Although alcohol withdrawal is common, the recognition of benzodiazepine-resistant alcohol withdrawal is a relatively new concept. To provide a framework for both literature review and future research, we assessed clinicians’ personal definition of resistant alcohol withdrawal.

We developed a cross-sectional web-based survey. Administrators from collaborating toxicology and emergency medicine associations deployed the survey directly to their respective memberships. Only physicians, pharmacists, and other clinicians routinely treating alcohol withdrawal were eligible to participate. Respondents selected their preferred definition among the three most common author sources – JB Hack, NJ Benedict, D Hughes – or provided their own. Additional criteria to define resistant alcohol withdrawal were explored.

384 individuals answered the survey. Respondents were mostly attending physicians (79%), in full-time practice (90%), in emergency medicine (70%), and from North America (90%). The majority (64%) described resistant alcohol withdrawal as a high benzodiazepine dosage. Seizures (26%) and persistent tachycardia (16%) were also main characteristics. The median dose to describe high benzodiazepine dose (n = 146) was 40 mg per hour of diazepam equivalents (IQR 20–50). Available definitions were ranked equally as the preferred one: Hack (27%); Benedict (28%); Hughes (28%).

Our results did not identify one single preferred definition for resistant alcohol withdrawal even though a high total dose of benzodiazepine is a major component. Hourly requirements of 40 mg of diazepam equivalents or more emerged as a possible threshold. These findings serve as a base to explore consensus guidelines or future research.

Substance-related emergency department (ED) visits are rapidly increasing. Despite this finding, many EDs do not have access to on-site addiction services. This study characterized substance-related ED presentations and assessed the ED health care team's perceived need for an on-site rapid-access addiction clinic for direct patient referral from the ED.

This prospectively enrolled cohort study was conducted at an urban tertiary care ED from June to August 2018. Adult ED patients with problematic or high-risk substance use were enrolled by ED staff using a one-page form. The electronic and paper records from the index ED visit were reviewed. The primary outcome evaluated whether the ED health care team would have referred the patient to an on-site rapid-access addiction clinic, if one were available.

We received 557 enrolment forms and 458 were included in the analysis. Median age was 35 years, and 64% of included patients were male. Alcohol was the most commonly reported substance of problematic or high-risk use (60%). Previous ED visits within 7 days of the index visit were made by 28% of patients. The ED health care team indicated “Yes” for rapid-access addiction clinic referral from the ED for 66% of patients, with a mean of 4.3 patients referred per day during the study period.

At least four patients per day would have been referred to an on-site rapid-access addiction clinic from the ED, had one been available. This indicates a gap in care and collaborating with other sites that have successfully implemented this clinic model is an important next step.

Evaluate the relationship between naloxone dose (initial and cumulative) and opioid toxicity reversal and adverse events in undifferentiated and presumed fentanyl/ultra-potent opioid overdoses.

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, DARE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, reference lists, toxicology websites, and conference proceedings (1972 to 2018). We included interventional, observational, and case studies/series reporting on naloxone dose and opioid toxicity reversal or adverse events in people >12 years old.

A total of 174 studies (110 case reports/series, 57 observational, 7 interventional) with 26,660 subjects (median age 35 years; 74% male). Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Where reported, we abstracted naloxone dose and proportion of patients with toxicity reversal. Among patients with presumed exposure to fentanyl/ultra-potent opioids, 56.9% (617/1,085) responded to an initial naloxone dose ≤0.4 mg compared with 80.2% (170/212) of heroin users, and 30.4% (7/23) responded to an initial naloxone dose >0.4 mg compared with 59.1% (1,434/2,428) of heroin users. Among patients who responded, median cumulative naloxone doses were higher for presumed fentanyl/ultra-potent opioids than heroin overdoses in North America, both before 2015 (fentanyl/ultra-potent opioids: 1.8 mg [interquartile interval {IQI}, 1.0, 4.0]; heroin: 0.8 mg [IQI, 0.4, 0.8]) and after 2015 (fentanyl/ultra-potent opioids: 3.4 mg [IQI, 3.0, 4.1]); heroin: 2 mg [IQI, 1.4, 2.0]). Where adverse events were reported, 11% (490/4,414) of subjects experienced withdrawal. Variable reporting, heterogeneity and poor-quality studies limit conclusions.

Practitioners have used higher initial doses, and in some cases higher cumulative naloxone doses to reverse toxicity due to presumed fentanyl/ultra-potent opioid exposure compared with other opioids. High-quality comparative naloxone dosing studies assessing effectiveness and safety are needed.

Competence committees play a key role in a competency-based system of assessment. These committees are tasked with reviewing and synthesizing clinical performance data to make judgments regarding residents’ competence. Canadian emergency medicine (EM) postgraduate training programs recently implemented competence committees; however, a paucity of literature guides their work.

The objective of this study was to develop consensus-based recommendations to optimize the function and decisions of competence committees in Canadian EM training programs.

Semi-structured interviews of EM competence committee chairs were conducted and analyzed. The interview guide was informed by a literature review of competence committee structure, processes, and best practices. Inductive thematic analysis of interview transcripts was conducted to identify emerging themes. Preliminary recommendations, based on themes, were drafted and presented at the 2019 CAEP Academic Symposium on Education. Through a live presentation and survey poll, symposium attendees representing the national EM community participated in a facilitated discussion of the recommendations. The authors incorporated this feedback and identified consensus among symposium attendees on a final set of nine high-yield recommendations.

The Canadian EM community used a structured process to develop nine best practice recommendations for competence committees addressing: committee membership, meeting processes, decision outcomes, use of high-quality performance data, and ongoing quality improvement. These recommendations can inform the structure and processes of competence committees in Canadian EM training programs.

To address the increasing demand for the use of simulation for assessment, our objective was to review the literature pertaining to simulation-based assessment and develop a set of consensus-based expert-informed recommendations on the use of simulation-based assessment as presented at the 2019 Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Symposium on Education.

A panel of Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians from across Canada, with leadership roles in simulation and/or assessment, was formed to develop the recommendations. An initial scoping literature review was conducted to extract principles of simulation-based assessment. These principles were refined via thematic analysis, and then used to derive a set of recommendations for the use of simulation-based assessment, organized by the Consensus Framework for Good Assessment. This was reviewed and revised via a national stakeholder survey, and then the recommendations were presented and revised at the consensus conference to generate a final set of recommendations on the use of simulation-based assessment in EM.

We developed a set of recommendations for simulation-based assessment, using consensus-based expert-informed methods, across the domains of validity, reproducibility, feasibility, educational and catalytic effects, acceptability, and programmatic assessment. While the precise role of simulation-based assessment will be a subject of continued debate, we propose that these recommendations be used to assist educators and program leaders as they incorporate simulation-based assessment into their programs of assessment.

The national implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) has prompted an increased interest in identifying and tracking clinical and educational outcomes for emergency medicine training programs. For the 2019 Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Symposium, we developed recommendations for measuring outcomes in emergency medicine training in the context of CBME to assist educational leaders and systems designers in program evaluation.

We conducted a three-phase study to generate educational and clinical outcomes for emergency medicine (EM) education in Canada. First, we elicited expert and community perspectives on the best educational and clinical outcomes through a structured consultation process using a targeted online survey. We then qualitatively analyzed these responses to generate a list of suggested outcomes. Last, we presented these outcomes to a diverse assembly of educators, trainees, and clinicians at the CAEP Academic Symposium for feedback and endorsement through a voting process.

Academic Symposium attendees endorsed the measurement and linkage of CBME educational and clinical outcomes. Twenty-five outcomes (15 educational, 10 clinical) were derived from the qualitative analysis of the survey results and the most important short- and long-term outcomes (both educational and clinical) were identified. These outcomes can be used to help measure the impact of CBME on the practice of Emergency Medicine in Canada to ensure that it meets both trainee and patient needs.

The Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) selection process has come under scrutiny due to the increasing number of unmatched medical graduates. In response, we outline our residency program's selection process including how we have incorporated best practices and novel techniques.

We selected file reviewers and interviewers to mitigate gender bias and increase diversity. Four residents and two attending physicians rated each file using a standardized, cloud-based file review template to allow simultaneous rating. We interviewed applicants using four standardized stations with two or three interviewers per station. We used heat maps to review rating discrepancies and eliminated rating variance using Z-scores. The number of person-hours that we required to conduct our selection process was quantified and the process outcomes were described statistically and graphically.

We received between 75 and 90 CaRMS applications during each application cycle between 2017 and 2019. Our overall process required 320 person-hours annually, excluding attendance at the social events and administrative assistant duties. Our preliminary interview and rank lists were developed using weighted Z-scores and modified through an organized discussion informed by heat mapped data. The difference between the Z-scores of applicants surrounding the interview invitation threshold was 0.18-0.3 standard deviations. Interview performance significantly impacted the final rank list.

We describe a rigorous resident selection process for our emergency medicine training program which incorporated simultaneous cloud-based rating, Z-scores, and heat maps. This standardized approach could inform other programs looking to adopt a rigorous selection process while providing applicants guidance and reassurance of a fair assessment.

Quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) competencies are increasingly important in emergency medicine (EM) and are now included in the CanMEDS framework. We conducted a survey aimed at determining the Canadian EM residents’ perspectives on the level of QIPS education and support available to them.

An electronic survey was distributed to all Canadian EM residents from the Royal College and Family Medicine training streams. The survey consisted of multiple-choice, Likert, and free-text entry questions aimed at understanding familiarity with QIPS, local opportunities for QIPS projects and mentorship, and the desire for further QIPS education and involvement.

Of 535 EM residents, 189 (35.3%) completed the survey, representing all 17 medical schools; 77.2% of respondents were from the Royal College stream; 17.5% of respondents reported that QIPS methodologies were formally taught in their residency program; 54.7% of respondents reported being “somewhat” or “very” familiar with QIPS; 47.2% and 51.5% of respondents reported either “not knowing” or “not having readily available” opportunities for QIPS projects and QIPS mentorship, respectively; 66.9% of respondents indicated a desire for increased QIPS teaching; and 70.4% were interested in becoming involved with QIPS training and initiatives.

Many Canadian EM residents perceive a lack of QIPS educational opportunities and support in their local setting. They are interested in receiving more QIPS education, as well as project and mentorship opportunities. Supporting residents with a robust QIPS educational and mentorship framework may build a cohort of providers who can enhance the local delivery of care.