Current guidelines emphasize that emergency department (ED) patients at low risk for potential ischemic chest pain cannot be discharged without extensive investigations or hospitalization to minimize the risk of missing acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We sought to derive and validate a prediction rule that permitted 20 to 30% of ED patients without ACS safely to be discharged within 2 hours without further provocative cardiac testing.

This prospective cohort study enrolled 1,669 chest pain patients in two blocks in 2000–2003 (development cohort) and 2006 (validation cohort). The primary outcome was 30-day ACS diagnosis. A recursive partitioning model incorporated reliable and predictive cardiac risk factors, pain characteristics, electrocardiographic findings, and cardiac biomarker results.

In the derivation cohort, 165 of 763 patients (21.6%) had a 30-day ACS diagnosis. The derived prediction rule was 100.0% sensitive and 18.6% specific. In the validation cohort, 119 of 906 patients (13.1%) had ACS, and the prediction rule was 99.2% sensitive (95% CI 95.4–100.0) and 23.4% specific (95% CI 20.6–26.5). Patients have a very low ACS risk if arrival and 2-hour troponin levels are normal, the initial electrocardiogram is nonischemic, there is no history of ACS or nitrate use, age is < 50 years, and defined pain characteristics are met. The validation of the rule was limited by the lack of consistency in data capture, incomplete follow-up, and lack of evaluation of the accuracy, comfort, and clinical sensibility of this clinical decision rule.

The Vancouver Chest Pain Rule may identify a cohort of ED chest pain patients who can be safely discharged within 2 hours without provocative cardiac testing. Further validation across other centres with consistent application and comprehensive and uniform follow-up of all eligible and enrolled patients, in addition to measuring and reporting the accuracy of and comfort level with applying the rule and the clinical sensibility, should be completed prior to adoption and implementation.

Requests for specialty consultation are common in emergency departments (EDs) and often contribute to delays in throughput. Our objectives were to describe the contribution of the consultation process to total ED length of stay (LOS) through novel metrics and illustrate causes of delay.

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study at three Canadian tertiary care centres. Adult ED patients with requested medical/surgical consultations were enrolled. We created original metric intervals: total consultation time (TCT) defined as the interval from the initial consultation request to the disposition decision, consult response time (CRT) from the request to the consultant arrival, and decision-making interval (DMI) from arrival to the disposition decision. The consultation impact index (CII) was defined as the percentage of ED LOS consumed by the TCT. Reasons for delay were documented if time stamps exceeded preset benchmarks.

The median TCT for 285 patients was 138 minutes (interquartile range [IQR]: 82–239 minutes), whereas the median total ED LOS was 778 minutes (IQR 485–1,274 minutes). The median CRT was 55 minutes (IQR 21–115 minutes), and the median DMI was 58 minutes (IQR 25–126 minutes). The CII measured 26% (95% CI 23–28). Major contributors to consultation delay included urgent ward issues, simultaneous ED consultations, and the need for additional laboratory or radiographic investigations.

The consultation process is highly variable and has an important impact on ED LOS. We describe novel measures related to consultation performance and provide an analysis of what causes delays. These results can be used to seek improvements in the consulting process.

To describe pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians' reported pain management practices across Canada and explore factors that facilitate or hinder pain management.

This study was a prospective survey of Canadian pediatric emergency physicians. The Pediatric Emergency Research Canada physician database was used to identify participants, and a modified Dillman's Total Design Survey Method was used for recruitment.

The survey response rate was 68% (139 of 206). Most physicians were 31 to 50 years old (82%) with PEM training (56%) and had been in practice for less than 10 years (55%). Almost all pain screening in emergency departments (EDs) occurred at triage (97%). Twenty-four percent of physicians noted institutionally mandated pain score documentation. Ibuprofen and acetaminophen were commonly prescribed in the ED for mild to moderate pain (88% and 83%, respectively). Over half of urinary catheterizations (60%) and intravenous (53%) starts were performed without any analgesia. The most common nonpharmacologic interventions used for infants and children were pacifiers and distraction, respectively. Training background and gender of physicians affected the likelihood of using nonpharmacologic interventions. Physicians noted time restraints to be the greatest barrier to optimal pain management (55%) and desired improved access to pain medications (32%), better policies and procedures (30%), and further education (25%).

When analgesia was reported as provided, ibuprofen and acetaminophen were most commonly used. Both procedural and presenting pain remained suboptimally managed. There is a substantial evidence practice gap in children's ED pain management, highlighting the need for further knowledge translation strategies and policies to support optimal treatment.

Emergency departments (EDs) are recognized as a high-risk setting for prescription errors. Pharmacist involvement may be important in reviewing prescriptions to identify and correct errors. The objectives of this study were to describe the frequency and type of prescription errors detected by pharmacists in EDs, determine the proportion of errors that could be corrected, and identify factors associated with prescription errors.

This prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching ED on 25 consecutive weekdays. Pharmacists reviewed all documented prescriptions and flagged and corrected errors for patients in the ED. We collected information on patient demographics, details on prescription errors, and the pharmacists’ recommendations.

A total of 3,136 ED prescriptions were reviewed. The proportion of prescriptions in which a pharmacist identified an error was 3.2% (99 of 3,136; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–3.8). The types of identified errors were wrong dose (28 of 99, 28.3%), incomplete prescription (27 of 99, 27.3%), wrong frequency (15 of 99, 15.2%), wrong drug (11 of 99, 11.1%), wrong route (1 of 99, 1.0%), and other (17 of 99, 17.2%). The pharmacy service intervened and corrected 78 (78 of 99, 78.8%) errors. Factors associated with prescription errors were patient age over 65 (odds ratio [OR] 2.34; 95% CI 1.32–4.13), prescriptions with more than one medication (OR 5.03; 95% CI 2.54–9.96), and those written by emergency medicine residents compared to attending emergency physicians (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.18–4.14).

Pharmacists in a tertiary ED are able to correct the majority of prescriptions in which they find errors. Errors are more likely to be identified in prescriptions written for older patients, those containing multiple medication orders, and those prescribed by emergency residents.

Although emergency departments (EDs) in Canada’s rural areas serve approximately 20% of the population, a serious problem in access to health care services has emerged.

The objective of this project was to compare access to support services in rural EDs between British Columbia and Quebec.

Rural EDs were identified through the Canadian Healthcare Association’s Guide to Canadian Healthcare Facilities. We selected hospitals with 24/7 ED physician coverage and hospitalization beds that were located in rural communities (using the rural and small town definition from Statistics Canada). Data were collected from ministries of health, local health authorities, and ED statistics. A telephone interview was administered to collect denominative user data statistics and determine the status of services.

British Columbia has more rural EDs (n 5 34) than Quebec (n 5 26). EDs in Quebec have higher volumes (19,310 versus 7,793 annual visits). With respect to support services, 81% of Quebec rural EDs have a 24/7 on-call general surgeon compared to 12% for British Columbia. Nearly 75% of Quebec rural EDs have 24/7 access to computed tomography versus only 3% for British Columbia. Rural EDs in Quebec are also supported by a greater proportion of intensive care units (88% versus 15%); however, British Columbia appears to have more medevac aircraft/helicopters than Quebec.

The results suggest that major differences exist in access to support services in rural EDs in British Columbia and Quebec. A nationwide study is justified to address this issue of variability in rural and remote health service delivery and its impact on interfacility transfers and patient outcomes.

Determining the appropriate disposition of emergency department (ED) syncope patients is challenging. Previously developed decision tools have poor diagnostic test characteristics and methodological flaws in their derivation that preclude their use. We sought to develop a scale to risk-stratify adult ED syncope patients at risk for serious adverse events (SAEs) within 30 days.

We conducted a medical record review to include syncope patients age ≥ 16 years and excluded patients with ongoing altered mental status, alcohol or illicit drug use, seizure, head injury leading to loss of consciousness, or severe trauma requiring admission. We collected 105 predictor variables (demographics, event characteristics, comorbidities, medications, vital signs, clinical examination findings, emergency medical services and ED electrocardiogram/ monitor characteristics, investigations, and disposition variables) and information on the occurrence of predefined SAEs. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed.

Among 505 enrolled patient visits, 49 (9.7%) suffered an SAE. Predictors of SAE and their resulting point scores were as follows: age ≥ 75 years (1), shortness of breath (2), lowest ED systolic blood pressure < 80 mm Hg (2), Ottawa Electrocardiographic Criteria present (2), and blood urea nitrogen > 15 mmol/L (3). The final score calculated by addition of the individual scores for each variable (range 0–10) was found to accurately stratify patients into low risk (score < 1, 0% SAE risk), moderate risk (score 1, 3.7% SAE risk), or high risk (score > 1, ≥ 10% SAE risk).

We derived a risk scale that accurately predicts SAEs within 30 days in ED syncope patients. If validated, this will be a potentially useful clinical decision tool for emergency physicians, may allow judicious use of health care resources, and may improve patient care and safety.

The RAPID approach (Resuscitation, Analgesia and assessment, Patient needs, Interventions, Disposition) was developed as an approach to managing emergency department patients. It is a mental checklist to help trainees provide comprehensive care, addressing issues in priority. Its impact on trainee performance has not been assessed.

Forty-two clerkship students were enrolled, with 21 students in each group. They received or did not receive the teaching intervention on an alternate basis. Students were assessed through daily encounter cards, a case presentation, a self-assessment form, a prerotation case (case E), and a sixcase short-answer exit examination (cases A to F) with case E repeated. Case E was designed specifically to assess students’ ability to provide comprehensive care. Fourteen students participated in focus groups.

Students in the intervention group had significantly higher exit examination case E scores (11.67 of 14 v. 10.26 of 14, p 5 0.008) and improvement in their case E scores from pre- to postrotation (1.82 v. 0.26, p 5 0.006). There were no significant differences in the other outcome measures. Intervention group students made positive comments around analgesia, addressing nonmedical needs and counseling on health promotion during focus groups.

Students exposed to the RAPID approach at the start of their emergency medicine rotation performed better on the one component of the written examination for which it was designed to improve performance. Students found it to be a useful mental checklist for comprehensive care, possibly addressing the hidden curriculum. Emergency medicine educators should consider further study and careful implementation of the RAPID approach.

To systematically evaluate the accuracy of text descriptions and labeling of radiologic images published in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM). Error detection by radiologists and emergency physicians and the clinical significance and educational value of these errors were assessed. Errors were also correlated with radiologist involvement in publication and imaging modality.

Thirty-three issues of CJEM were examined from January 2003 to May 2008. Electronic copies of all radiologic images published were obtained with their caption and description from the text. Identifying information was removed to present images in an anonymous fashion. Images were presented to two radiologists who, working in consensus, critically appraised each image and accompanying text. Images were then presented to two emergency department physicians who, working in consensus, critically appraised each image and accompanying text. All images with errors detected by either radiology or emergency physicians were then discussed to determine if errors would have affected clinical management or educational value. The emergency physicians also identified “underlabeled” images where it was felt that further labeling would enhance their educational value.

Forty-five articles with 82 images were obtained. At least one error was observed in 18 (40%) articles and 20 (24%) images. Two errors were present in three images, resulting in 23 errors. Of the 23 errors, 17 were image description errors and 6 were labeling errors. Five errors were detected by both radiology and emergency physicians, whereas 15 were detected only by radiologists and 3 were detected only by emergency physicians. Of these errors, 12 (52%) were rated as potentially affecting both clinical management and educational value, 5 (22%) as only affecting educational value, and 6 (26%) as nonsignificant. Radiologists were involved in six articles, including 12 images that contained no errors. There was no official radiologist involvement in 39 articles, including 70 images, 18 (26%) of which contained errors. In addition, 26 images were identified by emergency physicians as potentially benefiting from enhanced labeling to improve educational value.

Radiologic images published in the CJEM are generally of high quality; however, 23 errors were found in 82 images, 18 (78%) of which were rated as potentially affecting clinical management, educational value, or both. Radiologist involvement in the publication process may be of assistance as no errors were seen in articles that included radiologists as authors.

Emergency physicians are expected to rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using clinical skills and imaging. Our objective was to determine whether emergency physicians could accurately rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using computed tomographic (CT) imaging of the cervical spine.

Fifteen emergency physicians were enrolled to interpret a sample of 50 cervical spine CT scans in a nonclinical setting. The sample contained a 30% incidence of cervical spine injury. After a 2-hour review session, the participants interpreted the CT scans and categorized them into either a suspected cervical spine injury or no cervical spine injury. Participants were asked to specify the location and type of injury. The gold standard interpretation was the combined opinion of two staff radiologists.

Emergency physicians correctly identified 182 of the 210 abnormal cases with cervical spine injury. The sensitivity of emergency physicians was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82–91), and the specificity was 76% (95% CI 74–77). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.18 (95% CI 0.12–0.25).

Experienced emergency physicians successfully identified a large proportion of cervical spine injuries on CT; however, they were not sufficiently sensitive to accurately exclude clinically important injuries. Emergency physicians should rely on a radiologist review of cervical spine CT scans prior to discontinuing cervical spine precautions.

The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is used in geriatric medicine as a means to manage the health care needs of older adults and to grade frailty. We modified the CGA so that it could be completed independently by care partners (usually family) and be used to grade frailty. Our objective was to examine the feasibility of a care partner completing the CGA at the time of the first prehospital encounter.

A prospective, observational study was conducted with a convenience sample of patients ≥ 70 years accompanied by a knowledgeable care partner. Feasibility was measured by the time required and percent completeness of items on the form based on completion by the care partner and by paramedic perception of utility.

Subjects (N 5 104) were enrolled with three postenrolment exclusions due to ineligibility. Most participants were older women living in their own home. The mean time to complete the questionnaire was 18.7 minutes (SD 11.3; median 15 minutes; interquartile range 12-20 minutes). Only 64% of the care partners recorded the time it took. Nineteen percent of paramedics completed a follow-up survey, and all felt screening for frailty was worthwhile and most (> 70%) thought that the CP-CGA may be a useful approach. The study was limited by recruitment bias of potentially eligible patients, a high level of missingness in the outcome measures of interest, and low paramedic participation rates.

We observed a high rate of item completeness of questionnaires with a mean time to complete of 18.7 minutes in a convenience sample of older patients. A small sample of paramedics universally endorsed the utility of screening for frailty in the prehospital setting, and many thought the CP-CGA was a helpful tool.

Despite evidence that patients suffering major traumatic injuries have improved outcomes when cared for within an organized system, the extent of trauma system development in Canada is limited. We sought to compile a detailed inventory of trauma systems in Canada as a first step toward identifying opportunities for improving access to trauma care.

We distributed a nationwide online and mail survey to stakeholders intended to evaluate the extent of implementation of specific trauma system components. Targeted stakeholders included emergency physicians, trauma surgeons, trauma program medical directors and program managers, prehospital providers, and decision makers at the regional and provincial levels. A “snowball” approach was used to expand the sample base of the survey. Descriptive statistics were generated to quantify the nature and extent of trauma system development by region.

The overall response rate was 38.7%, and all levels of stakeholders and all provinces/territories were represented. All provinces were found to have designated trauma centres; however, only 60% were found to have been accredited within the past 10 years. Components present in 50% or fewer provinces included an inclusive trauma system model, interfacility transfer agreements, and a mechanism to track bed availability within the system.

There is significant variability in the extent of trauma system development in Canada. Although all provinces have designated trauma centres, opportunities exist in many systems to implement additional components to improve the inclusiveness of care. In future work, we intend to quantify the strength of the relationship between different trauma system components and access to definitive trauma care.

Minor head trauma in young children is a major cause of emergency department visits. Conflicting guidelines exist regarding radiologic evaluation in such cases.

To determine the practice pattern among Canadian emergency physicians for ordering skull radiographs in young children suffering from minor head trauma. Physicians were also surveyed on their willingness to use a clinical decision rule in such cases.

A self-administered email questionnaire was sent to all members of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) group. It consisted of clinical vignettes followed by multiple-option answers on the management plan. The study was conducted using the principles of the Dillman Tailored Design method and included multiple emailings to maximize the response rate. The research protocol received Institutional Review Board approval.

A total of 158 of 295 (54%) PERC members responded. Most participants were trained in pediatric emergency medicine and assessed more than 500 children per year. Imaging management for the vignettes was highly variable: 6 of the 11 case scenarios had a proportion of radiograph ordering between 20 and 80%. Ninety-five percent of respondents stated that they would apply a validated clinical decision rule for the detection of skull fracture in young children with minor head trauma. The minimum sensitivity deemed acceptable for such a rule was 98%.

Canadian emergency physicians have a wide variation in skull radiography ordering in young children with minor head trauma. This variation, along with the need expressed by physicians, suggests that further research to develop a clinical decision rule is warranted.

Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are a common, painful pediatric presentation to the emergency department (ED). The primary objective of this study was to describe current analgesic administration practices for the outpatient management of children’s MSK pain, both in the ED and postdischarge.

We reviewed the medical records of consecutive pediatric patients evaluated in either a pediatric or a general ED (Edmonton, Alberta) during four evenly distributed calendar months, with a diagnosis of fracture, dislocation, strain, or sprain of a limb. Abstracted data included demographics, administered analgesics, pain scores, discharge medication advice, and timing of clinical care.

A total of 543 medical records were reviewed (n 5 468 pediatric ED, n 5 75 general ED). Nineteen percent had documented prehospital analgesics, 34% had documented in-ED analgesics, 13% reported procedural sedation, and 24% documented discharge analgesia advice. Of those children receiving analgesics in the ED, 59% (126 of 214) received ibuprofen. Pain scores were recorded for 6% of patients. At discharge, ibuprofen was recommended to 47% and codeine-containing compounds to 21% of children. The average time from triage to first analgesic in the ED was 121 6 84 minutes.

Documentation of the assessment and management of children’s pain in the ED is poor, and pain management appears to be suboptimal. When provided, ibuprofen is the most common analgesic used for children with MSK pain. Pediatric patients with MSK pain do not receive timely medication, and interventions must be developed to improve the ‘‘door to analgesia’’ time for children in pain.