Unscheduled return visits to a Dutch inner-city emergency department

© 2014, van der Linden et al.; licensee Springer. Background: Unscheduled return visits to the emergency department (ED) may reflect shortcomings in care. This study characterized ED return visits with respect to incidence, risk factors, reasons and post-ED disposition. We hypothesized that risk factors for unscheduled return and reasons for returning would differ from previous studies, due to differences in health care systems. Methods: All unscheduled return visits occurring within 1 week and related to the initial ED visit were selected. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine independent factors associated with unscheduled return, using patient information available at the initial visit. Reasons for returning unscheduled were categorized into illness-, patient- or physician-related. Post-ED disposition was compared between patients with unscheduled return visits and the patients who did not return. Results: Five percent (n = 2,492) of total ED visits (n = 49,341) were unscheduled return visits. Patients with an urgent triage level, patients presenting during the night shift, with a wound or local infection, abdominal pain or urinary problems were more likely to return unscheduled. Reasons to revisit unscheduled were mostly illness-related (49%) or patient-related (41%). Admission rates for returning patients (16%) were the same as for the patients who did not return (17%). Conclusions: Apart from abdominal complaints, risk factors for unscheduled return differ from previous studies. Short-term follow-up at the outpatient clinic or general practitioner for patients with urgent triage levels and suffering from wounds or local infections, abdominal pain or urinary problem might prevent unscheduled return

Self-referring patients at the emergency department: appropriateness of ED use and motives for self-referral

© 2014, van der Linden et al.; licensee Springer. Background: Nearly all Dutch citizens have a general practitioner (GP), acting as a gatekeeper to secondary care. Some patients bypass the GP and present to the emergency department (ED). To make best use of existing emergency care, Dutch health policy makers and insurance companies have proposed the integration of EDs and GP cooperatives (GPCs) into one facility. In this study, we examined ED use and assessed the characteristics of self-referrals and non-self-referrals, their need for hospital emergency care and self-referrals' motives for presenting at the ED. Methods: A descriptive cohort study was conducted in a Dutch level 1 trauma centre. Differences in patient characteristics, time of presentation and need for hospital emergency care were analysed using χ2 tests and t tests. A patient was considered to need hospital emergency care when he/she was admitted to the hospital, had an extremity fracture and/or when diagnostic tests were performed. Main determinants of self-referral were identified via logistic regression. Results: Of the 5,003 consecutive ED patients registering within the 5-week study period, 3,028 (60.5%) were self-referrals. Thirty-nine percent of the self-referrals had urgent acuity levels, as opposed to 65% of the non-self-referrals. Self-referrals more often suffered from injuries (49 vs. 20%). One third of the self-referrals presented during office hours. Of all self-referrals, 51% needed hospital emergency care. Younger age; non-urgent acuity level; chest pain, ear, nose or throat problems; and injuries were independent predictors for self-referral. Most cited motives for self-referring were ‘accessibility and convenience’ and perceived ‘medical necessity’. Conclusions: A substantial part of the self-referrals needed hospital emergency care. The 49% self-referrals who were eligible for GP care presented during out-of-hours as well as during office hours. This calls for an integrative approach to this health care problem

Reappraising the concept of massive transfusion in trauma

Introduction The massive-transfusion concept was introduced to recognize the dilutional complications resulting from large volumes of packed red blood cells (PRBCs). Definitions of massive transfusion vary and lack supporting clinical evidence. Damage-control resuscitation regimens of modern trauma care are targeted to the early correction of acute traumatic coagulopathy. The aim of this study was to identify a clinically relevant definition of trauma massive transfusion based on clinical outcomes. We also examined whether the concept was useful in that early prediction of massive transfusion requirements could allow early activation of blood bank protocols. Methods Datasets on trauma admissions over a 1 or 2-year period were obtained from the trauma registries of five large trauma research networks. A fractional polynomial was used to model the transfusion-associated probability of death. A logistic regression model for the prediction of massive transfusion, defined as 10 or more units of red cell transfusions, was developed. Results In total, 5,693 patient records were available for analysis. Mortality increased as transfusion requirements increased, but the model indicated no threshold effect. Mortality was 9% in patients who received none to five PRBC units, 22% in patients receiving six to nine PRBC units, and 42% in patients receiving 10 or more units. A logistic model for prediction of massive transfusion was developed and validated at multiple sites but achieved only moderate performance. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81, with specificity of only 50% at a sensitivity of 90% for the prediction of 10 or more PRBC units. Performance varied widely at different trauma centers, with specificity varying from 48% to 91%. Conclusions No threshold for definition exists at which a massive transfusion specifically results in worse outcomes. Even with a large sample size across multiple trauma datasets, it was not possible to develop a transportable and clinically useful prediction model based on available admission parameters. Massive transfusion as a concept in trauma has limited utility, and emphasis should be placed on identifying patients with massive hemorrhage and acute traumatic coagulopathy

Unique case of esophageal rupture after a fall from height

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Traumatic ruptures of the esophagus are relatively rare. This condition is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Most traumatic ruptures occur after motor vehicle accidents.</p> <p>Case Presentation</p> <p>We describe a unique case of a 23 year old woman that presented at our trauma resuscitation room after a fall from 8 meters. During physical examination there were no clinical signs of life-threatening injuries. She did however have a massive amount of subcutaneous emphysema of the chest and neck and pneumomediastinum. Flexible laryngoscopy revealed a lesion in the upper esophagus just below the level of the upper esophageal sphincter. Despite preventive administration of intravenous antibiotics and nutrition via a nasogastric tube, the patient developed a cervical abscess, which drained spontaneously. Normal diet was gradually resumed after 2.5 weeks and the patient was discharged in a reasonable condition 3 weeks after the accident.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This case report presents a high cervical esophageal rupture without associated local injuries after a fall from height.</p

Viscoelastic haemostatic assay augmented protocols for major trauma haemorrhage (ITACTIC): a randomized, controlled trial

Purpose: Contemporary trauma resuscitation prioritizes control of bleeding and uses major haemorrhage protocols (MHPs) to prevent and treat coagulopathy. We aimed to determine whether augmenting MHPs with Viscoelastic Haemostatic Assays (VHA) would improve outcomes compared to Conventional Coagulation Tests (CCTs). Methods: This was a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes in trauma patients who received empiric MHPs, augmented by either VHA or CCT-guided interventions. Primary outcome was the proportion of subjects who, at 24 h after injury, were alive and free of massive transfusion (10 or more red cell transfusions). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality. Pre-specified subgroups included patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Results: Of 396 patients in the intention to treat analysis, 201 were allocated to VHA and 195 to CCT-guided therapy. At 24 h, there was no difference in the proportion of patients who were alive and free of massive transfusion (VHA: 67%, CCT: 64%, OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.76–1.73). 28-day mortality was not different overall (VHA: 25%, CCT: 28%, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54–1.31), nor were there differences in other secondary outcomes or serious adverse events. In pre-specified subgroups, there were no differences in primary outcomes. In the pre-specified subgroup of 74 patients with TBI, 64% were alive and free of massive transfusion at 24 h compared to 46% in the CCT arm (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.84–5.34). Conclusion: There was no difference in overall outcomes between VHA- and CCT-augmented-major haemorrhage protocols