Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting in Pittsburgh: Preparedness, Prehospital Care, and Lessons Learned

On Saturday, October 27, 2018, a man with anti-Semitic motivations entered Tree of Life synagogue in the Squirrel Hill section of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; he had an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and three handguns, opening fire upon worshippers. Eventually 11 civilians died at the scene and eight people sustained non-fatal injuries, including five police officers. Each person injured but alive at the scene received care at one of three local level-one trauma centers.  The injured had wounds often seen in war-settings, with the signature of high velocity weaponry.  We describe the scene response, specific elements of our hospital plans, the overall out-of-hospital preparedness in Pittsburgh, and the lessons learned

Barriers to Adoption of a Child-Abuse Clinical Decision Support System in Emergency Departments

Introduction: Child abuse is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children. The rate of missed child abuse in general emergency departments (ED), where 85% of children are evaluated, is higher than in pediatric EDs. We sought to evaluate the impact of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded child-abuse clinical decision support system (CA-CDSS) in the identification and evaluation of child maltreatment in a network of EDs three years after implementation. Methods: We anonymously surveyed all 196 ED attending physicians and advanced practice practitioners (APP) in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center network. The survey evaluated practitioner awareness of, attitudes toward, and changes in clinical practice prompted by the CA-CDSS. We also assessed practitioner recognition and evaluation of sentinel injuries. Results: Of the 71 practitioners (36%) who responded to the survey, 75% felt the tool raised child abuse awareness, and 72% had a face-to-face discussion with the child’s nurse after receiving a CA-CDSS alert. Among APPs, 72% consulted with the attending physician after receiving an alert. Many practitioners were unaware of at least one function of the CA-CDSS; 38% did not know who completed the child abuse screen (CAS); 54% were unaware that they could view the results of the CAS in the EHR, and 69% did not recognize the clinical decision support dashboard icon. Slightly over 20% of respondents felt that the CA-CDSS limited autonomy; and 4.5% disagreed with the recommendations in the physical abuse order set, which reflects American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines. Greater than 90% of respondents correctly identified an intraoral injury and torso bruise in an infant as sentinel injuries requiring an evaluation for abuse. Conclusion: A child-abuse clinical decision support system embedded in the electronic health record was associated with communication among practitioners and was overall perceived as improving child abuse awareness in our system. Practitioners correctly recognized injuries concerning for abuse. Barriers to improving identification and evaluation of abuse include gaps in knowledge about the CA-CDSS and the presence of practitioners who disagree with the AAP recommendations for physical abuse evaluation and/or felt that clinical decision support in general limited their clinical autonomy

National variation in United States sepsis mortality: a descriptive study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The regional distribution of a disease may provide important insights regarding its pathophysiology, risk factors and clinical care. While sepsis is a prominent cause of death in the United States (US), few studies have examined regional variations with this malady. We identified the national variation in sepsis deaths in the US. We conducted a descriptive analysis of 1999-2005 national vital statistics data from the National Center for Health Statistics summarized at the state-level. We defined sepsis deaths as deaths attributed to an infection, classified according to the International Classification of Diseases, Version 10. We calculated national and state age-adjusted sepsis-attributed mortality rates.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>National age-adjusted sepsis mortality was 65.5 per 100,000 persons (95% CI: 65.8 - 66.0). State level sepsis mortality varied more than two-fold (range 41 to 88.6 per 100,000 persons; median 60.8 per 100,000, IQR 53.9-74.4 per 100,000). A cluster extending from the Southeastern to the mid-Atlantic US encompassed states with the highest sepsis mortality.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Sepsis mortality varies across the US. The states with highest sepsis mortality form a contiguous cluster in the Southeastern and mid-Atlantic US. These observations highlight unanswered questions regarding the characteristics and care of sepsis.</p

Reasons Why Emergency Department Providers Do Not Rely on the Pneumonia Severity Index to Determine the Initial Site of Treatment for Patients with Pneumonia

Background. Many emergency department (ED) providers do not follow guideline recommendations for the use of the pneumonia severity index (PSI) to determine the initial site of treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We identified the reasons why ED providers hospitalize low-risk patients or manage higher-risk patients as outpatients. Methods. As a part of a trial to implement a PSI-based guideline for the initial site of treatment of patients with CAP, we analyzed data for patients managed at 12 EDs allocated to a high-intensity guideline implementation strategy study arm. The guideline recommended outpatient care for low-risk patients (nonhypoxemic patients with a PSI risk classification of I, II, or III) and hospitalization for higher-risk patients (hypoxemic patients or patients with a PSI risk classification of IV or V). We asked providers who made guideline-discordant decisions on site of treatment to detail the reasons for nonadherence to guideline recommendations. Results. There were 1,306 patients with CAP (689 low-risk patients and 617 higher-risk patients). Among these patients, physicians admitted 258 (37.4%) of 689 low-risk patients and treated 20 (3.2%) of 617 higher-risk patients as outpatients. The most commonly reported reasons for admitting low-risk patients were the presence of a comorbid illness (178 [71.5%] of 249 patients); a laboratory value, vital sign, or symptom that precluded ED discharge (73 patients [29.3%]); or a recommendation from a primary care or a consulting physician (48 patients [19.3%]). Higher-risk patients were most often treated as outpatients because of a recommendation by a primary care or consulting physician (6 [40.0%] of 15 patients). Conclusion. ED providers hospitalize many low-risk patients with CAP, most frequently for a comorbid illness. Although higher-risk patients are infrequently treated as outpatients, this decision is often based on the request of an involved physicia

Prehospital Systolic Blood Pressure Thresholds: A Community‐based Outcomes Study

Objectives Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel commonly use systolic blood pressure ( sBP ) to triage and treat acutely ill patients. The definition of prehospital hypotension and its associated outcomes are poorly defined. The authors sought to determine the discrimination of prehospital sBP thresholds for 30‐day mortality and to compare patient classification by best‐performing thresholds to traditional cutoffs. Methods In a community‐based cohort of adult, nontrauma, noncardiac arrest patients transported by EMS between 2002 and 2006, entries to state hospital discharge data and death certificates were linked. Prehospital sBP thresholds between 40 and 140 mm Hg in derivation ( n =  132,624) and validation ( n =  22,020) cohorts and their discrimination for 30‐day mortality, were examined. Cutoffs were evaluated using the 0/1 distance, Youden index, and adjusted Z‐statistics from multivariable logistic regression models. Results In the derivation cohort, 1,594 (1.2%) died within 24 hours, 7,404 (6%) were critically ill during hospitalization, and 6,888 (5%) died within 30 days. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for sBP was 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59, 0.61) for 30‐day mortality and 0.64 (95% CI = 0.62 0.66) for 24‐hour mortality. The 0/1 distance, Youden index, and adjusted Z‐statistics found best‐performing sBP thresholds between 110 and 120 mm Hg. When compared to an sBP ≤ 90 mm Hg, a cutoff of 110 mm Hg would identify 17% ( n =  137) more deaths at 30 days, while overtriaging four times as many survivors. Conclusions Prehospital sBP is a modest discriminator of clinical outcomes, yet no threshold avoids substantial misclassification of 30‐day mortality among noninjured patients. Resumen Los Umbrales de la Presión Arterial Sistólica Prehospitalaria: Un Estudio de Base Comunitaria Acerca de la Evolución de los Pacientes Objetivos El personal de los sistemas de emergencias médicas ( SEM ) usa frecuentemente la presión arterial sistólica ( PAS ) para clasificar y tratar a los pacientes agudos. Las definiciones de hipotensión prehospitalaria y sus resultados asociados están pobremente definidos. Se determinó la discriminación de los umbrales de PAS prehospitalaria para la mortalidad a los 30 días, y se comparó la clasificación del paciente por los mejores umbrales con los puntos de corte tradicionales. Metodología Estudio de cohorte de base comunitaria de pacientes adultos no traumatológicos ni con paradas cardiorrespiratorias transportados por los SEM entre 2002 y 2006, cuyas historias estaban vinculadas con los datos de alta hospitalaria y los certificados de mortalidad. Se examinaron los umbrales de PAS prehospitalaria entre 40 mm Hg y 140 mm Hg en las cohortes de derivación ( n =  132.624), y validación ( n =  22,020), y su discriminación para la mortalidad a los 30 días. Los puntos de corte se evaluaron usando la distancia 0/1, el índice de Youden y los estadísticos Z ajustados de los modelos de regresión logística multivariable. Resultados: En la cohorte de derivación, 1.594 (1,2%) fallecieron en las primeras 24 horas, 7.404 (6%) estuvieron críticamente enfermos durante el ingreso y 6.888 (5%) fallecieron en los 30 primeros días. El área bajo la curva de la ROC para PAS fue 0,60 ( IC 95% = 0,59–0,61) para la mortalidad a los 30 días y 0,64 ( IC 95% = 0,62–0,66) para la mortalidad a las 24 horas. La distancia 0/1, el índice de Youden y las estadísticas Z ajustadas hallaronque los mejores umbrales de PAS estaban entre 110 y 120 mm Hg. Cuando se comparó con una PAS ≤ 90 mm Hg, un punto de corte de 110 mm Hg identificaría un 17% ( n =  137) más de muertes a los 30 días, mientras que sobreclasificaría cuatro veces más a los supervivientes. Conclusiones La presión arterial sistólica es un discriminador modesto de resultados clínicos. No obstante, ningún umbral evita una mala clasificación de la mortalidad a los 30 días entre los pacientes no traumatológicos.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98303/1/acem12142-sup-0002-DataSupplementS2_FigS1.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98303/2/acem12142-sup-0007-DataSupplementS7_FigS4.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98303/3/acem12142-sup-0006-DataSupplementS6_FigS3.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98303/4/acem12142-sup-0009-DataSupplementS9_TableS3.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98303/5/acem12142-sup-0003-DataSupplementS3.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98303/6/acem12142-sup-0008-DataSupplementS8_TableS2.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98303/7/acem12142-sup-0004-DataSupplementS4_TableS1.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98303/8/acem12142-sup-0001-DataSupplementS1.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98303/9/acem12142.pd

Bench-to-bedside review: The evaluation of complex interventions in critical care

Complex interventions, such as the introduction of medical emergency teams or an early goal-directed therapy protocol, are developed from a number of components that may act both independently and inter-dependently. There is an emerging body of literature advocating the use of integrated complex interventions to optimise the treatment of critically ill patients. As with any other treatment, complex interventions should undergo careful evaluation prior to widespread introduction into clinical practice. During the development of an international collaboration of researchers investigating protocol-based approaches to the resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis, we examined the specific issues related to the evaluation of complex interventions. This review outlines some of these issues. The issues specific to trials of complex interventions that require particular attention include determining an appropriate study population and defining current treatments and outcomes in that population, defining the study intervention and the treatment to be used in the control group, and deploying the intervention in a standardised manner. The context in which the research takes place, including existing staffing levels and existing protocols and procedures, is crucial. We also discuss specific details of trial execution, in particular randomization, blinded outcome adjudication and analysis of the results, which are key to avoiding bias in the design and interpretation of such trials

Early High-Dose Vitamin D3 for Critically Ill, Vitamin D-Deficient Patients

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is a common, potentially reversible contributor to morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. The potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in acute critical illness require further study. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of early vitamin D3 supplementation in critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients who were at high risk for death. Randomization occurred within 12 hours after the decision to admit the patient to an intensive care unit. Eligible patients received a single enteral dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D3 or matched placebo. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause, all-location mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1360 patients were found to be vitamin D-deficient during point-of-care screening and underwent randomization. Of these patients, 1078 had baseline vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D level,[50 nmol per liter]) confirmed by subsequent testing and were included in the primary analysis population. The mean day 3 level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 46.9±23.2 ng per milliliter (117±58 nmol per liter) in the vitamin D group and 11.4±5.6 ng per milliliter (28±14 nmol per liter) in the placebo group (difference, 35.5 ng per milliliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.5 to 39.6). The 90-day mortality was 23.5% in the vitamin D group (125 of 531 patients) and 20.6% in the placebo group (109 of 528 patients) (difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.1 to 7.9; P = 0.26). There were no clinically important differences between the groups with respect to secondary clinical, physiological, or safety end points. The severity of vitamin D deficiency at baseline did not affect the association between the treatment assignment and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D3 did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other, nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of early vitamin D3 supplementation in critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients who were at high risk for death. Randomization occurred within 12 hours after the decision to admit the patient to an intensive care unit. Eligible patients received a single enteral dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D3 or matched placebo. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause, all-location mortality

Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited. METHODS: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028)