, and procedure completion. A survey was used to interpret which factors had aided PSA implementation.\u3cbr/\u3eRESULTS:\u3cbr/\u3eWe recorded 351 paediatric PSA. The mean age was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval: 9.1-10.0). Esketamine was most frequently used (42.4%), followed by propofol (34.7%). The adverse event rate was low (3.0%). Amnesia was present in 86.8%. The median pain score was 2 (out of 10) for patients without amnesia. Procedures were successfully completed in 93.9% of the cases.\u3cbr/\u3eCONCLUSION:\u3cbr/\u3ePaediatric PSA provided by the first EPs in The Netherlands showed appropriate levels of sedation and analgesia with a high rate of procedure completion and a low rate of adverse events. Our paper suggests that EPs provided with a proper infrastructure of mentorship, training and guidelines can implement effective paediatric PSA

Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Dutch emergency physicians:A prospective multicentre observational study of 1711 adults

\u3cp\u3eObjective: To describe our experience performing ED procedural sedation in a country where emergency medicine (EM) is a relatively new specialty. Methods: This is a prospective observational study of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation by emergency physicians (EPs) or EM residents in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Data were collected on a standardised form, including patient characteristics, sedative and analgesic used, procedural success, adverse events (classified according to World SIVA) and rescue interventions. Results: 1711 adult cases were included from 2006 to 2013. Propofol, midazolam and esketamine (S+ enantiomer of ketamine) were the most used sedatives (63%, 29% and 8%). We had adverse event data on all patients. The overall adverse event rate was 11%, mostly hypoxia or apnoea. There was no difference in adverse event rate between EPs and EM residents. However, there was a significantly higher success rate of the procedure when EPs did the procedural sedation (92% vs 84%). No moderate (unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care) or sentinel SIVA outcomes occurred ( pulmonary aspiration syndrome, death or permanent neurological deficit). Conclusion: Adverse events during procedural sedation occurred in 11% of patients. There were no moderate or sentinel outcomes. All events could be managed by the sedating physician. In a country where EM is a relatively new specialty, procedural sedation appears to be safe when performed by EPs or trained EM residents and has comparable adverse event rates to international studies.\u3c/p\u3

Procedural sedation and analgesia versus nerve blocks for reduction of fractures and dislocations in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract Background Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) are techniques to manage pain and facilitate reduction of dislocated joints or fractures. However, it is unclear if either approach provides any distinct advantage in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this systematic review is to compare these 2 techniques on pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and length of stay (LOS) in the ED. Methods We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and references were hand‐searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PSA with NBs for orthopedic reductions in the ED were included. Outcomes of interest included pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and LOS in the ED. A total of 2 reviewers independently screened abstracts and extracted data into a standardized form. The Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool was used to evaluate study quality. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty and strength of the evidence. Data on pain scores were pooled using a random‐effects model and are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 6 RCTs (n = 256) were included in a qualitative review, and 4 RCTs (n = 101) were included in the meta‐analysis. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the PSA and NB groups (P = 0.47; SMD, 0.45; 95% CI, −0.78 to 1.69; I2 = 0.94). There were less adverse events in the NB group (0%–3.3%) compared with the PSA group (0%–20%; n = 256). LOS times were consistently shorter in the NB group (n = 215). Patient satisfaction was comparable in both groups (n = 196). Conclusion Based on the available evidence, NBs performed by emergency physicians are as effective as PSA in managing pain during orthopedic reductions in the ED. NBs are associated with fewer adverse events and shorter LOS in the ED. The quality of evidence is low