You don't need to be signed in to read BMJ Blogs, but you can register here to receive updates about other BMJ products and services via our site.

Primary Survey April 2017.

18 Apr, 17 | by scarley

This month’s primary Survey is written by Mary Dawood. Don’t forget to visit the journal site to see more and keep in touch with us on Social Media.

Also, don’t forget to listen and subscribe to our podcast to keep you up to date on the journal and topics in emergency medicine.

Organ Donation in the ED

Possibly one of the most sensitive and daunting conversations that takes place in the ED is about organ donation. By virtue of circumstances this conversation usually occurs subsequent to breaking news of death or imminent death. Broaching the subject of organ donation can seem ill timed, insensitive and is difficult for even the most skilled clinicians. Even so, organ donation is a core competency in emergency medicine as is the management of patients in the final stages of life, furthermore we have a duty as healthcare professionals to explore this potential at the end of life. In the UK in 2015–16 a record number of organs were donated and transplanted but the consent rate is still one of the lowest in Europe. At the end of 2015 there were nearly 7000 people waiting for a transplant, 429 died while waiting and a further 807 were removed from the list most likely due to deteriorating health. Despite ongoing teaching of emergency staff and expert support from specialist nurses, opportunities for organ donation can still be lost in the urgency and fast pace of the ED as well as the perceived difficulties of managing the logistics of donation before death (DBD) or donation after circulatory death (DCD). Outcomes from DBD are better but an ongoing shortage of organs is seeing the reintroduction of a long abandoned practice of (DCD). This month’s issue includes a very informative paper by Gardiner and colleagues along with a commentary by Bernard Foex about organ donation. Gardiners paper describes current transplantation practice in the UK, associated ethical and legal issues, the classification of deceased donors and future developments promising greater numbers of organs. Foex’s commentary discusses withdrawal of life sustaining therapy and the case for delay.

Both these papers are a ‘must read’ for ED clinicians everywhere to remind us that the potential to change lives for better is enormous and the urgency for organ donation is greater than ever as we live longer.

Saving money

Containing the ever increasing costs of healthcare is both a challenge and a necessity in all health economies. We are constantly entreated by our ‘money masters’ to find not only more cost effective ways of delivering care but cheaper consumables. In the minds of many clinicians cheaper consumables often equate to poorer quality so it was very interesting to read of a study by Riguzzi et al from San Francisco comparing cost of commercially produced ultrasound gel which is relatively expensive with an alternative corn-starched based gel. They found that the corn starched gel which cost <10 cents per bottle produced images of similar quality to those using commercial gel which costs about $5 dollars. Given that point of care ultrasound is increasingly used in low resource settings, over time, this may represent a tidy sum that could be used elsewhere. Think about this the next time you liberally squirt expensive ultrasound gel!.

Sepsis again

Lifesaving treatment for sepsis is relatively straightforward–so many more lives should be saved every year if treatment is started in a timely way. It is therefore an ongoing concern that so many people still die from sepsis every year. The difficulty is spotting this complex condition as soon as a patient presents so we need to ask whether our triage systems are sufficiently sophisticated to support early recognition. Graff and colleagues in Germany undertook an evaluation of the Manchester triage system (MTS) to assess its effectiveness in identifying septic patients. They found the MTS to have some weakness with respect to priority in patients with sepsis and that discriminators for identifying systemic infection are insufficiently considered. In view of the fact that MTS and similar versions are so widely used it is well worth reading this paper to revisit our triage systems and how we can improve detection of sepsis at triage.

Weighing patients: a guestimate?

Some EDs are fortunate to have high specification trolleys that have built in scales for weighing patients. Most of us probably don’t work with such sophisticated facilities so we resort to roughly estimating a patient’s weight in emergency situations. This is a concern when using time critical drugs that require precise dosing according to weight. I was curious then to read of a study in this issue by Cattermole and colleagues in the UK that aimed to develop and validate an accurate method for estimating weight in all age groups using mid arm circumference.(MAC) They derived a simplified method of MAC based weight estimation from a linear regression equation: weight in kg=4xMAC (in cm)−50. They found that this formula is at least as precise in adults and adolescents as commonly used paediatric weight estimation tools are in children. The authors advise that a gender specific model would improve precision but this would require a tape or smartphone. This study is well worth a read as a more accurate way of estimating weight is to be welcomed especially as rising obesity levels will call for more consistent documentation of weight and precise dosing.

Adaptive design clinical trials in the ED?

Conducting and sustaining clinical trials in emergency settings can be difficult for a variety of reasons. One reason may relate to the fixed nature of the designs that are traditionally used in ED trials, where conduct and analysis are outlined at the outset and are not examined until the trial is finished. This fixed design may in many instances take too long and be costly both to patients and staff. It may be time to consider alternative way of conducting clinical trials in the ED that may be more effective and conducive to the ED setting. In this issue, Flight et al hypothetised that the majority of published emergency medicine trials have the potential to use a simple adaptive trial design where planned interim analysis is factored in to determine whether studies should be stopped or modified before recruitment is complete. Their study reviewed clinical trials published in three emergency medicine journals between January 2003 and December 2013. They found that out of 188 trials, only 19 were considered to have used an adaptive trial design. A total of 154/165 trials that were fixed in design had the potential to use an adaptive design. For those of us grappling with the challenges of clinical trials in the ED, this approach is worthy of consideration.

View Abstract

vb

Mary Dawood

  1. Emergency Department, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mary Dawood; Mary.dawood@imperial.nhs.uk

Primary Survey March 2017

23 Feb, 17 | by scarley

It’s March 2017 and time for a quick review of the best of the EMJ this month

Under pressure: does cricoid improve laryngoscopy?

Whether or not we should use cricoid during emergency intubation is fast becoming one of the greatest modern controversies in Emergency Medicine. While we await data from randomised controlled trials, in this month’s issue Caruana et al have provided some important new evidence. In a retrospective analysis of 1195 patients undergoing pre-hospital intubation, cricoid pressure was not found to be associated with difficult laryngoscopy. After propensity score matching, there were no apparent differences in the incidence of complications with or without the use of cricoid pressure, other than an increase in the proportion of patients sustaining airway trauma when cricoid pressure was used. Ultimately we now have further reason to question the routine use of cricoid pressure, but is it sufficient to change your practice?

Statistics made much easier!

Reading the phrase ‘propensity score matching’ may have just made you feel a little uncomfortable. If so, you’re not alone. Most emergency physicians could do with a little help when it comes to interpreting some of the more complicated statistical analyses we encounter in the literature. If you feel that way, I’m sure you’ll be pleased to see that this month we have the first in an occasional series of articles on statistical concepts that go beyond the basics. These articles aim to provide a helpful tutorial to readers to increase their skills of critical appraisal for the future. To help illustrate the concepts, we will link them to original articles that we publish. This month, we’ve linked to the work by Caruana et al, which is free to access as the editor’s choice.

Who calls ambulances and doesn’t wait?

Most of us can appreciate that calling for an emergency ambulance is not to be taken lightly. When emergency services are facing severe and increasing pressure, it can be extremely frustrating to observe that some patients arrive in the Emergency Department by ambulance but don’t wait to be seen. In this issue, Doupe et al explore the characteristics of patients who do just that. Compared with other patients, they found that patients who called an ambulance and did not wait were more likely to have a history of substance abuse ad to live in low income areas. Identifying the characteristics of patients who exhibit this behaviour will help emergency physicians to create individual management plans to deal with apparently unhelpful patterns of seeking healthcare.

A new device to help metrics for ED weighting

Rapidly and accurately estimating the weight of children presenting to the Paediatric Emergency Department is highly important for drug dosing but often challenging. Emergency physicians commonly use formulae or aids such as the Broselow tape. This month, Jung et al report on the accuracy of a novel ‘rolling tape’ electronic device with wireless transmission. They demonstrate that its use enabled faster and more accurate weight estimation than the Broselow tape. However, they go further still: using the rolling tape led to faster orders for resuscitation drugs and defibrillation in cardiac arrest. Could this revolutionise how we measure patients’ weight in the Paediatric Emergency Department?

The trajectory of an academic emergency physician

If you’re a research active emergency physician, you may be interested in tracking your academic progress in relation to other emergency physicians. Is your progress fast or slow? In this issue, Miro et al explore whether we can develop a guide to the progress of researchers in Emergency Medicine. They tracked the h-index of a selected group of academic emergency physicians. The h-index tries to combine an author’s impact with their productivity. If an author has, for example, 5 articles that have been cited 5 times or more, then their h-index is 5. Miro et al have derived a formula to track the rise in h-index for ‘fast’, ‘medium’ and ‘slow’ growth academics. Where do you fit in? Don’t be discouraged, though. All the authors included in this sample were highly reputable academic emergency physicians. Even those in the ‘slow growth’ category may therefore be elite researchers. You may, however, find that this article spurs you on!

Can doctors measure pain in children?

Brudvik et al report a fascinating study in which they asked children to score their pain in the Paediatric Emergency Department, while doctors and parents were asked to estimate the score. How do you think we did? Read the full article to find out the detail, but you may be surprised to find out how much we under-estimate pain and how often we withhold analgesia, even for children with severe pain. It’s a sobering reminder that the pain of an individual is a very personal experience and cannot be accurately measured by others.

vb

Rick Body

PDF

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2016-206657

Are nurses always right?

15 Feb, 17 | by cgray

Are nurses always right?

As a junior doctor, I have had, and still have some fantastic senior colleagues to work with, who generally give important and valuable advice. Over the placements and years, their advice is slowly turning me into the doctor that I aspire to be, an amalgamation of all the good bits from every doctor I have worked with so far along the way. I say doctor, but really I’m talking about all the other people that play a part in the hospital experience. Physiotherapists, pharmacists, health care assistants, porters, and so many more. Most of all, the many brilliant nurses I’ve had the pleasure of working alongside.

When I first started out as a doctor, the single biggest piece of advice that was given to me, and that still holds true today as one that I pass on to those unlucky enough to be my juniors, is to listen to the nurses. Make friends with the nurses. Don’t get on their bad side. Pay attention to what they say. That advice has saved me and saved my patients more times than I can count.

Because, nurses are always right. Aren’t they?

It’s a brave team that would design a study to pit nurses against a scoring tool, but that’s exactly what Allan Cameron and team from Glasgow have been up to. The Glasgow Admission Prediction Score (GAPS) was developed to estimate the probability of a patient being admitted, based on data collected at triage such as the patient’s age, early warning score, and triage category. The tool has been validated with good results, and could be used to help to optimise flow within the ED through early identification of those more likely to need a hospital bed.

This study, published in the January EMJ, aimed to compare GAPS to the triage nurses’ gestalt on likelihood of admission. To assess the latter, a visual analogue scale (VAS) was used, onto which triage nurses would mark how certain they were of patient admission/discharge. Previous studies on the topic have shown that when nurses are confident of the outcome, they’re usually right, and this study was no different. As always, we’d recommend you take a look at the paper itself to draw your own conclusions from the results.

3844 attendances to a single emergency department were studied, however a portion were allocated direct to a minors or resuscitation area, bypassing triage, and further patients were excluded from being under 16 or leaving before treatment was complete. Only 9 patients out of the 2091 that were triaged had insufficient data completion, which is a respectable figure. Of the 1829 attendances suitable for inclusion, 745 were admitted (40.7%), which seems high, however as stated this did not include a large number of minors patients who were more likely to have been discharged.

Nurse gestalt was found to be more sensitive than GAPS (81.2% vs 71.8%) but less specific (77.4% vs 86.6%). There was no correlation between nurse seniority and accuracy of predictions. Whilst the GAPS was more centrally distributed, results from the VAS showed peaks at 0-5% and 95-100% certainty of admission. This was the case for 781 patients. In these patients, nurses performed significantly better than GAPS, correctly predicting outcome in 92.4% (722). Excluding these patients though, GAPS provided a more accurate assessment.

In practice, the team found that the most accurate way to predict likelihood of admission was GAPS, but with the triage nurses able to override the tool where they were confident (>95%) as to whether the patient would be admitted or discharged. The authors admit that more work is needed, but maybe we’ll see admission prediction scores in use in the future.

Interestingly, there is no mention on whether those patients discharged home were followed up to see if any were admitted in the following days. Maybe the nurses’ gut feeling wasn’t wrong after all…

vb

C
@cgraydoc

The ‘Deliberate Practice Mindset’

27 Jan, 17 | by rlloyd

Performance improvement is an interest of mine. I have previously blogged and podcasted about the strategies I employed to lift my game (from rock-bottom) when working in an extreme environment – a South African township ED.

I first became aware of ‘deliberate practice’ after reading an excellent St. Emlyn’s post last year. I had never encountered the concept before, but it resonated with me because it resembles certain aspects of how I’ve approached self-improvement in a professional setting, particularly when desperate to prove myself in South Africa.

The psychologist who originally described deliberate practice, Dr. Anders Ericsson, has recently published a book – Peak. It explores the ‘science of expertise’, for which he is the world’s leading expert – the expert on experts.

I thought I’d discuss a few of my take-home points from the book.

The ‘gift’ fallacy

“I am not talented, I am obsessed” – Conor McGregor, UFC lightweight champion

Too often, wider society’s assumption is that elite performers are naturally ‘gifted’. They have been magically blessed with superhuman ability. According to Ericsson, this is false.

No-one is born with an innate ability to perform at expert level, in any domain. All exceptional performers, regardless of field, have had to push themselves through a very intense practice regime to get to where they are. They have learnt how to be brilliant.

Ericsson repeatedly makes the point that in his 30+ years of studying an extraordinarily wide range of expert performers, from grandmaster chess players to professional tennis players to concert violinists, he is yet to encounter a genuine ‘prodigy’ – somebody born with prerequisite skills for expert performance.

MozartEricsson’s favourite example of the ‘God-given talent’ fallacy is legendary composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. From an astonishingly young age, Mozart wowed audiences in concert halls across Europe with his apparent mastery of multiple musical instruments, and was labelled a child prodigy. Not so much, it turns out. The history books reveal that Wolfgang could barely walk before commencing a comprehensive training regime designed by his father, a pioneer in musical training. Furthermore, Ericsson claims that if he were around today he would barely stand out from the crowd. In fact, it’s been demonstrated that Suzoki Method-trained child musicians are often able to perform to a higher level than Mozart was ever capable of achieving.

A key component of Mozart’s prodigious skillset was thought to be his possession of perfect pitch – the ability to accurately name a musical note upon hearing it in isolation. The assumption was that it spontaneously emerged from birth and was un-teachable. It has since been proven that anyone can be trained in perfect pitch, particularly if they’ve received appropriate training between the ages of 3 and 5 years. Intriguingly, it is now acknowledged to be fairly common for children born in countries where tonal languages (e.g. Mandarin) are spoken to possess perfect pitch if musically trained. No magic involved.

The only exception to the rule that natural talent is bogus is when it comes to height and body size. Specific phenotypes are essential for certain sports – you need to be tall to slam dunk a basketball, and being short confers a big advantage for competitive artistic gymnastics. No specialised training regime will lengthen or shorten your bones.

We’re all endowed with the same ‘gift’ – the ability to adapt and improve if we train ourselves correctly (i.e. effective practice). Excitingly, Ericsson’s key message in Peak is that a common set of general principles lie at the heart of effective practice for any human endeavour… all walks of medicine included.

All practice is not equal – avoid naive practice (and forget the 10, 000 hour ‘rule’)

The most common approach to improving performance is ‘naive practice’.

This is where one spends a significant amount of time engaging in the activity, with the hope that stockpiling experience alone will improve performance, and move them closer to the realm of expertise.

“All I need to do is see 15 Majors patients per shift for the next 10 years and I’ll become a world-beating Emergency Physician” – hapless emergency medicine trainee destined for mediocrity

This is aligned with the 10, 000 hours ‘rule’ as per Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers. The proposed theory is that 10, 000 hours of generic practice yields expertise, with emphasis on time spent practicing as opposed to the nature of the practice itself. No specific component of the activity is isolated and focused on (e.g. putting in golf, or needle manipulation in central venous access), one just keeps doing the task over and over again. Outliers has been an immensely popular publication, and the 10, 000 rule a widely-disseminated concept. It sounds cool, and it satisfies the basic human desire for cause and effect.

In reality, this theory is fundamentally flawed. In order to change behaviour (i.e. improve performance), you need to engage in effective training. Ericsson calls this ‘purposeful practice’.

Interestingly, it is Ericsson’s original work, examining concert violinists in training, that inspired Outliers, and he levels a reasonable amount of hostility towards Gladwell in Peak, with accusations of corrupting lessons from the research. The best violinists out of the trainee group had all spent approximately 10, 000 hours by the age of 20 in solitary practice, as compared to the more inferior (but still relatively elite) trainees who had a few less thousand hours on the clock. It was this finding which prompted Gladwell to jump to the conclusion that 10, 000 hours was the magic number, yet the few that went on to win international music competitions did so at 30+, when they had put in 20,000 to 25,000 hours of practice.

“The greats weren’t great because at birth they could paint, the greats were great because they paint a lot” – Macklemore, rapper

It might be mired in controversy, but the 10, 000 hour rule does serve one crucial purpose – it reminds us that a massive volume of practice is required to achieve peak performance. No elite performer in any field has not dedicated a significant slice of their life towards achieving their goal. The path to greatness is not easy.

Purposeful Practice (core of Ericsson’s deliberate practice)

Exactly what it says on tin – this is practicing with a purpose. The mission is to improve, and you are practicing for that sole reason. Every time you practice, you are asking the question: “How can I do this better?”

A specific component of the skill is isolated (a component that one is poor at/can’t do) and then targeted for improvement via training activities. There are four principles of purposeful practice:

1.     You need to establish a (reachable) specific goal. Vague overall performance targets like ‘succeed’ or ‘get better’ won’t cut it.

2.     You must be maximally focused on improvement during practice. It must be intense, uninterrupted and repetitive (‘drilling’). Not particularly pleasant, but highly rewarding.

3.     You must receive immediate feedback on your performance. Without it, you can’t figure out what you need to modify or how close you are to achieving your specific goal.

4.     You must get out of your comfort zone, constantly attempting things that are just out of reach.

Take chest drain insertion for example. You isolate one part of the procedure that you know needs improvement – e.g. surgical hand-ties (to suture the chest drain to the skin):

Goal: Be fast and efficient at single-handed surgical hand-ties by the end of the training session.

Focus: Watch a training video explaining how best to perform the tie a few times; then practice tying knots round a kitchen utensil using the taught technique multiple times.

Feedback: Compare your performance to that on the training video, or ideally get personalised feedback from a supervisor.

Exit comfort zone: Experiment by performing the technique under time pressure or give yourself less suture thread to work with.

A hallmark of purposeful practice is that performance level during training tasks is not initially at the desired level – there is a gap. By the end of a phase of training, there needs to be something measurable that you’ve improved.

Embracing these principles in training squeezes the trigger of the greatest weapon in the arsenal of the human brain – adaptability. Every training session should be viewed as a challenge to refine and improve.

Deliberate Practice

“The most effective (improvement) method of all: deliberate practice. It is the gold standard, the ideal to which anyone learning a skill should aspire.” – Anders Ericsson

Deliberate practice encompasses the principles of purposeful practice, with a couple of additional elements:

1.     The field must be well established, and elite performers easily identified.

2.     A coach or teacher guides training.

A good coach provides constant individualised feedback and designs training activities that target specific areas. They hold the ‘roadmap’ that guides the student through an evolving training regime that hones skills in a specific order. Certain skills can only be taught and practiced once others have been mastered.  This calculated and heavily supervised approach to training always leads to elite performance when the student is motivated. It is tried and tested.

A useful analogy is to think of purposeful practice as trekking through the desert to a specific destination that is out of sight. You know the general direction you need to go, but in order to reach the destination you must walk in a completely straight line – notoriously difficult in the desert. A good strategy would be to use landmarks up ahead such as trees and sand dunes to aim at, so as to avoid walking round in circles. You are progressing with a purpose, but there is minimal guidance.

In this context, deliberate practice can be thought of as that same journey, but instead there is a path marking the route you need to walk, with signposting along the way, and even a camel guide to get you back on track if you veer off the route.

Mental representations

Engaging in purposeful/deliberate practice modifies the structure of our brains. Specific neural circuitry, which fires action potentials when training a skill, get reinforced and increasingly complex. This serves to strengthen the ‘mental representations’ one has of the skill in question.

The human brain is a blank canvas, and learning a new skill is like painting a picture on that canvas – the picture being a mental representation of that skill. With effective training, and as one improves at performing the skill, a discernible image starts to take shape. As the years of effective practice roll on, the picture becomes increasingly detailed and animated, and eventually it correlates with performing the skill at an expert level.

The expert performer, via their mental representations, is acutely aware of how best to perform. By comparing what they are doing in the moment with the perfect picture in their head, they can modify their performance appropriately – self-policing. The quality and quantity of mental representations is what sets expert performers apart from everyone else.

“In pretty much every area, a hallmark of expert performance is the ability to see patterns in a collection of things that would seem random or confusing to people with less developed mental representations. In other words, experts see the forest when everyone else sees only trees” – Anders Ericsson

The perfect example of elite performance correlating with highly sophisticated mental representations is George Koltanowski, a chess Grandmaster who set the world record for simultaneous games of blindfolded chess – 34 games (he won 24 and lost 10)!  His mental image was so strong that he could animate each game in his mind without looking at a single chess piece. It turns out simultaneous-game blindfold chess has been a pursuit of Grandmasters for centuries.

Furthermore, in studies of elite footballers and basketball players, it has been shown that when visual stimulus is suddenly removed, they can accurately pinpoint the position of all their teammates and opposition, and even predict how the game evolves in the seconds that follow. Again, this is facilitated by their mental representations – highly detailed images that come to life in the brain of the performer.

Fascinatingly, if you asked a grandmaster to recall the positions of randomly placed chess pieces on a chess board, or asked a footballer to recall the positions of 22 randomly placed men on a football pitch (i.e. not in position as a result of a game), they would fail because their mental representations are specific for the respective activities. If the arrangement of pieces or players is random, it ceases to be meaningful, in much the same way a set of jumbled up words is meaningless in comparison to a sentence.

The ‘deliberate practice mindset’

To truly reap the benefits of purposeful/deliberate practice, one must reject three prevailing myths:

1.     Your abilities are limited by genetics.

2.     If you do something for long enough you’ll get better.

3.     All it takes to improve is to increase your effort levels.

Once this is done, you are set free; the world is your oyster. However, the road to expertise is long and gruelling, and patience is crucial. The four underlying principles of purposeful practice must be kept in mind at all times, and failure should always be viewed as a precious opportunity to reflect and refine one’s mental representations.

If no coach or teacher is available (i.e. deliberate practice not strictly possible), identify somebody who is at a level that you want to reach (i.e. a mentor), try and understand how they got there, and proceed to purposefully practice.

Intense periods of focus, constant repetitions, and hovering at the edge of one’s comfort zone in training will get pretty miserable and frustrating at times. However, it should be appreciated that when quantifiable improvements start to occur, striving for further gains will become more enjoyable… even exciting.

Remember that a crucial aspect of deliberate practice is that it focuses solely on performance (i.e. how to do it) – it is a skill-based practice, and this must be embraced. By effectively practicing components of the skill and building stronger mental representations, knowledge will build naturally alongside. New concepts will seem less abstract as they are absorbed whilst applying skills (NB: This is in contrast to the traditional approach to medical training which has placed more emphasis on knowledge acquisition than skill development, largely because it is more convenient and less labour-intensive to teach).

In medicine?

An unfortunate reality of most medical specialties is that once a practitioner is fully qualified (i.e. a consultant or attending physician) there are few opportunities for immediate feedback on his/her clinical practice. There are no longer regular mandatory appraisals, and too often, little feedback from the patients themselves (e.g. a radiologist might not be made aware of the outcome of a patient where a cancer was missed on CT scan).

Furthermore, as seniors are no longer being actively trained, it is very unusual for them to be pushed out of their comfort zones, and they will usually deem their own performance level to be ‘acceptable’. You might say that they are particularly guilty of naive practice. This is a recipe for stagnation, and an overall decline in performance. An interesting passage in the book is where Ericsson discusses research into senior radiologists looking at mammograms, and experienced GPs listening to heart murmurs. It turns out their diagnostic accuracy is no better (and in some cases worse) than their junior colleagues, who will have received more recent active education.

As an emergency medicine trainee, much of my daily work will embrace the principles of deliberate practice, but it is variable, and often depends on the boss I happen to be on shift with. Taking ownership is key. It’s up to me to be cognisant of what elements of practice will make me a better doctor, and anchor my training appropriately. Awareness of these principles has also given me a greater appreciation of the utility of simulation training – ‘off-the-job-training’ which focuses on closely supervised skill development rather than knowledge acquisition.

It will be far more of a paradigm shift for senior doctors (i.e. finished all training) to adopt deliberate practice, but the implications for patient outcomes, and indeed medicine’s overall trajectory, will be enormously positive if they do.

I highly recommend Peak to anyone interested in improving at what they do. Doctors, of all grades, should be aware of, and striving to incorporate, the lessons from Anders Ericsson’s masterpiece.

Robert Lloyd
@PonderingEM

*This blog first appeared on the Pondering EM blog

#FOAMed, credentials and a view from the college (sort of).

10 Dec, 16 | by scarley

156r09lpI found an amazing tweet on my timeline today that taught me many things. Firstly, I was not aware that students were publishing their own theses online and as an open access resource (this is fantastic), and secondly the topic in question is of great interest to me and everyone here, that is the development of #FOAMed.

Chris Walsh is a super chap who is head of e-learning at the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. He is an extremely intelligent man with a strong academic track record, initially in the humanities, and now also in the field of medical and digitial education.

He has now published his MSc thesis online looking at the development, current state and future direction of e-learning resources for the RCEM.

Click here to read the thesis online.

I am very interested in the view from a senior member of the college as my relationship with the college over e-learning has been difficult at times. As an advocate of #FOAMed I’ve always struggled with the requirements to meet the limitiations and restrictions of an overarching organisation whilst maintating the freedom, speed and open discussion that #FOAMed creates. This is a theme in the thesis and I found Chris’s analysis of #FOAMed as a dialogic process fascinating. This work also aludes to the changing relationships between organisations, traditions, curricula, members, technology and delivery. It’s complex and fascinating.Chris has used a mixed methods technique to look at the impact and future direction of e-learning for the College and for #FOAMed. The perspective is clearly from his position, and thus the influence of the College perspective is very clear, but there are many interesting elements for any producer or consumer of #FOAMed.So what are the main themes? Obviously this is my interpretation and you really should read the whole document.

    #FOAMed is here to stay.#FOAMed engages and invigorates elements of the EM community but some are not engaged.There is a desire amongst some for credentialing of activity related to #FOAMed (though the strength There is some confusion between e-learning and #FOAMed type activities and credentialing.The RCEM is developing a system to credential #FOAMed learning.There is a belief and understanding that #FOAMed will be incorporated into formalised learning and continuous professional development.

There are many other questions too of course. This study is based on small samples and almost all the interviews were conducted with those involved in college work. The survey data was sought through social media spaces which is good as they are #FOAMed consumers, but also limits the findings to those who are already engaged in this style of learning. The perspective is thus largely one of the college establishment and as a result may be a self-fulfilling one. However, I’m not sure that matters that much as the project is really aimed at those groups as opposed to those who are not currently engaged with College resources. It does therefore study a specific, but relevant

So. Follow the link above to read the thesis (or at least read the abstract), follow Chris Walsh on his twitter account, and if you feel inclined I’m sure he would be delighted to hear your thoughts.

My final question is in regard to the proposed credentialing of #FOAMed activity into an online CPD portfolio.

The question is whether users will be able to record activity from non RCEM #FOAMed sites, or will it be limited and paywalled by the college. As a #FOAMed advocate I’m clearly keen to support learners to be able to record #FOAMed CPD from any blog or podcast.

That may not be a decision that Chris will personally make, but I’d love to know the answer (and hope it’s the right one).

The bottom line is that this is a great piece of work that takes our understanding of College based learning further and deeper than we have previously seen.

vb

S

 

What do Emergency Medicine and Donald J. Trump have in common?

7 Dec, 16 | by rlloyd

trump-01

Illustration by A3 Studios

*Caution: Emotionally-charged post, pinch of salt required… personal feelings only and not the editorial view of the EMJ/BMJ.

On the morning of the 9th November 2016, I woke up to the earth-shattering news that Donald Trump had been elected President Elect of the United States. It’s a moment I’ll never forget.

Rain pounded menacingly against my bedroom window, all my social media outlets exploded with sentiment of anger and sadness, and my American fiancé lay next to me in floods of tears.

I, like many (urm… all) of my friends and family, and seemingly the majority of the #FOAMed community, am horrified by the Trump phenomenon. His hateful, divisive rhetoric is unlike anything I’ve previously encountered in a public figure, let alone the new leader of the free world. Appropriately, and frighteningly, he has drawn comparisons with some of modern history’s ugliest dictators, such as Hitler and Mussolini. Mind-bendingly hideous stuff.

Throughout his campaign, Trump would verbally decapitate anyone who dared to undermine him. Cutting personal insults and sinister threats (‘I’ll throw her in jail when I’m in the White House!’) were par for the course, and reflective of an insecure man with astonishingly thin skin. Of course most of the time it was his rival Hillary Clinton in the firing line, but even fellow Republicans took some damage if they decided to be critical.

If his foul-mouthed tirades were a shrewd strategic move for diverting attention from his lack of political acumen and poor grasp of the Presidential job description, then arguably, the man’s a genius. Decipherable policy specifics were sparse, but unashamed fascism seemed to be a common theme, exemplified by absurd proposals to build a wall on the US-Mexico border and ban all Muslims from entering the US.

I’ve lost count of how many times I felt convinced of his self-destruction. Whether it was accusing all Mexican immigrants of being ‘rapists’, jokingly inviting a Clinton assassination attempt, or the release of a video where he openly boasted of sexual assault, he somehow kept on surviving. And then he won the keys to the White House. Ugh.

I am no journalist. Nor am I a political analyst. I’m a blogtastic British junior doctor training to be an Emergency Physician, and therefore pretty far removed from the whole debacle (*wipes sweat off brow*). Having said that, witnessing Trump’s ascendancy has triggered an important work-related reflection that I feel the urge to share.

Where is our basic human decency?

The Trump campaign suffered from a disease which stripped it of basic human decency. Depressingly, this reminded me of the alarming regularity that I witness unnecessary rudeness and outright bullying in the ED environment. Unpleasant, heated exchanges are a daily occurrence (certainly where I work anyway). Where does the hostility come from?

We’re bloody busy

The influence of workload cannot be emphasised enough. The ED is inevitably the busiest department in every reasonably-sized hospital, and it remains so 24 hour-a-day, 7 days-a-week (despite what our Health Secretary might have the tabloid newspapers believe).

When you consider that in 2015-16 there were 22.9 million visits to the 136 existing EDs in the UK, I think it’s fair to say overburdened is an understatement (by developed world standards of course) (1). Stress levels can reach fever pitch at the sight of a an overflowing waiting room, a seemingly never-ending list of ‘unclicked-on’ patients on a computer screen, or a growing congregation of paramedics indicating that pregnant ambulances are queuing up.

All of these are inevitable features of working in a UK ED, and with the added pressure to have patients ‘sorted’ in under four hours (i.e. discharged or warded), it’s understandable that some might become irritable and combative. It doesn’t matter if you are a native ED doctor, nurse or visiting specialist, the feeling is contagious; it’s a pressure-cooker workplace, and too often I see people releasing their personal pressure-valves by taking out frustrations on colleagues.

Of course, all of the emotional demands of working in such an over-stretched environment are heightened when dealing with particularly sick and unpredictable patients. As such, the resuscitation room tends to be the arena where I am most stunned by the way colleagues address each other.

False inferiority complex

There is no department where tribalism is more evident than the ED. It’s a bubbling cauldron of inter-specialty and multidisciplinary interaction.

As emergency medicine practitioners, we’re arguably the only nominal generalists in the hospital setting. This means that in the eyes of some of our specialty colleagues, we’re ‘second best’ at managing many of the pathologies we see. We can commence management of acute coronary syndrome, but we’re not cardiologists; we can intubate, but we’re not anaesthetists; we can even crack chests, but we’re not cardiothoracic surgeons.

This, of course, is a total fallacy. Emergency physicians might seem like generalists at surface-level, but the reality is that they ‘specialise’ in appropriately differentiating the undifferentiated. Where neighbouring specialties anchor towards diagnosing familiar pathologies (e.g. the cardiologist quickly labelling a patient’s chest pain as myocardial ischaemia), emergency physicians won’t jump to premature and potentially dangerous false conclusions, and remain open to multiple possibilities until firm evidence presents itself. In the initial phase of managing patients fresh from the community, across the spectrum of acuity, the emergency physician possesses the safest, and most expert pair of hands.

Unfortunately this isn’t always recognised by our specialty colleagues, who can overlook the inherent challenges of the emergency medicine landscape, and occasionally be quick to patronise, condescend, and even ridicule when being referred to, particularly when by a junior person.

In the more vulnerable amongst us ED folk, this can breed a false inferiority complex and erode confidence. Seniors are more likely to react with verbal pugilism if they feel disrespected.

Conflict is further cultivated by the unfortunate reality that much of our job involves giving someone else more work to do, which naturally fosters resentment on their part.

Of course, the outcome of inter-specialty collisions in the ED don’t always end in tears, and I appreciate that I might be painting a overly grim picture. However, in my experience the referral process can turn ugly very quickly, particularly when other stressors are in play (e.g. being particularly busy).

Blame culture

Doctors aren’t supposed to make mistakes. However, it’s undeniable that healthcare (especially the ED) is highly error-prone. It’s an unpredictable, dynamic environment with an extraordinary amount of moving parts.

The hallmark of a good system is a strong culture of learning from failure. The ultimate example is the peerless aviation industry, whose safety model has become the stuff of legend – they jump up and down with excitement when a plane crashes because it represents an opportunity for precious learning (2).

In stark contrast, it’s no secret that the healthcare industry hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to promoting patient safety. From the Mid-Staffordshire Enquiry to the Harold Shipman scandal, our history is littered with examples of system failures that should have been thwarted earlier through a healthier culture of incident reporting and institutional change management.

I’m not saying we’ve had no success stories, I’m merely suggesting that there’s an awful lot of room for improvement. There’s the tragic case of Elaine Bromiley, whose death in the anaesthetic room prior to a routine sinus operation prompted an independent investigation which led to a global revolution in patient safety measures around airway management (3). It’s worth noting that the investigation was driven by Elaine’s inspirational husband Martin – a commercial airline pilot.

There are plenty of historical and structural reasons for our suboptimal safety culture, but arguably the most important factor is that society puts doctors on a pedestal, and assumes invincibility. Error is heavily stigmatised in our workplace because the public expects perfection. So when the inevitable mistakes do occur and we fear being implicated, a strategy for deflecting attention is to turn on each other. Even when there is no risk of being implicated, we still can’t resist the urge to point the finger of blame (or gossip about the incident behind the back of the guilty party) because somehow it soothes open wounds from previous public humiliations.

When it comes to mistakes, our institutional focus is on who did it, and not what can be learnt from it. Opportunities for progression usually descend into fruitless professional witch-hunts. And this culture is ingrained in us all from medical school.

The ‘patients lives are on the line’ card

Trump exonerated himself from his revolting campaign narrative by playing the ‘political correctness’ card. He fooled the electorate, and branches of the media, into thinking his verbal excrement was acceptable (even attractive) because he wasn’t a career politician and therefore didn’t ‘play by the rules’. No other presidential candidate in US history would have got away with some of the things he’s said, but he was ‘sticking it to the establishment’, so it was OK.

In a similar vein, I believe that it’s become acceptable for collegiality and decency to be left at the door of the ED because the ‘patients lives are on the line’ card gets played. The stakes are far too high for us to care about the way we treat each other.

This attitude is helped along by our very rigid, arguably militaristic hierarchical structure.

There is no doubt that a hierarchy is crucial for ultimate decision-making accountability, but it gets abused too often in my opinion. Of course some are more guilty than others, but if a senior person is feeling particularly under pressure (or, dare I say it, out of their depth), it’s all too easy for them to take out their frustrations on a defenceless junior staff member – riding the authority gradient. And it’s totally acceptable to do so, because it’s a patient’s life at stake of course.

I’m not just talking about consultants and senior nurses, it spans the entire spectrum of ED staff. I’ve witnessed a rookie doctor rotating through the ED viciously bark at student nurses for taking ‘too long!’ to attach the monitoring to a perfectly stable patient in majors – unacceptable, and an abuse of authority even at the most junior level.

Misplaced self-importance anaesthetises basic manners. We weaponise the inherent moral high ground of doctoring in much the same way that Trump weaponised being ‘un-PC’. We’re getting away with behaviour that we shouldn’t.

The irony of playing this ‘card’ (so to speak) is that our patients ultimately suffer because our multidisciplinary teammates are less willing to go the extra mile for someone they don’t like. Truly toxic stuff. Are we that self-righteous? Are we that arrogant?

Why are we not holding ourselves to a higher standard?

I am not proclaiming to be mightier than thou. I have fallen foul of high stress, surfed the authority gradient and hidden behind the fallacy that I’m making regular life and death decisions as much as the next junior emergency medicine trainee. I can recall multiple times where I’ve been unacceptably rude to colleagues, and even remember an occasion where I made a nurse cry and run out of resus. I was remorseful about those moments, but only transiently. There was always something ‘terribly important’ I could distract myself with, ridding me of the shame I felt for being a b*****d to a colleague for no valid reason.

However, those I verbally abused will not have recovered so quickly, and are now more likely to treat their future juniors as I did them on those occasions. This is the vicious cycle of bullying that I’m sure every doctor reading this post will relate to on some level, whether they can admit to it or not.

Why are we not holding ourselves to a higher standard? As front row spectators to the fragility and preciousness of human existence, surely we of all people should have more respect for each other.

We musn’t be fooled into thinking that just because we have different skillsets or seniority that we aren’t singing from the same hymn sheet. No matter what it says on your hospital name badge, we all have the same job description: help make people better.

We deal in the currency of human life, which in my opinion is the greatest professional privilege that there is. No matter how bad our day seemingly is, or how much pressure we feel under, you can bet your bottom dollar that you need to look no further than the frightened, desperate person staring back at you from the trolley to find someone worse off. That dose of perspective is a gift, and it alone should do the job of warding off Trump-like demonstrations of contempt for our colleagues.

Of course, Americans voted for Trump in their droves (in much the same way that Brits voted for ghastly Brexit). Why? That’s not for me to say; I’ll leave that to the politicos. What I can say with some certainty is that a massive proportion of the Western world feels a potent combination of embarrassment, sorrow and anger that we’ve allowed such a harmful situation to escalate.

Is this not the very same cocktail of emotions that we feel after a hostile exchange in the ED? We must strive to be better at checking ourselves before forgetting our basic human decency and engaging in needless workplace warfare.

We’re better than this.

Do the right thing

As medical professionals, our knowledge-base and skillset give us almost supernatural status in the eyes of the public. Being a doctor is more than a job, it’s a title. But that’s not why they’ll allow us to slice into their bodies, poison them with medications, and have access to their most hidden secrets. They allow us these privileges because we’re supposed to be fundamentally good people who’ll always act in their best interests no matter what the cost. We, more so than anyone else in wider society, are deemed to be the custodians of doing the right thing.

That should be something we carry with us at all times in our workplace, regardless of who we are speaking to, or the nature of the scenario. There is no place for Trumpism in the ED.

Robert Lloyd
@PonderingEM

NB: I appreciate that the content of this post is emotionally-driven, opinion-based, and potentially controversial. Please feel free to commentate/agree/criticise in the comments, it would be great to generate some discussion around the topics brought up.

References

  1. Accident and Emergency Statistics: Demand, Performance and …
  2. Black Box Thinking. By Matthew Syed.
  3. What can we learn from fatal mistakes in surgery. By Kevin Fong, BBC News.

Many thanks A3 Studios for the amazing accompanying graphic.

Live and let die

30 Nov, 16 | by cgray

lald

Everyone dies. It’s a sad fact of life and a tough part of any healthcare professional’s day. Some deaths are unexpected, and hit us hard. Thankfully, there are those that we know are coming, and this gives us the opportunity to try to give that person a peaceful and comfortable end of their life, and for their family to be present and informed when it happens, or at the very least to have that choice.

If something acutely changes, or the person deteriorates suddenly, it can sometimes be very difficult for carers or families. Despite plans for end-of-life care to take place at a nursing home, it’s not uncommon for an ambulance to be called to attend. Transferring the patient to the emergency department can be inappropriate, and have negative consequences on both care of the patient, and the experiences of them and their family in the last few hours of life. In a busy emergency department, it can be difficult to provide the dedicated medical care and emotional support that is often needed. Often we try to get the patient back home or to a ward, where the atmosphere is a bit more relaxed, but with bed pressures and if death is imminent, this can all be very difficult to achieve, though I’d like to think we try our utmost.

In October’s EMJ, Georgina Murphy-Jones from the London Ambulance Service, and Stephen Timmons from the University of Nottingham have explored how paramedics make decisions regarding transfer to hospital for nursing home residents nearing the end of their lives. As they highlight in their paper, it’s difficult to know exactly how often this occurs, but these calls are complex, and there are often multiple factors in play to consider. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with six paramedics, which were recorded, transcribed and analysed to identify themes.

It’s a fantastic paper, and really gives a good insight into how paramedics think in these situations. It can be all too easy to blame our pre-hospital colleagues for bringing patients into hospital when they have an end-of-life plan to avoid hospital admission, and die at home or another preferred place. However, it’s important to remember that whilst emergency physicians operate in an information-light, time-critical environment, paramedics and ambulance technicians often have less facts than we do, and have to make decisions more quickly.

There are some really good take home messages here from the identified themes, and food for thought for your next end-of-life encounter.

  • Paramedics find it difficult to understand patients’ wishes – in the experience of those studied, these wishes were inadequately documented or limited in content, sometimes just confined to a DNACPR decision. When nursing home staff were asked about their patients, they often did not know them or their wishes well. This made it difficult in an end-of-life situation to make a decision, as quite often the patient themselves was too unwell to express their desires verbally.
  • Evaluating best interests is difficult – when patients lack capacity to make a decision, paramedics have to make it for them. It’s difficult to do this, particularly if this is the first time you’ve met someone and have limited information. Paramedics have to weigh up the risks versus the benefits of leaving the patient at home, or bringing them into hospital, and this can be even more difficult taking into account the next point.
  • Everyone wants to have an input – decision to convey or leave at home is influenced by nursing home staff, relatives, and other pre-hospital professionals. There can be a lot of pressure from nursing home staff to transport the patient, even if alternate decisions have already been made and documented around end-of-life care. Paramedics who took part in the study described situations of conflict between staff, relatives, and patients, and the difficulties they face in trying to keep the patient at home when other parties disagree, even if the patient themselves does not wish to go to hospital.

It’s obviously hugely difficult for paramedics to make these decisions, but the overriding theme here is communication. So what can we do to help?

Document everything

In order to understand patients’ wishes, make a best interests decision, and weigh up input from all parties, paramedics need to know the facts. Information about the patient, their condition, their decisions about end-of-life care, discussions with their family, and communication with other professionals involved in their care should be documented and easily accessible. It should be easy to see what the patient wants to happen towards the end of their life, and in what cases the patient should return to hospital.

Talk to the family

Dying relatives are hard. As a family, you want to do everything you can to help your relative. Sometimes, it’s hard to feel like you’re doing everything possible unless you call an ambulance, even if your family member is already in a nursing home, being cared for. Talking to families, not just about the decision to send the patient home to die, but also about what will happen later on once the patient is actually in the nursing home, is crucial.

Empower the nursing staff

From the paper, it seems that there were instances of nursing staff not feeling able or qualified enough to nurse patients who are dying. If we send patients to a nursing home to spend the rest of their life being cared for there, we need to be sure that the nursing home have the capability and experience to do so. This ties into the first two action points also. If we document clearly the plan, and inform the family as well, the nursing home staff will have a much easier time looking after our patient, with less ambiguity. If your patient is being discharged, phone the nursing home, speak to the manager, and let them know what’s going on. The GP needs to know as well!

Support your paramedics

Not only to help them make decisions in the nursing home, but also when these patients do arrive in our ED. They’ve had to make some tough choices, usually under pressure from staff or family members, and some that they might be disappointed with because they feel it’s not the best thing for the patient. But, they’ve done what they can, in the time they had, with the information they had. We need to support them through these difficult decisions, not criticise them.

 

Much to think about regarding end-of-life care, and hopefully from reading the paper, and assessing needs in our own practice, we can try to ensure more people can achieve the death they want, in the place they want to die.

vb

Chris
@cgraydoc

The weekend effect: Part 2 – a traumatic time!

29 Oct, 16 | by cgray

the-weekend-effectpart-2-a-traumatic-time

If you haven’t already, listen to Ellen Weber and Chris Moulton talk about the background to the weekend effect. Click HERE.

The UK Junior Doctors’ contract changes imposed by the government in order to shape their poorly defined ‘Seven Day NHS’ caused much debate and consternation surrounding the ‘weekend effect’, which seemed to be the main selling point for their demoralisation of a large proportion of the clinical workforce. Patients admitted over the weekend have been shown in several studies to fare worse than those admitted during the week (though indeed other studies suggest the opposite, or no difference at all!). The reasons for this are unknown however, and further research is being done to try to ascertain the cause of the ‘weekend effect’, whether particular patient groups are more at risk, and what, if anything, can be done to improve care. There is currently no evidence that doctor staffing levels are the cause and many feel that the effect simply reflects that patients who present over the weekend are, on average, more unwell. Other factors could include coding practice, or the availability of diagnostic resources at the weekend. However, all agree that if this effect truly exists, it’s important to establish why, as this will then determine whether it can be modified through changes to service provision or structure, in order to treat our patients better.

David Metcalfe and team from the University of Oxford are one group looking into this. Published on the EMJ website earlier this morning is their paper on the weekend effect in major trauma.

metcalfeabstract

The abstract is here, but as always we’d advise you read the full paper to draw your own conclusions.

Major trauma networks have been around for four and a half years now, with the most severely injured patients preferentially triaged to the major trauma centres (MTCs). Patients arriving at these hospitals are usually managed from the start by a consultant-led trauma team, whether it’s 10am on a Tuesday, or 3am on a Sunday. Access to imaging, diagnostics, surgeons, and emergency operating staff and space are also a necessity for these centres, and MTCs are rewarded under a best practice tariff (BPT) for meeting quality standards.

Who was studied?

49,070 major trauma patients (adult and paediatric) presenting to the 22 MTCs around the UK. The inclusion criteria were admission for at least 3 days, requirement for high-dependency care, or death following arrival at hospital. Data were gained from the Trauma Audit & Research Network (TARN) database from the time the BPT was introduced, and for each hospital only from after the period they were operational as an MTC. From this the authors hoped to gain more complete data, as this improved after the BPT was put in place.

The group also subdivided patients later according to injury severity score (ISS), and whether they presented during the day (0800 to 1700), night (1700 to 0800), weekday, or weekend (Saturday or Sunday).

What did they find?

If we took the total data collected by the team, and condensed all these patients down so that they all presented to major trauma centres in just one week, 327 patients per hour would have turned up during weekdays, 333 per hour on weekend days, 210 per hour on week nights, and 419 per hour on weekend nights. Of course, the reality is much less, as these data were spread out over the period of the study, but these numbers give a good indication of major trauma frequency across the week.

Major trauma occurs more frequently on the weekend, and the patient characteristics demonstrate that those presenting at night are generally younger, with a higher male:female ratio. Less patients were conveyed via air ambulance at night, likely as a result of flying restrictions at these times.

Aside from a shorter length of stay in patients admitted during weekend nights compared with weekend days, there were no significant differences in the primary outcomes of length of stay, mortality, risk-adjusted excess survival rates, or Glasgow outcome score when comparing groups.

The study found that patients presenting with major trauma at night were more likely to be transferred into a Major Trauma Centre at night, which likely reflects daytime availability of diagnostics and specialist input at trauma units. There was no difference when comparing weekday to weekend day, however. There were also no significant differences found in the ISS >15 subgroup in any of the outcomes.

They found no evidence of a ‘weekend effect’ in this major trauma population.

What conclusions can we draw?

This is a large population multicentre observational study, with good data completeness, clear inclusion criteria, and clear outcome measures. There are no significant findings when comparing various groups, and the outlined definitions of day vs night are consistent with normal rota patterns.

The major trauma network is intended to provide well-staffed and resourced hospitals with senior specialists available 24/7 in order to provide severely injured patients with expedient access to necessary investigations and treatment, facilitating the best possible outcome. Whilst there is no evidence of a ‘weekend effect’ in patients presenting to MTCs, this does not mean that it does not exist elsewhere. If a difference had been found, however, this would suggest that staffing and resourcing in the hospital make little difference and that there are other forces at work.

Further work is needed on other populations, but it is reassuring that, unlike data from the US that trauma patients admitted at night are more likely to die, a large scale study of the UK major trauma centres has shown equivalent outcomes throughout the 24/7 hours of operation. It’s a fantastic achievement and one that all those working in centres across the country should be proud of.

vb

Chris
@cgraydoc

 

If you haven’t been keeping up with the recent body of evidence surrounding the ‘weekend effect’, the Vice-President of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, Chris Moulton, has provided a fantastic commentary to the Metcalfe paper. He’s also managed to give us a history lesson on the origins of the weekend at the same time. It makes for great reading.

The weekend effect. Part 1.

28 Oct, 16 | by scarley

the-weekend-effect

Chris Moulton VP of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and Ellen Weber discuss the weekend effect. This is well worth a listen to get behind the headlines and politics of a controversial meme in healthcare.

What is it? Is there an effect and what can we do about it?

Click on this link to read more about the paper on Chris Gray’s blog.

 

vb

S

 

Primary Survey: November 2016.

22 Oct, 16 | by scarley

primary

Richard Body, Associate Editor

The Manchester derby for paediatric early warning scores

There is clearly a need for a validated physiological early warning score for specific use in the paediatric emergency department (PED). In this issue, Cotterill et al compare two paediatric early warning scores developed in Manchester: the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital Early Warning System (ManCHEWS) and a modified version, the Pennine Acute Trust Paediatric Observation Priority Score (PAT-POPS). The modified score incorporates the original physiological scoring system but also takes account of the nurse’s judgement and specific elements of a patient’s background. This Manchester derby was a close call: but will the marginally superior accuracy of PAT-POPS for predicting hospital admission ultimately win over the simplicity of ManCHEWS?

Future emergency care: the (citizen’s) jury has spoken

In Queensland, Australia, Scuffham et al took an extremely interesting approach to patient and public involvement. They convened a citizen’s jury to deliberate on matters relating to the delivery of emergency care. The jury’s verdict is intriguing and highly relevant to the future of Emergency Medicine. The participants were clearly amenable to alternative models of emergency healthcare delivery including care provided by allied health professionals and decisions not to transport patients to hospital from the pre-hospital environment.

What is ‘productivity’?

If you sometimes feel that measuring productivity in the Emergency Department has the potential to create a dehumanized production line (and even if you don’t), this month’s paper by Moffatt et al is a ‘must read’. In a series of semi-structured interviews with healthcare practitioners working in an Emergency Department, this team explores their feelings about the notion of ‘productivity’. The findings are heartening and are sure to kindle a warm feeling in the heart of any emergency physician. Hopefully this important work will lead to greater recognition of the need to retain compassion in our practice, promote an appropriate balance between ‘care’ and ‘efficiency’ and avoid the “sausage factory” mentality, to quote one of the participants.

A SuPAR new biomarker of serious illness?

In Emergency Medicine we are becoming accustomed to the use of biomarkers that may lack specificity for any one particular condition, but that provide important prognostic information. Lactate could be considered one such biomarker, and its interpretation has become an important skill for emergency physicians. This may suggest that we are at the dawn of a new era for biomarkers. Our traditional ‘binary thinking’ about diagnostics, whereby tests can simply tell us whether a patient does or does not have a particular disease, is beginning to seem crude and outdated. In this issue, Rasmussen et al measured SuPAR at the time of admission to an Acute Medical Unit in a cohort of over 4,000 patients. SuPAR was shown to predict mortality and the need for hospital re-admission even after adjustment for confounders. The findings are impressive, and this work must lead on to further research to identify how this interesting non-specific biomarker can be used to guide real life healthcare decisions.

Health inequality and the global importance of emergency care

We know surprisingly little about the relationship between emergency care provision and the impact of emergent conditions on health, internationally. Of course, emergency physicians might expect that failure to provide adequate emergency care would lead to greater mortality and morbidity from such conditions. In this issue, Chang et al quantify this problem. In an analysis from 40 countries, they found that all fifteen of the major global causes of mortality and morbidity can present emergently, and identified that insufficient access to emergency care is clearly associated with higher mortality and morbidity. This makes sobering reading as a demonstration of global health inequality, and highlights the pressing need to develop Emergency Medicine internationally.

vb

Rick Body

@richardbody

EMJ blog homepage

Emergency Medicine Journal blog

Analytical approach to the developments and changes in the field of Emergency Medicine Visit site



Creative Comms logo

Latest from Emergency Medicine Journal

Latest from EMJ