Introduction: Emergency department handover is a high-risk period for patient safety. A recent study showed a decreased rate of preventable adverse events and errors after implementation of a resident hand-off bundle on pediatric inpatient wards. In a 2013 survey by the Canadian Associations of Internes and Residents, only 11% of residents in any discipline stated they received a formal teaching session on handover. Recently, the CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Framework has added safe and skillful transfer of patient care as a new proficiency within the collaborator role. We hypothesize that significant variation exists in the current delivery and evaluation of handover education in Canadian EM residencies. Methods: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional survey of Canadian residents enrolled in the three main training streams of Emergency Medicine (FRCP CCFP-EM, PEM). The primary outcome was to determine which educational modalities are used to teach and assess handover proficiency. Secondarily, we described current sign-over practices and perceived competency at patient handover. Results: 130 residents completed the survey (73% FRCP, 19% CCFP-EM, 8% PEM). 6% of residents were aware of handover proficiency objectives within their curriculum, while 15% acknowledged formal evaluation in this area. 98% of respondents were taught handover by observation of staff or residents on shift, while 55% had direct teaching on the job. Less than 10% of respondents received formal sessions in didactic lecture, small group or simulation formats. Evaluation of handover skills occurred primarily by on shift observation (100% of respondents), while 3% of residents had received assessment through simulation. Local centre handover practices were variable; less than half of residents used mnemonic tools, written or electronic adjuncts. Conclusion: Canadian EM residents receive variable and sparse formal training and assessment on emergency department handover. The majority of training occurs by on shift observation and few trainees receive instruction on objective tools or explicit patient care standards. There exists potential for further development of standardized objectives, utilization of other educational modalities and formal assessments to better prepare residents to conduct safer patient handoffs.

Introduction: When an individual requires assistance with mobilization, emergency medical services (EMS) may be called. If treatment is not administered and the patient is not transported to hospital, it is referred to as a “Lift Assist” (LA) call. We have previously shown that LA are associated with morbidity and mortality. Subtle pathology may exist in those who require LAs and they may benefit from being transported to the Emergency Department for medical evaluation. Given that the majority of LA calls result in no-transport, there may be a bias towards not upholding the same standards of care as patients who are transported to hospital. Objective: To determine if there is a difference in Ambulance Call Record (ACR) documentation of vitals signs between LA calls and non-LA calls. Methods: All LA calls from a single EMS agency were collected over a one-year period (Jan - Dec 2013). A control group of randomly selected calls of low acuity (Canadian Triage Acuity Scale 3,4,5) from the same time period was collected for comparison. ACRs from these calls were reviewed for missing vital sign documentation. Results: Of 42, 055 EMS calls, 808 (1.9%) were LA calls. A comparison of 784 randomly-selected non-LA control calls were reviewed. There were significantly more missing vitals (12.08% vs 6.64% p < 0.001) and refused vitals (1.87% vs 0.51% p = 0.013). Conclusion: There is a significant discrepancy in the complete documentation of vital signs in LA calls vs non-LA calls. There were also significantly more patient refusals for obtaining vitals compared to transported patients. Abnormal vital signs may be a clue to a subtle disease process that has resulted in a LA call, thus care should be taken to ensure that these patients are treated with the same standards of care and documentation as those patients calling EMS for overt medical reasons.

Introduction: When an individual requires assistance with mobilization, emergency medical services (EMS) may be called. If treatment is not administered and the patient is not transported to hospital, it is referred to as a “Lift Assist” (LA) call. We have previously shown that LA are associated with morbidity and mortality. What places patients at an increased risk for morbidity and mortality is not yet known. Objective: To determine factors that are associated with increased risk of 14 day morbidity, determined by an ED visit or hospital admission, and mortality in LA calls. Methods: All LA calls from a single EMS agency were collected over a one-year period (Jan - Dec 2013). These calls were linked with hospital records to determine if LA patients had a subsequent visit to the emergency department (ED), admission, or death within 14 days. Logistic regression analyses were run to predict ED visit or hospital admission within 14 days of the LA call from patients’ age, gender, co-morbidities and vital signs at the initial LA call. Results: Of 42,055 EMS calls, 808 (1.9%) were LA calls. There were 169 (20.9%) ED visits, 93 (11.5%) hospital admissions and 9 (1.1%) deaths within 14 days of a LA. Patient age > 61 (p < 0.001) and history of cardiac disease (p = 0.006) significantly predicted ED visit, while patient age >61 (p = 0.001) and an Ambulance Call Record (ACR) missing at least 1 vital sign (p = 0.017) significantly predicted hospital admission. There was a 10% increase in risk of ED visit and hospital admission for every 10 year increase of age after the age of 61. Of the 96 patients with at least 1 missing vital sign, 14 (14.5%) were coded as patient refusals. The sample size was too small to determine predictors for mortality. Conclusion: Patients at risk for morbidity are older than 61 years of age and have co-existing cardiac disease. Patients who are greater than 61 years of age and had at least one missing vital sign on the ACR were more at risk for hospital admission.

Introduction: Antibiotic overuse for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) is a significant problem in Emergency Departments (EDs). DECISION+, a training program on shared decision making (SDM) and a decision aid for antibiotic use in ARIs, reduces patients’ use of antibiotics for ARIs in primary care, but has never been studied in the ED setting. The objectives of this study are to assess the intention of ED physicians to adopt SDM about antibiotic use in ARIs and to identify barriers and facilitators about adopting SDM and a decision aid for antibiotic use in ARIs. Methods: An adapted version of DECISION+ (1-hour seminar) was offered to physicians of two academic EDs (Quebec, Canada) in fall 2015. A validated questionnaire was administered to participants before and after the seminar. This questionnaire contains three items measuring the intention to adopt SDM using a 7-point Likert scale [ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely)]. We performed descriptive analyses for demographic characteristics and a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare pre- and post-training intention to adopt SDM (α=.05). A debriefing session with the participants identified potential barriers and facilitators about implementing SDM and using a decision aid regarding antibiotic use for ARIs. Two researchers analysed the recorded audio material. Results: 41% (23/56) of eligible physicians received the intervention. 74 % of participants had already heard of SDM and 40% felt they already used SDM in their practice. The median intention to adopt SDM was 6 (IQR 5-6) before and 6 (IQR 5-6) after the seminar (P = .23). One participant did not answer the questionnaire after the seminar and his results were excluded from the comparative analysis. We identified 20 specific barriers to adopting SDM for deciding about antibiotics use for ARIs in the ED (e.g., lack of time) and 13 facilitators (e.g., public health campaign). Conclusion: ED physicians’ baseline intention to adopt SDM with patients for antibiotic use in ARIs is high. The adapted tutorial of DECISION+ did not change this intention. This could be explained by the social desirability of SDM. Further studies must be conducted to adapt DECISION+ to the ED setting and also to assess the impact of DECISION+ on the actual prescription and use of antibiotics for ARIs.

Introduction: In the Emergency Department (ED), increasing time pressures and acuity require physicians to have access to quick and reliable data to guide patient care decisions. Blood gases (BGs) allow quick access to key information, and are used frequently in the ED. Our objective was to review the literature on reliability and accuracy of electrolyte measurements obtained from BGs in high acuity settings. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted in September of 2015. The search strategy, done in conjunction with a medical librarian, identified studies that assessed the accuracy of BGs when compared to traditional laboratory serum measurements. Prior to the review we determined sodium and potassium would be the area of focus. Eligibility parameters for the studies included samples from acute care areas - the ED and ICU - and a comparison of BG and serum values taken simultaneously from the patient. Results: Our review included 12 studies, 9 in adult and 3 in pediatrics. There were approximately 1,135 patients included, consisting of 851 adult and 284 pediatric cases. The results were mixed; 9 studies agreed that sodium and potassium readings from BGs were accurate enough to guide acute care decisions, 5 did not. Furthermore, important questions were raised regarding the varying accuracy of BGs depending on what physiological level the electrolytes were at during the time of collection, i.e. at critical vs non-critical levels. Conclusion: This is the first literature review to examine the existing evidence on the accuracy of BGs in acute care environments. Given the variability in the results, a larger study needs to be done to determine the validity and reliability of blood gases for electrolytes in acute care settings. Only by ensuring the accuracy of data collected via point-of-care BGs can the most informed decisions be made surrounding patient care in acute care settings.

Introduction: Special Care Home (SCH) residents require supervision for activities of daily living but not regular nursing care. Emergency Department (ED) use by seniors in SCHs is poorly studied. A recent study in Nova Scotia found seniors represented over 20% of ED visits. We studied SCH resident ED visits in a community with a population of 30,000 aged over 65 years and with 785 SCH beds, to define reasons for ED visits to a tertiary ED, and if these could be avoided. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of SCH residents’ visits to an ED (SCH-ED) which has 56,000 total ED (TED) visits over one year. Reasons for visit, admission data, and avoidability were collected. A geriatrician and ED physician independently reviewed visits. Initial disagreement on avoidability (27%) was adjudicated through case discussion. Results: Demographic data revealed 344 ED visits by 111 SCH residents over one year; 37% of visits resulted in admission. 13.9% of residents visited the ED on at least one occasion (average 3.1 visits); mean age 78.4 years; female 66.7%; ambulance arrival 91.0%. The three most common chief complaints were shortness of breath, weakness and abdominal pain. Most SCH-ED visits were Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) Level 3 (63.4%, TED 53.3%). Of CTAS Level 3 visits, 35.3% were admitted (TED 12.9%). SCH-ED visits were avoidable in 40.6% of cases. Gastrointestinal (18%), pain (16.5%), falls, functional decline or injury (14%) and respiratory (12%) were the most common avoidable diagnostic groups, accounting for 57% of total SCH visits. Conclusion: ED visits by SCH residents demonstrated increased acuity and admission rates with a high number of repeat visits. Of all SCH-ED visits, 40% were potentially avoidable. Further study may determine if improved community services reduces ED visits or hospital admission. Gastrointestinal, respiratory, falls and pain diagnoses may be important areas of focus.

Introduction: Patient morbidity and mortality are influenced by delay in access to care and lack of continuity of care. Patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) for care despite being registered with a primary care (PC) provider. Advanced access is an open scheduling system promoted by the College of Family Physicians of Canada that triages primary care (PC) patients to be seen within 24 hours, reducing care delay. We wished to determine the prevalence of formal triage systems in PC appointment allocation. Methods: We performed linked cross sectional surveys to quantify the number of ambulatory patients presenting to a tertiary urban ED (with an annual census of 56,000 visits) who felt unable to access primary care. PC practices were also surveyed to assess use of formal triage methods and measure access using the metric of time to third next available appointment. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: In the patient survey, 381 of 580 patients consented to participate. Of those, 324 patients reported reasons for their ED visit. Perception that wait time for PC was “too long” was reported in 73/324 (23%); 86% reported wait times of greater than 48 hours. The PC practice response rate was 63.8% (46/ 72). The mean time to third next available appointment was 7.7 (95% CI 4.9-10.5) days (median 5 days, range 0-50 days). No PC practice reported utilizing a formal triage system when booking appointments. Conclusion: No primary care practices in the surveyed region used a formal triage system to allocate appointments, despite a range of wait times that extended up to 50 days. The safety of primary care appointment allocation may be improved with introduction of a formal triage system, especially if overall wait times cannot be reduced.

Introduction: There was a recognized lack of available system for Emergency Physicians (EPs) to communicate their x-ray interpretations to the reading Radiologist; this resulted in unnecessary flagging of cases with significant findings already seen by the EP or the possibility of incorrectly assuming a finding was seen by the EP. Our aim was to develop an IT-based system that permitted Radiologists to view EPs documented x-ray interpretations real-time. Based on engagement with both groups, it was essential that the system be user friendly and not add significantly to an already busy workload. Methods: An online reporting system was introduced in 2011, but with complaints that interpretations were not readily accessible, nor automatic. A revised system was launched in 2014 with 2 improvements: i) EP entered interpretation onto “sticky note” in PACs directly; and ii) EP interpretation “popped up” when a film was opened by Radiologist. Results: Both systems allowed data collection of the percentage of events EPs entered an interpretation. Prior to 2011, 0% of films had EP interpretations available to Radiologist, 33% with initial, and 53% with PACS. The revised system has enabled EPs to enter their x-ray interpretation which has resulted in improvement both subjectively, based on regular feedback from both EPs and Radiologists, and objectively. Conclusion: From this and other quality improvement initiatives, we have learned the importance of engaging frontline practitioners in process changes, specifically the impact on workflow. Also, utilizing existing IT systems and resources can result in positive change with minimal costs.

Introduction: The Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) are a clinical decision tool used to minimize unnecessary radiographs in ankle and foot injuries. The OAR has been shown to be a reliable rule to exclude fractures in children over 5 years of age. However, there is limited data to support its use by other health care workers in children. Our objective was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the OAR, to detect clinically significant fractures, when applied by allied health providers (AHPs). Methods: Children aged 5 to 17 years presenting with an acute ankle or foot injury were enrolled. Patients assessed by a physician prior to an AHP, presenting for reassessment or >24 hours after the injury, having open, penetrating or neurovascular injury, or multiple injuries were excluded. Patients with metabolic bone disease, a previous x-ray, or the inability to communicate or ambulate before the injury were also excluded. Baseline data on x-ray use was collected in a convenience sample of 100 patients. AHPs then completed an OAR learning module. Then in phase 2, AHPs applied the OAR to a convenience sample of 186 patients. Both AHPs and physicians performed inter-observer assessments. Results: When AHP’s applied the ankle portion of the OAR, the sensitivity was 88% (95% CI 46.7-99.3) and the specificity was 32.5% (95% CI 24.5-41.6) for clinically significant fractures. When AHP’s applied the foot portion of the OAR, the sensitivity was 87.5% (95% CI 46.7-99.3) and the specificity was 15.6% (95% CI 7.0-30.1) for clinically significant fractures. In total, 2 clinically significant fractures (1 foot fracture and 1 ankle fracture) were missed by AHP’s. Inter-observer agreement was κ=0.24 for the ankle rule and κ=0.32 for the foot rule. The missed ankle fracture had a positive OAR when performed by a physician as an inter-observer assessment. The missed foot fracture was a distal metatarsal fracture that was outside of the “foot zone” as defined by the OAR. Conclusion: The sensitivity of the OAR when applied by AHP’s was very good. Both clinically significant fractures that were missed by AHP’s would likely have been picked up by a physician assessment. More training and practice using the OAR would likely improve AHP’s inter-observer reliability. Our data suggest the OAR may be a useful tool for AHP’s to apply as a screening tool prior to physician assessment.

Introduction: Low Back Pain (LBP) remains a condition with relatively high incidence and prevalence. It affects 70-85% of people at some point in their lives and causes significant disability. LBP management may be best suited to a primary care setting, yet it is one of the most common reasons for presentation to Emergency Departments (ED). Nationally representative data from the United States found that LBP related disorders are a frequent cause of ED visits, accounting for 2.7 million visits to US EDs annually. There are numerous treatment modalities for LBP, however the task is identifying those that have relevance in an ED setting. Although there is extensive research available on management of LBP in primary care settings, treatment outcomes differ from that in the ED setting. This makes management of LBP a challenge for ED physicians. Few studies and no systematic reviews focus on treatment of LBP in the ED setting. Methods: The objective of our study is to compare effectiveness of treatment modalities relevant for management of LBP in the ED setting. We conducted an Overview of Systematic Reviews following robust methods advocated by Cochrane. We included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A medical librarian assisted in completing of an extensive search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE. We used transparent criteria to select relevant reviews and assess interventions for ED relevance. We collected key data points from the included reviews including pain and functional limitation outcomes. Evidence will be synthesized for important outcome measures following the approach of Jones et al (2012). Results: We screened 4740 citations and identified 346 likely relevant systematic reviews. Comparative effectiveness review synthesis will be completed before the conference. We will report effectiveness of each of the included interventions and as well as make head to head comparisons of said relevant interventions. Conclusion: Currently most LBP patients presenting to the ED are inundated with a variety of potential treatment modalities, all alleging efficacy in LBP management. Physicians may use the evidence from this synthesis, and related knowledge translation tools, to guide decisions in effectively treating patients presenting to the ED with LBP.

Introduction: Understanding physician human resources in British Columbia’s (BC) emergency settings is essential to plan for training, recruitment and professional development programs. In 2014 we conducted an online and phone survey to the site leads for the 95 Emergency Departments (ED) attached to hospitals in BC. Methods: A one-page survey was developed by the authors (JC and JM). Each hospital listed on the BC Ministry of Health’s website was contacted to confirm that they had a functioning ED attached to the hospital and to determine who their site lead was. Each ED site lead was then emailed the questionnaire and up to three more follow-up emails and direct phone requests were performed as needed. Results: 92 of the 95 EDs completed the survey and we discovered that just over 1000 physicians deliver emergency care in BC with approximately half doing so in combination with family practice. There was an estimated shortfall of 199 physicians providing emergency care in 2014 and an anticipated shortfall of 287 by 2017 and 399 by 2019. Slightly more than half had formal certification, with 28% through the Royal College of Canada and 70% with the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Conclusion: More than 1000 physicians care for patients in EDs across BC but there is a significant and growing need for more physicians. There is tremendous variation across health authorities in emergency medicine certification, but approximately half of those who deliver emergency care have formal certification. Despite limitations of a survey method, this provides the most accurate and current estimate of emergency practitioner resources and training in BC and will be important in guiding discussions to address the identified gaps.

Introduction: Substance abuse is strongly correlated with frequent ED use, which is a known risk factor for mortality. This study aimed to examine epidemiologic trends in ED visit frequency, and visit and patient characteristics among all patients presenting to Albertan EDs with visits related to substance abuse over a five-year period. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) administrative ED data for Alberta. All ED visits related to substance abuse made by adults from fiscal year 2010/11 to 2014/15 were included. Using a validated definition enhanced by expert consultation, ED visits were classified as visits related to substance abuse if a set of ICD-10 codes determined a priori were present within the primary or secondary diagnostic fields. Data are reported as means (with SD), medians (with IQR) and proportions. Visit and admission frequencies were compared using Chi square and Chi square trend tests. All analysis was performed using SAS 9.4. Results: Over the study period, 177,287 visits related to substance abuse were made to Alberta EDs. These visits were made by 77,291 unique patients, and annual patient numbers increased consistently from 17,660 in 2010/11 to 24,737 in 2014/15; 62% of patients were male and median age was 38 years (IQR 24, 49). Visits increased from 27,839 in 2010/11 to 42,965 in 2014/15 (p<0.001). 50% arrived by ambulance, and were mostly triaged as CTAS 3 to 5 (32% CTAS 1 or 2, 43% CTAS 3, and 23% CTAS 4 or 5). While most of the patients were discharged, 15.6% of visits resulted in admission; statistical but not clinically meaningful differences were detected in proportions of admitted visits across the study years. Compared to the overall population of patients with substance abuse presentations, frequent presenters (with a visit number greater than the 95th percentile) appeared to be older (median age 40 years [IQR 31, 49]) and had a higher proportion of males (69%). Conclusion: ED presentations for substance abuse increased from 2010 to 2015 in Alberta, and frequent presenters appear to have a different demographic profile. Future study is needed to determine whether patients who present frequently with substance abuse are at increased risk for mortality as this may justify targeted intervention.

Introduction: Many patients leave the Emergency Department (ED) before beginning or completing medical evaluation. Some of these patients may be at higher medical risk depending on their timing of leaving the ED. The objective of this study was to compare patient, hospital, and visit characteristics of patients leaving prior to completing medical care in the ED either before or after evaluation by a medical provider. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of ED visits using the 2009-2011 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. The target population was identified by coded dispositions corresponding to leaving prior to completing medical care, and two groups were defined based on whether or not they had been evaluated by a medical professional. Data are reported as means (with standard errors) and proportions, and bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed. All analysis was performed using SAS 9.4 and SUDAAN 11.0.1 to account for the complex sample design. Results: 100,962 ED visits were documented from 2009-2011, representing a weighted count of 402,211,907 total ED visits. 2,646 (3%) resulted in a disposition of left without completing medical care. Of these visits, 1,792 (68%) left prior to being seen by a medical provider versus 854 (32%) who left after medical provider evaluation. Patients who left after being assessed by a medical provider were older, had higher acuity visits, were more likely to have visited an ED without nursing triage, more likely to have arrived by ambulance, and more likely to have private insurance than other payment arrangements (e.g. worker’s compensation or charity). Conclusion: When comparing all patients who left the ED prior to completion of care, those who left after versus before medical provider evaluation differed in their patient, hospital, and visit characteristics and may represent a high risk patient group.

Introduction: As part of the multicenter C-CARE (Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry) project, this study aimed to describe the characteristics of anaphylactic reactions and assess if emergency physicians follow treatment guidelines. Methods: A cohort study was conducted in the emergency department of Sacré-Cœur Hospital, a university-affiliated, urban tertiary care hospital. For each anaphylaxis case recruited by the treating physician, a standardised questionnaire was completed. The information for missed cases was collected retrospectively through chart review. Results: Between May 2012 and May 2015, 280 cases (205 prospective and 75 retrospective) of anaphylaxis were identified from a total of 182,408 ED visits. The median age was 36.21 years (IQR 27.8), 61.8% were female, and 12.5% of all patients were children (<18 years old). The majority of reactions were triggered by food [54.3% (95%CI:48.5-60.1%)], followed by medications [18.2% (95%CI:13.7-22.7%)] and venom [5.7% (95%CI:3.0-8.4%)]. Among all cases, 66.8% (95%CI:61.3-72.3%) received epinephrine; 26.1% (95%CI:21.0-31.2%) received it prior to their arrival and 46.8% (95%CI:41.0-52.6%) in-hospital. As for other in-hospital treatments, 85.4% of patients (95%CI:81.3-89.5%) received corticosteroids, 81.1% (95%CI:76.5-85.7%) received H1 antihistamines, and 41.1% (95%CI:35.3-46.9%) received H2 antihistamines. Out of all patients who had anaphylaxis, 86.4% (95%CI:82.4-90.4%) were prescribed an epinephrine auto-injector in-hospital or had already had one prescribed. Conclusion: Our results reveal that food is a major trigger of anaphylaxis and that despite current guidelines, there is under use of epinephrine and preferential use of corticosteroids and antihistamines.

Introduction: Clinical performance feedback is not always well utilized in healthcare, despite its potential in continual professional development to improve provider performance in healthcare settings. In order to more effectively incorporate performance feedback, we must evaluate the strengths and flaws of current feedback systems and determine best practices. With this goal, we sought to explore the perspectives of paramedics on the feedback they want and what they currently receive. Methods: We used a qualitative methodology with semi-structured interviews. A convenience sampling of practicing paramedics in the Niagara region was interviewed. We used an interpretive descriptive technique with continuous recruitment of participants until thematic saturation was achieved. Themes were identified and a coding system was developed by two investigators separately to code themes and sub-themes. These two systems were merged by consensus. We conducted a member check by contacting participants to determine if they agreed with our analysis. Results: 12 paramedics were interviewed. In our analysis we found several themes: positive perception/aspects of feedback and current feedback systems, current barriers, shortcomings of current systems, desire to know patient outcomes, and mental health as it relates to feedback. Positive perception of feedback has included asking for feedback, specific requests for feedback and strengths of current systems. Perceived barriers to feedback included issues around: confidentiality, practical limitations and social barriers. The limitations of current feedback systems noted the lack of feedback, and the questionable value of the feedback received. The desire to know patients’ clinical course/outcomes was also a recurrent theme, with paramedics spontaneously expressing desire for feedback specific to cases, greater insight into the ultimate diagnosis and knowledge of outcomes. The mental health of paramedics was frequently discussed as well, including positive impact on job satisfaction and confidence and potential for negative impact. Conclusion: We have explored and generated a description of the perspectives of paramedics on feedback in general and the clinical performance feedback they currently receive. The information gained will lay the groundwork for improved feedback systems to provide paramedics with the feedback they want to continually improve as healthcare providers.

Introduction: Motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) resulting in injuries and death disproportionately involve impaired drivers. Those under the influence of alcohol also have a much higher rate of presentation and admission to hospital for traumatic injuries. In an attempt to decrease impaired driving and consequently alcohol related MVCs and injuries, the government of Alberta recently introduced more strict legislation in the summer of 2012 for drivers found to be under the influence of alcohol. However, it has yet to be seen what impact the enforcement of this new legislation has had on traumatic injuries secondary to MVCs and alcohol impairment. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between the implementation of Alberta’s new impaired driving legislation and the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle traumatic injuries presenting to the emergency department of a Level I Trauma Centre. Methods: A retrospective single centre cross-sectional chart review examining all adult patients presenting to the ED of a major trauma centre who: a) require trauma team activation or consultation and b) have a MVC related injury. Of those charts meeting these criteria, the proportion of patients with positive ethanol screens will be compared between the year before and after the new legislation being implemented. Patients will be identified using electronic medical record logs. Results: 938 total MVC related trauma patients were identified during the study period (468 prior to legislation enactment [2010-2012], 470 after [2012-2014]). 33.3% of these MVC trauma patients had positive ethanol screens prior to the legislation enactment and 32.4% after (a non significant decrease). Interestingly, with a secondary analysis on a year by year basis, the trends appear to be more noteworthy. When comparing between 2010 and 2013 there was a statistically significant drop in the number of cases over legal limit by 7.74%. Subgroup analysis also demonstrated a large, statistically significant drop in 16-24 yr old cases between 2010 and 2013, from 29 to 11% (a 62% drop). Conclusion: While an impact was not seen immediately following the enactment of Alberta’s new impaired driving legislation, a year by year analysis demonstrates a statistically significant decrease in MVC related trauma involving alcohol in the years following the new law. Of note, a substantial 62% drop was seen in the 16-24 year old age category.

Introduction: Acute atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) is the most common dysrhythmia managed in the emergency department (ED). A key component of managing AFF in the ED is the prevention of stroke. Predictive indices (e.g., CHADS2 , HAS-BLED) should be used to assess each patient’s risk of stroke and bleeding to determine the appropriate anticoagulation therapy. The frequency of use of these predictive indices in the emergency department to determine appropriate anticoagulation therapy remains unclear. This systematic review is designed to examine the use of risk scores in the ED to determine the management of patients presenting to the ED for atrial fibrillation and flutter. Methods: An extensive search of eight electronic databases and grey literature was conducted. Quasi-experimental studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies had to report on the ED management of adult patients presenting with AFF to be included. Two independent reviewers judged the relevance, inclusion, and risk of bias of the studies. Individual and pooled statistics were calculated as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI using a random effects model and heterogeneity (I2) was reported. Results: From 1,648 citations, 37 studies were included in this review. Heterogeneity was very high, precluding pooling. Only one of the included studies documented the use of CHADS2 scores by attending physicians; while no studies documented the use of HAS-BLED. There was variability in the ED management strategies of AFF. The utilization of rhythm control in the treatment of AFF ranged considerable (OR: 0.04-9.84) in comparison to rate control. Of the 17 studies reporting cardioversion approaches, chemical (9 {53%}) cardioversion was the most common management strategy of AFF. Conclusion: Our results suggests that either few physicians are documenting stroke risk scores in adult patients with AFF, or that research studies assessing ED management of AFF are not reporting scores documented by the attending physicians. Future research needs to examine the use of stroke risk scores to determine the optimal and appropriate care for patients.

Introduction: Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) have become an engrained component of trauma systems to expedite transportation to a trauma centre. Ornge is a provincially run, paramedic-staffed HEMS that is responsible for all air ambulance service within Ontario, Canada. They provide transportation for trauma patients through one of three ways: scene call, modified scene call or interfacility transfer. In this study we report the characteristics of patients transported by each of these methods to two level 1 trauma centres and assess for any impact on morbidity or mortality. Methods: A local trauma registry was used to identify all patients transported to our two trauma centres by HEMS over a 36-month period. Data surrounding patient demographic, arrival characteristics, transport times and in-hospital course were abstracted from the registry. Statistical analysis will be used to compare methods of transport and characterize any association between mode of transport and mortality. Results: From January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2014 HEMS transferred a total of 911 patients to our trauma centers with an overall mortality rate of 11%. Of these patients 139 were scene calls with a mortality rate of 8%, 333 were modified scene calls with a mortality rate of 14% and 439 were interfacility transfers with a mortality rate of 10%. Conclusion: Identifying any association between the type of HEMS transport and morbidity and mortality, we may be able to predict those that need more urgent transfer to a trauma centre and find ways to decrease our overall pre-trauma center time.

Introduction: Smartphones are everywhere. Recent technological advances allow for instantaneous high quality video and audio recordings with the touch of a button. In Canada, physician smartphone use is highly regulated by provincial legislature and multiple policies have been published from provincial physician colleges and the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). Patients on the other hand have no such laws to observe. We set out to look at what legislation and policies exist to provide guidance to physicians in two potential scenarios: when a patient requests to record a patient-physician interaction and if a patient surreptitiously records a patient-physician interaction without consent of the physician. Methods: A literature review searching for articles on patient video recordings and patient smartphone use was completed on both Medline and PubMed. Further review of each provincial privacy act and communication with each provincial privacy office was performed. Consultation with each provincial physician college and the CMPA was also done to identify any policies or recommendations to guide physicians. Results: Patients making video recordings do not fall under any provincial privacy law and there are no existing policies from any provincial physician college or the CMPA to provide guidance. Therefore, physicians must rely on their own institution’s policy regarding patient video recording in the health care setting. Be familiar with your institution’s policy. If your institution does not have a policy, create one with the input of appropriate stakeholders. Patients may surreptitiously video record medical interactions without physician consent. Although this may not be permitted under an individual institution’s policy, it is not illegal under the Criminal Code. Thus, it is important to behave in a professional manner at all times and assume you may be recorded at any time. Conclusion: The majority of patients’ recordings will be done without litigious intentions, but rather with the goal of understanding more about their own health and medical care. Unfortunately there are those who will undermine the physician-patient relationship. Physicians cannot allow this to cause distrust in future relationships, nor should it force physicians to practice more defensive medicine. Physicians must continue to practice the art of medicine and accept that “performance” is a part of the job.

Introduction: Sickle cell vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) is one of the most frequent causes of emergency visit and admission in children with this condition. With this study, we aim to evaluate whether the implementation of an oral morphine protocol has led to improved care of sickle cell disease (SCD), translated by a reduced hospitalization rate, an increased oral administration rate and faster opiate administration time, comparing cohorts of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) and hematology outpatient clinic (HOC) with VOC pre and post implementation. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients with SCD followed at CHU Ste-Justine, who presented to the ED and HOC with VOC, in the year pre and post implementation of the protocol. Patients with a VOC diagnosis during the study periods were selected in each department’s database. The primary outcome was to evaluate the hospitalization rate. The rate of oral administration, as well as the opiate administration time from inscription in the ED or arrival in the HOC were also calculated. We estimated that 35 patients per arm would be sufficiently powered to detect at least a 30% rate reduction of admissions, with a power of 80% and a significance of 0.05. Results: Over the two periods, a total of 105 patients (49 pre and 56 post) were included from the ED and 62 patients (36 pre and 26 post) from the HOC. Both departments showed a reduction in hospitalization rate: a difference of 48% (95% CI 32, 61) in ED and 38% (95% CI 13, 57) in HOC. Both showed an increase in the rate of oral administration: a difference of 36% (95% CI 19, 50) in ED and 33% (95% CI 8, 53) in HOC. There was a non-significant difference of 10 min (95% CI -10, 25) in the opiate administration time in ED, as opposed to HOC where a significant difference of -45 min (95% CI -71, -6) was found, with both presenting median times over the recommended 60 minutes post implementation. Both settings showed an increase in the percentage of patients without IVs; a difference of 17% (95% CI 4, 30) in ED and 55% (95% CI 72, 31) in HOC. Conclusion: This study validates the use of our oral morphine protocol for the treatment of VOC, by showing a significant reduction in hospitalization rates. Although delays remain in our opiate administration time, our protocol decreased the number of painful IV procedures.