Non-medical cannabis recently became legal for adults in Canada. Legalization provides opportunity to investigate the public health effects of national cannabis legalization on presentations to emergency departments (EDs). Our study aimed to explore association between cannabis-related ED presentations, poison control and telemedicine calls, and cannabis legalization.

Data were collected from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System from October 1, 2013, to July 31, 2019, for 14 urban Alberta EDs, from Alberta poison control, and from HealthLink, a public telehealth service covering all of Alberta. Visitation data were obtained to compare pre- and post-legalization periods. An interrupted time-series analysis accounting for existing trends was completed, in addition to the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and relative risk calculation (to evaluate changes in co-diagnoses).

Although only 3 of every 1,000 ED visits within the time period were attributed to cannabis, the number of cannabis-related ED presentations increased post-legalization by 3.1 (range -11.5 to 12.6) visits per ED per month (IRR 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.39, 1.51; absolute level change: 43.5 visits per month, 95% CI; 26.5, 60.4). Cannabis-related calls to poison control also increased (IRR 1.87, 95% CI; 1.55, 2.37; absolute level change: 4.0 calls per month, 95% CI; 0.1, 7.9). Lastly, we observed increases in cannabis-related hyperemesis, unintentional ingestion, and individuals leaving the ED pre-treatment. We also observed a decrease in co-ingestant use.

Overall, Canadian cannabis legalization was associated with small increases in urban Alberta cannabis-related ED visits and calls to a poison control centre.

Opioid use disorder is a major public health crisis, and evidence suggests ways of better serving patients who live with opioid use disorder in the emergency department (ED). A multi-disciplinary team developed a quality improvement project to implement this evidence.

The intervention was developed by an expert working group consisting of specialists and stakeholders. The group set goals of increasing prescribing of buprenorphine/naloxone and providing next day walk-in referrals to opioid use disorder treatment clinics. From May to September 2018, three Alberta ED sites and three opioid use disorder treatment clinics worked together to trial the intervention. We used administrative data to track the number of ED visits where patients were given buprenorphine/naloxone. Monthly ED prescribing rates before and after the intervention were considered and compared with eight nonintervention sites. We considered whether patients continued to fill opioid agonist treatment prescriptions at 30, 60, and 90 days after their index ED visit to measure continuity in treatment.

The intervention sites increased their prescribing of buprenorphine/naloxone during the intervention period and prescribed more buprenorphine/naloxone than the controls. Thirty-five of 47 patients (74.4%) discharged from the ED with buprenorphine/naloxone continued to fill opioid agonist treatment prescriptions 30 days and 60 days after their index ED visit. Thirty-four patients (72.3%) filled prescriptions at 90 days.

Emergency clinicians can effectively initiate patients on buprenorphine/naloxone when supports for this standardized evidence-based care are in place within their practice setting and timely follow-up in community is available.

Vomiting is common in children after minor head injury. In previous research, isolated vomiting was not a significant predictor of intracranial injury after minor head injury; however, the significance of recurrent vomiting is unclear. This study aimed to determine the value of recurrent vomiting in predicting intracranial injury after pediatric minor head injury.

This secondary analysis of the CATCH2 prospective multicenter cohort study included participants (0–16 years) who presented to a pediatric emergency department (ED) within 24 hours of a minor head injury. ED physicians completed standardized clinical assessments. Recurrent vomiting was defined as ≥ four episodes. Intracranial injury was defined as acute intracranial injury on computed tomography scan. Predictors were examined using chi-squared tests and logistic regression models.

A total of 855 (21.1%) of the 4,054 CATCH2 participants had recurrent vomiting, 197 (4.9%) had intracranial injury, and 23 (0.6%) required neurosurgical intervention. Children with recurrent vomiting were significantly more likely to have intracranial injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7–3.1), and require neurosurgical intervention (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5–7.9). Recurrent vomiting remained a significant predictor of intracranial injury (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.9–3.9) when controlling for other CATCH2 criteria. The probability of intracranial injury increased with number of vomiting episodes, especially when accompanied by other high-risk factors, including signs of a skull fracture, or irritability and Glasgow Coma Scale score < 15 at 2 hours postinjury. Timing of first vomiting episode, and age were not significant predictors.

Recurrent vomiting (≥ four episodes) was a significant risk factor for intracranial injury in children after minor head injury. The probability of intracranial injury increased with the number of vomiting episodes and if accompanied by other high-risk factors, such as signs of a skull fracture or altered level of consciousness.

Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that can be life-threatening. The literature indicates that the incidence of anaphylaxis is increasing and that there are deficiencies in both recognition and management. We aimed to examine the magnitude of these gaps in Canadian pediatric emergency medicine (PEM).

We conducted a self-administered survey of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) physician database. The survey tool was developed through a literature review to identify recurring themes of gaps in anaphylaxis diagnosis and management. The final tool contained four scenarios; three scenarios featured each of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) anaphylaxis criteria, separately, and a fourth case of non-anaphylactic allergy. Multiple-choice questions associated with each scenario addressed diagnosis, management, and disposition. Additional questions focused on epinephrine prescribing, observation durations, and respondent demographics.

Of the 214 members invited to participate in the survey, 152 (71%) responded. Anaphylaxis was accurately recognized 93%, 82%, and 99% of the time for the NIAID criteria one through three, respectively. When anaphylaxis was recognized, epinephrine was prescribed for each case 96%, 95%, and 72% of the time, respectively. Of all respondents, 115 (76%) accurately diagnosed all three cases of anaphylaxis and 82 (54%) treated anaphylaxis with epinephrine each time it was indicated.

Most respondents recognized cases of anaphylaxis; however, a substantial number demonstrated gaps in management that may adversely impact this vulnerable population. The recognition of anaphylaxis without urticaria or pulmonary findings and treatment of anaphylaxis with epinephrine, where indicated, were the main gaps identified.

The Emergency Medicine (EM) Specialty Committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) specifies that resuscitation entrustable professional activities (EPAs) can be assessed in the workplace and simulated environments. However, limited validity evidence for these assessments in either setting exists. We sought to determine if EPA ratings improve over time and whether an association exists between ratings in the workplace v. simulation environment.

All Foundations EPA1 (F1) assessments were collected for first-year residents (n = 9) in our program during the 2018–2019 academic year. This EPA focuses on initiating and assisting in the resuscitation of critically ill patients. EPA ratings obtained in the workplace and simulation environments were compared using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). To determine whether ratings in the two environments differed as residents progressed through training, a within-subjects analysis of variance was conducted with training environment and month as independent variables.

We collected 104 workplace and 36 simulation assessments. No correlation was observed between mean EPA ratings in the two environments (CCC(8) = -0.01; p = 0.93). Ratings in both settings improved significantly over time (F(2,16) = 18.8; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.70), from 2.9 ± 1.2 in months 1–4 to 3.5 ± 0.2 in months 9–12. Workplace ratings (3.4 ± 0.1) were consistently higher than simulation ratings (2.9 ± 0.2) (F(2,16) = 7.2; p = 0.028; η2 = 0.47).

No correlation was observed between EPA F1 ratings in the workplace v. simulation environments. Further studies are needed to clarify the conflicting results of our study with others and build an evidence base for the validity of EPA assessments in simulated and workplace environments.