To develop and implement a peer-based performance evaluation tool and to measure reliability and physician satisfaction.

Each emergency physician in an urban emergency department evaluated their peers by completing a survey consisting of 21 questions on effectiveness in 4 categories: clinical practice, interaction with coworkers and the public, nonclinical departmental responsibilities, and academic activities. A sample of emergency nurses evaluated each emergency physician on a subset of 5 of the questions. Factor analysis was used to assess the reliability of the questions and categories. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to determine inter-rater reliability. After receiving their peer evaluations, each physician rated the process’s usefulness to the individual and the department.

225 surveys were completed on 16 physicians. Factor analysis did not distinguish the nonclinical and academic categories as distinct; therefore, the survey questions fell into 3 domains, rather than the 4 hypothesized. The overall intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.43 for emergency physicians, indicating moderate, but far from perfect, agreement. This suggests that variability exists between physician evaluators, and that multiple reviewers are probably required to provide a balanced physician evaluation. The intra-class correlation coefficient for emergency nurses was 0.11, suggesting poor reliability. Overall, 11 of 15 physicians reported the process valuable or mostly valuable, 3 of 15 were unsure and 1 of 15 reported that the process was definitely not valuable.

Physician evaluation by a single individual is probably unreliable. A useful physician peer evaluation tool can be developed. Most physicians view a personalized, broad-based, confidential peer review as valuable.

To assess the safety of pediatric procedural sedation performed by emergency physicians working within a structured sedation protocol.

A retrospective review of all children undergoing emergency department (ED) procedural sedation during a 2-year period after the institution of a structured sedation protocol.

167 children underwent procedural sedation, primarily for orthopedic manipulation, wound management and foreign body removal. Of these, 82% received ketamine, 17% received fentanyl and midazolam and 1% received midazolam alone. Sedation was adequate in all but 6 patients, who required supplemental ketamine for orthopedic manipulation. Vomiting after arousal occurred in 17 children (10%), but no episodes of clinical aspiration occurred. One child became agitated during recovery and another experienced a transient visual hallucination. There were no cases of laryngospasm, apnea or cardiorespiratory compromise, and no mortality or significant morbidity occurred.

Emergency physicians using a structured sedation protocol can safely perform ED pediatric procedural sedation. Where intravenous access is not already present, intramuscular ketamine, administered in the doses described, is a safe and effective agent for pediatric sedation.

Our goals were to determine whether selection bias occurred in a prehospital study comparing an esophageal detector device (EDD) to a disposable capnometer for detecting esophageal intubation, and to determine whether such a bias would have changed the study’s conclusions about EDD effectiveness.

In a study of patients requiring prehospital intubation, we determined the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the EDD for detecting esophageal intubation. We then compared intubation success rate in patients who were enrolled in the study (n = 129) to that in eligible patients who were excluded from it (n = 107). After finding that the incidence of failed intubation was higher in the “excluded” group, we used sensitivity and specificity parameters derived from the study population to assess whether EDD test characteristics would differ in studied vs. excluded patients.

The first intubation attempt was successful in 125 of 129 study patients and 76 of 107 excluded patients (97% vs. 71%, p = 0.03), confirming the presence of selection bias. The negative predictive value of the EDD for esophageal intubation was 98% in the study cohort and would have been 77% in patients like those excluded (i.e., difficult intubation cases).

Conclusion: The high “first attempt” intubation success rate seen in this study was due to selective exclusion of failed intubations. This selection bias led to a clinically important overestimation of the EDD’s negative predictive value. Bias may substantially alter the estimations of test accuracy reported in scientific studies. To reduce the chance of unrecognized selection bias in studies of diagnostic tests, investigators must determine whether recruited subjects resemble patients in whom the test will ultimately be used.

Intravenous (IV) opioid titration is an accepted method of relieving acute renal colic. Studies have shown that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are also effective in this setting. Our objective was to compare single-dose ketorolac and titrated meperidine, both administered intravenously, with respect to speed and degree of analgesia, adverse effects and functional status. Our primary hypothesis was that these agents provide equivalent analgesia within 60 minutes. Our secondary hypotheses were that ketorolac-treated patients would experience fewer adverse effects and would be better able to resume usual activity.

This was a multicentre, double-blind randomized equivalence trial in a convenience sample of patients age 18–65 with moderate or severe renal colic, documented by intravenous pyelogram, ultrasound or stone passage. Meperidine-treated patients received 50 mg IV meperidine at 0 minutes, then 25–50 mg every 15 minutes as needed for ongoing pain. Ketorolac-treated patients received 30 mg IV ketorolac at 0 minutes and placebo injections every 15 minutes as needed. Pain levels and adverse effects were assessed every 15 minutes, and functional status was evaluated at 60 minutes. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with mild or no pain at 60 minutes.

Overall, 49 of 77 meperidine-treated patients (64%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 53%–75%) and 47 of 65 ketorolac-treated patients (72%; 95% CI, 61%–83%) achieved successful pain relief at 60 minutes (p value for equivalence = 0.002). Ten percent of meperidine-treated patients and 44% of ketorolac-treated patients were able to resume usual activity at 60 minutes (p = 0.001).

In the doses studied, single-dose IV ketorolac is as effective as titrated IV meperidine for the relief of acute renal colic and causes less functional impairment.

Our primary objectives were to estimate how frequently emergency medical technicians with defibrillation skills (EMT-Ds) are forced to deal with prehospital do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, to assess their comfort in doing so, and to describe the prehospital care provided to patients with DNR orders in a system without a prehospital DNR policy (i.e., where resuscitation is mandatory).

Using Dillman methodology, the authors developed a 13-item survey and mailed it to 382 of 764 EMT-Ds in the metropolitan Toronto area. Responses were evaluated using 5-point Likert scales, limited-option and open-ended questions. Narrative responses were categorized. Two authors independently categorized narrative responses from 20 surveys, and kappa values for agreement beyond chance were determined.

Among 382 EMT-Ds surveyed, 236 (62%) responded, of whom 221 (94%) answered the questionnaire. Overall, 126 of 219 (58%) indicated that they were called to resuscitate patients with DNR orders “sometimes,” “frequently,” or “all the time.” In such situations, 22 of 207 (11%) stated they would honour the DNR order and 55 of 207 (27%) would honour the order but appear to provide basic resuscitation, in order to adhere to mandatory resuscitation regulations. Willingness to honour a DNR order did not vary by years of emergency medical service. EMT-Ds cited concern for the family and the patient, fear of repercussions and conflict with personal ethics as key factors contributing to this ethical dilemma. If legally allowed to honour DNR orders, 212 of 221 (96%) respondents would be comfortable with a written order and 137 of 220 (62%) with a verbal order.

Prehospital DNR orders are common, and a significant number of EMT-Ds disregard current regulations by honouring them. EMT-Ds would be more comfortable with written than verbal DNR orders. An ethical prehospital DNR policy should be developed and applied.

To determine the prevalence of influenza vaccination in patients who present to the emergency department (ED) who meet current guidelines for its use. To evaluate the feasibility of an ED-based program to provide influenza vaccine to at-risk patients.

A survey of ED patients and their family physicians, using a convenience sample.

Consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department of Prince George Regional Hospital, Prince George, BC, a regional hospital in Northern British Columbia, during designated shifts between Nov. 6, 1997, and Dec. 10, 1997.

Age, gender, family physician (FP), eligibility for influenza vaccine, vaccination status, willingness to receive vaccine in the ED, and FP methods for ensuring use of influenza vaccine.

935 patients were interviewed; 816 met study eligibility criteria. Of 214 patients eligible for influenza vaccine, 113 (52.8%) had not been vaccinated. Fifty-three (46.9%) agreed to vaccination, and 49 were vaccinated in the ED. A survey of the patients’ FPs revealed that 85% used callback lists, but that only 49% of vaccine-eligible patients identified in the study were on a callback list. Positive associations were found between the presence of an FP and the likelihood of having been vaccinated (odds ratio [OR] = 8.8), being on a callback list and having been vaccinated (OR = 4.1), and age >64 and being on a callback list (OR = 2.1).

Up to 50% of patients eligible for influenza vaccine are not adequately immunized. Administering influenza vaccine in the ED is acceptable to patients and should reduce influenza rates in at-risk populations. There is a role for administering influenza vaccine in the ED.

To estimate the level of knowledge that Canadian emergency physicians have of the costs of common diagnostic tests and interventions in the emergency department (ED).

In a cross-sectional survey, 75 emergency physicians from 7 community and academic EDs were asked to estimate the cost of 60 of the most commonly ordered imaging modalities, laboratory tests and pharmaceuticals. Their estimates were compared to actual costs obtained from hospital finance departments. For each test or pharmaceutical, physician error was calculated as a percentage of the actual value, using the formula [(actual – estimated) / actual] × 100. For each item, the proportion of responses that were underestimates, the proportion that were overestimates and the proportion that were accurate within 25% were reported.

Mean error of the physicians’ estimates was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%–45%) for imaging studies, 153% (95% CI, 128%–178%) for lab investigations, and 218% (95% CI, 179%–257%) for pharmaceutical costs. Rates of underestimation vs. overestimation were 68% vs. 16% for imaging modalities, 23% vs. 56% for laboratory tests, and 21% vs. 64% for pharmaceuticals.

Emergency physicians have a limited knowledge of the costs of the tests and interventions they use on a daily basis. They tend to overestimate lab and pharmaceutical costs but underestimate imaging costs. Cost-awareness programs for emergency physicians are most likely to be beneficial if they focus on imaging modalities.

Our goal was to determine the effectiveness of an intervention aimed at improving the emergency department (ED) documentation of pediatric injuries.

All physicians and nursing staff in the ED of an urban teaching hospital and trauma centre underwent focused injury surveillance training and were instructed how to document 14 injuryspecific data elements. Pocket reminder cards were provided, and pediatric injury charts were flagged. Subsequently, random samples of pediatric injury charts were analyzed from a 3-month period prior to the intervention and from the corresponding months after the intervention. Postintervention documentation was compared to pre-intervention documentation for the 14 predefined data elements.

Six of the 14 data elements were charted more frequently, and 2 less frequently during the post-intervention phase. Odds ratios ranged from 4.59 (95%CI, 3.40 to 6.19) for charting “the presence of an adult observer” to 0.09 (95%CI, 0.01 to 0.76) for charting “sports equipment related to the injury.” The “flagging” of injury charts, as a visual reminder for clinicians to document injury data, seemed to be the most effective component of the intervention.

A simple intervention, consisting of staff training, chart modification, and visual flagging of charts, can increase the amount of injury information documented by ED clinicians. Efforts to improve ED charting are most likely to succeed if they include visual prompts for clinicians.