We sought to evaluate the time to antibiotics for emergency department (ED) patients meeting criteria for severe sepsis before and after the implementation of an ED sepsis protocol. Compliance with published guidelines for time to antibiotics and initial empiric therapy in sepsis was also assessed.

A retrospective chart review was conducted. Emergency department patient encounters with International Classification of Diseases codes related to severe infections were screened during a 3-month period before and after the implementation of a sepsis protocol. Encounters meeting criteria for severe sepsis were further assessed. The time to initiation of antibiotics was determined as well as the initial choice of antimicrobial therapy based on the presumed source of infection.

We reviewed 213 unique ED patient encounters meeting criteria for severe sepsis. Analysis of the period before implementation showed a median time from the time criteria for severe sepsis were met to delivery of antibiotics of 163 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] 124 to 210 min). Analysis of the period after implementation of the protocol revealed a median time of 79 minutes (95% CI 64 to 94 min), representing an overall reduction of 84 minutes (95% CI 42 to 126 min). Before the implementation of the protocol, 47% of patients received correct antibiotic coverage for the presumed source of infection in compliance with locally published guidelines. After the initiation of the protocol, 73% received appropriate initial antibiotics, for an overall improvement of 26%.

A guideline-based ED sepsis protocol for the evaluation and treatment of the septic patient appears to improve the time to administration of antibiotics as well as the appropriateness of initial antibiotic therapy in patients with severe sepsis.

Managers of emergency departments (EDs), governments and researchers would benefit from reliable data sets that characterize use of EDs. Although Canadian ED lists for chief complaints and triage acuity exist, no such list exists for diagnosis classification. This study was aimed at developing a standardized Canadian Emergency Department Diagnosis Shortlist (CED-DxS), as a subset of the full International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, with Canadian Enhancement (ICD-10-CA).

Emergency physicians from across Canada participated in the revision of the ICD-10-CA through 2 rounds of the modified Delphi method. We randomly assigned chapters from the ICD-10-CA (approximately 3000 diagnoses) to reviewers, who rated the importance of including each diagnosis in the ED-specific diagnosis list. If 80% or more of the reviewers agreed on the importance of a diagnosis, it was retained for the final revision. The retained diagnoses were further aggregated and adjusted, thus creating the CED-DxS.

Of the 83 reviewers, 76% were emergency medicine (EM)–trained physicians with an average of 12 years of experience in EM, and 92% were affiliated with a university teaching hospital. The modified Delphi process and further adjustments resulted in the creation of the CED-DxS, containing 837 items. The chapter with the largest number of retained diagnoses was injury and poisoning (n = 292), followed by gastrointestinal (n = 59), musculoskeletal (n = 55) and infectious disease (n = 42). Chapters with the lowest number retained were neoplasm (n = 18) and pregnancy (n = 12).

We report the creation of the uniform CED-DxS, tailored for Canadian EDs. The addition of ED diagnoses to existing standardized parameters for the ED will contribute to homogeneity of data across the country.

Determination of jugular venous pressure (JVP) by physical examination (E-JVP) is unreliable. Measurement of JVP with ultrasonography (U-JVP) is easy to perform, but the normal range is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the normal range for U-JVP.

We conducted a prospective anatomic study on a convenience sample of emergency department (ED) patients over 35 years of age. We excluded patients who had findings on history or physical examination suggesting an alteration of JVP. With the head of the bed at 45°, we determined the point at which the diameter of the internal jugular vein (IJV) began to decrease on ultrasonography (“the taper”). Research assistants used 2 techniques to measure U-JVP in all participants: by measuring the vertical height (in centimetres) of the taper above the sternal angle, and adding 5 cm; and by recording the quadrant in the IJV's path from the clavicle to the angle of the jaw in which the taper was located. To determine interrater reliability, separate examiners measured the U-JVP of 15 participants.

We successfully determined the U-JVP of all 77 participants (38 male and 39 female). The mean U-JVP was 6.35 (95% confidence interval 6.11–6.59) cm. In 76 participants (98.7%), the taper was located in the first quadrant. Determination of interrater reliability found κ values of 1.00 and 0.87 for techniques 1 and 2, respectively.

The normal U-JVP is 6.35 cm, a value that is slightly lower than the published normal E-JVP. Interrater reliability for U-JVP is excellent. The top of the IJV column is located less than 25% of the distance from the clavicle to the angle of the jaw in the majority of healthy adults. Our findings suggest that U-JVP provides the potential to reincorporate reliable JVP measurement into clinical assessment in the ED. However, further research in this area is warranted.

We sought to characterize patients who are referred from the emergency department (ED) to specialty clinics but do not complete the referral, and to identify reasons for their failure to follow up.

A prospective cohort study was carried out over 3 months of patients who were discharged from the ED of a teaching hospital with referral to internal medicine, cardiology or neurology clinics, but who did not complete the referral. Information on demographics, barriers to care and reasons for not completing the referral was obtained through a standardized telephone interview.

Of 171 ED referrals, 42 (24.6%) were not completed. Interviews were completed for 71.4% (30 patients). Of the nonattenders, 80% were functional in English and most had high school (73.1%) or university (60.7%) education. Virtually all (93.0%) interviewees could get to hospital by themselves or have someone take them. Only 42.9% (12 patients) understood why the emergency physician (EP) requested consultation, and 42.9% (12 patients) described EP instructions as poor or fair. Primary reasons for noncompletion of consult were patient choice (46.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 27.1%–66.2%), physical or social barriers (13.3%, 95% CI 0.0%–27.2%), communication failure (20%, 95% CI 4.0%–36.0%) and consultant's refusal of the consultation (20% [95% CI 4.0%–36.0%]). All consultant refusals were from one internal medicine clinic, representing 42% (8/19) of ED referrals to that clinic. None of the 6 patients interviewed who were declined consultation was aware that their consultation had been refused.

Patients discharged by the EP with referral to specialty clinics frequently do not complete the consultation. Causes for failure to follow up relate to patient decision, inadequate or poorly understood discharge information, and system factors. Institutional audits of patients who fail to complete follow-up may reveal unanticipated barriers to care.

The tolerability of drugs prescribed on emergency department (ED) discharge is unknown. Our objectives were to quantify and describe adverse drug-related events (ADREs) as reported by patients triaged as Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale scores 3, 4 or 5, discharged from the ED with prescriptions.

This prospective observational study was a planned substudy of a larger study on adherence to discharge prescriptions. This study was conducted in a tertiary care centre with an annual ED census of 69 000 visits. The primary outcome was the frequency of ADREs reported during a structured telephone questionnaire 2 weeks after ED discharge. An ADRE was deemed to have occurred if the patient reported a symptom consistent with a known ADRE that began and resolved within a plausible time frame after starting and stopping the drug, and if no alternative diagnosis was probable.

Research assistants contacted 258/301 (85.7%) patients discharged from the ED with a prescription. An ADRE was reported by 54/258 patients (20.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.4%–26.3%). The most commonly reported ADREs were nausea, constipation and drowsiness. None required hospital admission or caused death. Participants reporting ADREs were not more likely to make an unplanned ED or clinic revisit (crude odds ratio [OR] 1.1, 95% CI 0.6–2.2; adjusted OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.6–2.4).

Approximately one-fifth of low-acuity patients prescribed medication on discharge from the ED report ADREs, but most of these are neither severe nor associated with an increase in use of health services. Attention to common preventable ADREs, such as opioid-associated constipation, could reduce the rate of ADREs in this population.

We describe the epidemiology of asthma presentations to emergency departments (EDs) for 3 main regions in the province of Alberta.

We used a comprehensive ED database to identify ED visits in Alberta from April 1999 to March 2005. We linked the visits to other provincial administrative databases to obtain all data on follow-up encounters for asthma during that period. Information extracted included demographics, regions of residence (Edmonton, Calgary or non–major urban [NMU]), timing of ED visits, and subsequent visits to non-ED settings. Data analysis included descriptive summaries and directly standardized visit rates.

During the 6-year study period, 93 146 patients made 199 991 ED visits for asthma. Crude rates in 2004/05 were 7.9/1000, 6.5/1000 and 15.4/1000 in the Edmonton, Calgary and NMU regions, respectively. The Edmonton and Calgary regions had consistently lower visit rates than the NMU regions. The ED visits were followed by low rates of follow-up visits in a variety of non-ED settings, at different intervals.

Asthma is a relatively common presenting problem in Alberta EDs. This study identified relatively stable rates of presentation during the study period, and variation among regions in terms of age and sex. This study provides further understanding of the variation associated with ED presentation and indicates possible targets for specific interventions to reduce asthma-related ED visits.

During the past 7 years, considerable new evidence has accumulated supporting the use of prophylactic hypothermia for traumatic brain injury (TBI). Studies can be divided into 2 broad categories: studies with protocols for cooling for a short, predetermined period (e.g., 24–48 h), and those that cool for longer periods and/or terminate based on the normalization of intracranial pressure (ICP). There have been no systematic reviews of hypothermia for TBI that include this recent new evidence.

This analysis followed the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analyses) statement. We developed a comprehensive search strategy to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing therapeutic hypothermia with standard management in TBI patients. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProceedingsFirst and PapersFirst. Additional relevant articles were identified by hand-searching conference proceedings and bibliographies. All stages of study identification and selection, quality assessment and analysis were conducted according to prospectively defined criteria. Study quality was determined by assessment of each study for the use of allocation concealment and outcome assessment blinding. Studies were divided into 2 a priori–defined subgroups for analysis based on cooling strategy: short term (≤ 48 h), and long term or goal-directed (> 48 h and/or continued until normalization of ICP). Outcomes included mortality and good neurologic outcome (defined as Glasgow Outcome Scale score of 4 or 5). Pooling of primary outcomes was completed using relative risk (RR) and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Of 1709 articles, 12 studies with 1327 participants were selected for quantitative analysis. Eight of these studies cooled according to a long-term or goal-directed strategy, and 4 used a short-term strategy. Summary results demonstrated lower mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62–0.85) and more common good neurologic outcome (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.28–1.80). When only short-term cooling studies were analyzed, neither mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75–1.30) nor neurologic outcome (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.94–1.83) were improved. In 8 studies of long-term or goal-directed cooling, mortality was reduced (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51–0.76) and good neurologic outcome was more common (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.44–1.96).

The best available evidence to date supports the use of early prophylactic mild-to-moderate hypothermia in patients with severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤ 8) to decrease mortality and improve rates of good neurologic recovery. This treatment should be commenced as soon as possible after injury (e.g., in the emergency department after computed tomography) regardless of initial ICP, or before ICP is measured. Most studies report using a temperature of 32°–34°C. The maximal benefit occurred with a long-term or goal-directed cooling protocol, in which cooling was continued for at least 72 hours and/or until stable normalization of intracranial pressure for at least 24 hours was achieved. There is large potential for further research on this therapy in prehospital and emergency department settings.