Effect of emergency physician-operated emergency short-stay ward on emergency department stay length and clinical outcomes: a case-control study

Abstract Background We hypothesized that an emergency short-stay ward (ESSW) mainly operated by emergency medicine physicians may reduce the length of patient stay in emergency department without expense of clinical outcomes. Methods We retrospectively analysed adult patients who visited the emergency department of the study hospital and were subsequently admitted to wards from 2017 to 2019. We divided study participants into three groups: patients admitted to ESSW and treated by the department of emergency medicine (ESSW-EM), patients admitted to ESSW and treated by other departments (ESSW-Other) and patients admitted to general wards (GW). The co-primary outcomes were ED length of stay and 28-day hospital mortality. Results In total, 29,596 patients were included in the study, and 8,328 (31.3%), 2,356 (8.9%), and 15,912 (59.8%) of them were classified as ESSW-EM, ESSW-Other and GW groups, respectively. The ED length of stay of the ESSW-EM (7.1 h ± 5.4) was shorter than those of the ESSW-Other (8.0 ± 6.2, P < 0.001) and the GW (10.2 ± 9.8, P < 0.001 for both). Hospital mortality of ESSW-EM (1.9%) was lower than that of GW (4.1%, P < 0.001). In the multivariable linear regression analysis, the ESSW-EM was independently associated with shorter ED length of stay compared with the both ESSW-Other (coefficient, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.70–1.46; P < 0.001) and GW (coefficient, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 3.12–3.57; P < 0.001). In the multivariable logistic regression analyses, the ESSW-EM was independently associated with lower hospital mortality compared with both the ESSW-Other group (adjusted P = 0.030) and the GW group (adjusted P < 0.001). Conclusions In conclusion, the ESSW-EM was independently associated with shorter ED length of stay compared with both the ESSW-Other and the GW in the adult ED patients. Independent association was found between the ESSW-EM and lower hospital mortality compared with the GW

A remote-controlled automatic chest compression device capable of moving compression position during CPR: A pilot study in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.

BackgroundRecently, we developed a chest compression device that can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR and be remotely controlled to minimize rescuer exposure to infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to compare its performance with conventional mechanical CPR device in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.Materials and methodsA prototype of a remote-controlled automatic chest compression device (ROSCER) that can change the chest compression position without interruption during CPR was developed, and its performance was compared with LUCAS 3 in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, 16 male pigs were randomly assigned into the two groups, ROSCER CPR (n = 8) and LUCAS 3 CPR (n = 8), respectively. During 5 minutes of CPR, hemodynamic parameters including aortic pressure, right atrial pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, common carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure were measured.ResultsIn the compression performance test using a mannequin, compression depth, compression time, decompression time, and plateau time were almost equal between ROSCER and LUCAS 3. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, coronary perfusion pressure showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.409). Systolic aortic pressure and carotid blood flow were higher in the LUCAS 3 group than in the ROSCER group during 5 minutes of CPR (p ConclusionThe prototype of a remote-controlled automated chest compression device can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR. In a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest, the device showed no inferior performance to a conventional mechanical CPR device

Mechanism for horizontal and vertical movement and the user control panel of ROSCER.

A: mechanism for XYZ movement; B: mechanism under upper plate; C: user control panel; D: control block diagram of ROSCER. Reprinted from under a CC BY license, with permission from [NT Robot, Co], original copyright [2023].</p

Schematic diagram of experiment in a swine model of cardiac arrest.

Schematic diagram of experiment in a swine model of cardiac arrest.</p

The performance test of changing the compression position using a mannequin.

The performance test of changing the compression position using a mannequin.</p

Compression performance test of ROSCER using a mannequin.

The compression force and depth of ROSCER (A). A performance comparison test using a mannequin between ROSCER and LUCAS 3 (Stryker, MI USA) (B).</p

Specifications of ROSCER.

BackgroundRecently, we developed a chest compression device that can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR and be remotely controlled to minimize rescuer exposure to infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to compare its performance with conventional mechanical CPR device in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.Materials and methodsA prototype of a remote-controlled automatic chest compression device (ROSCER) that can change the chest compression position without interruption during CPR was developed, and its performance was compared with LUCAS 3 in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, 16 male pigs were randomly assigned into the two groups, ROSCER CPR (n = 8) and LUCAS 3 CPR (n = 8), respectively. During 5 minutes of CPR, hemodynamic parameters including aortic pressure, right atrial pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, common carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure were measured.ResultsIn the compression performance test using a mannequin, compression depth, compression time, decompression time, and plateau time were almost equal between ROSCER and LUCAS 3. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, coronary perfusion pressure showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.409). Systolic aortic pressure and carotid blood flow were higher in the LUCAS 3 group than in the ROSCER group during 5 minutes of CPR (p p = 0.008, respectively). End-tidal CO2 level of the ROSCER group was initially lower than that of the LUCAS 3 group, but was higher over time (p = 0.022). A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for ROSC also showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.46).ConclusionThe prototype of a remote-controlled automated chest compression device can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR. In a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest, the device showed no inferior performance to a conventional mechanical CPR device.</div

The performance test of changing the compression position and remote controlling in a swine model of cardiac arrest.

The performance test of changing the compression position and remote controlling in a swine model of cardiac arrest.</p

S1 Fig -

Aortic pressure, and right atrial pressure at the systolic (C, D) and mid-diastolic phase (A, B). Points and error bars represent means ± standard errors. (TIFF)</p