Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recent surveys indicate that 48% of consumers actively use generative artificial intelligence (AI) for health-related inquiries. Despite widespread adoption and the potential to improve health care access, scant research examines the performance of AI chatbot responses regarding emergency care advice. We assessed the quality of AI chatbot responses to common emergency care questions. We sought to determine qualitative differences in responses from 4 free-access AI chatbots, for 10 different serious and benign emergency conditions. We created 10 emergency care questions that we fed into the free-access versions of ChatGPT 3.5 (OpenAI), Google Bard, Bing AI Chat (Microsoft), and Claude AI (Anthropic) on November 26, 2023. Each response was graded by 5 board-certified emergency medicine (EM) faculty for 8 domains of percentage accuracy, presence of dangerous information, factual accuracy, clarity, completeness, understandability, source reliability, and source relevancy. We determined the correct, complete response to the 10 questions from reputable and scholarly emergency medical references. These were compiled by an EM resident physician. For the readability of the chatbot responses, we used the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of each response from readability statistics embedded in Microsoft Word. Differences between chatbots were determined by the chi-square test. Each of the 4 chatbots' responses to the 10 clinical questions were scored across 8 domains by 5 EM faculty, for 400 assessments for each chatbot. Together, the 4 chatbots had the best performance in clarity and understandability (both 85%), intermediate performance in accuracy and completeness (both 50%), and poor performance (10%) for source relevance and reliability (mostly unreported). Chatbots contained dangerous information in 5% to 35% of responses, with no statistical difference between chatbots on this metric (P=.24). ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Claud AI had similar performances across 6 out of 8 domains. Only Bing AI performed better with more identified or relevant sources (40%; the others had 0%-10%). Flesch-Kincaid Reading level was 7.7-8.9 grade for all chatbots, except ChatGPT at 10.8, which were all too advanced for average emergency patients. Responses included both dangerous (eg, starting cardiopulmonary resuscitation with no pulse check) and generally inappropriate advice (eg, loosening the collar to improve breathing without evidence of airway compromise). AI chatbots, though ubiquitous, have significant deficiencies in EM patient advice, despite relatively consistent performance. Information for when to seek urgent or emergent care is frequently incomplete and inaccurate, and patients may be unaware of misinformation. Sources are not generally provided. Patients who use AI to guide health care decisions assume potential risks. AI chatbots for health should be subject to further research, refinement, and regulation. We strongly recommend proper medical consultation to prevent potential adverse outcomes.

Introduction: Brugada syndrome is a ventricular arrhythmia and type of sodium channelopathy that can be seen in the absence of structural heart disease. Recognition of this pattern on electrocardiogram (ECG) is important for stabilization and correction of underlying triggers that can be addressed in the emergency department (ED). Case report: We describe a case of a 58-year-old male who presented with chest pain and was found to have type 1 Brugada pattern in the setting of severe hypokalemia. Repletion of potassium later revealed type 3 Brugada pattern followed by resolution on repeat ECG. Conclusion: Rapid identification of underlying metabolic derangements that can trigger Brugada syndrome is important in the ED setting. Correction of the underlying abnormality can reveal a type 3 pattern with subsequent resolution of the pattern if well-controlled.

Unnecessary diagnostic imaging leads to higher costs, longer emergency department stays, and increased patient exposure to ionizing radiation. We sought to prospectively derive and validate two decision instruments (DIs) for selective chest computed tomography (CT) in adult blunt trauma patients. From September 2011 to May 2014, we prospectively enrolled blunt trauma patients over 14 y of age presenting to eight US, urban level 1 trauma centers in this observational study. During the derivation phase, physicians recorded the presence or absence of 14 clinical criteria before viewing chest imaging results. We determined injury outcomes by CT radiology readings and categorized injuries as major or minor according to an expert-panel-derived clinical classification scheme. We then employed recursive partitioning to derive two DIs: Chest CT-All maximized sensitivity for all injuries, and Chest CT-Major maximized sensitivity for only major thoracic injuries (while increasing specificity). In the validation phase, we employed similar methodology to prospectively test the performance of both DIs. We enrolled 11,477 patients-6,002 patients in the derivation phase and 5,475 patients in the validation phase. The derived Chest CT-All DI consisted of (1) abnormal chest X-ray, (2) rapid deceleration mechanism, (3) distracting injury, (4) chest wall tenderness, (5) sternal tenderness, (6) thoracic spine tenderness, and (7) scapular tenderness. The Chest CT-Major DI had the same criteria without rapid deceleration mechanism. In the validation phase, Chest CT-All had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%-100%), a specificity of 20.8% (95% CI 19.2%-22.4%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (95% CI 98.9%-100%) for major injury, and a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 93.6%-96.9%), a specificity of 25.5% (95% CI 23.5%-27.5%), and a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.5%-95.8%) for either major or minor injury. Chest CT-Major had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%-100%), a specificity of 31.7% (95% CI 29.9%-33.5%), and a NPV of 99.9% (95% CI 99.3%-100%) for major injury and a sensitivity of 90.7% (95% CI 88.3%-92.8%), a specificity of 37.9% (95% CI 35.8%-40.1%), and a NPV of 91.8% (95% CI 89.7%-93.6%) for either major or minor injury. Regarding the limitations of our work, some clinicians may disagree with our injury classification and sensitivity thresholds for injury detection. We prospectively derived and validated two DIs (Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major) that identify blunt trauma patients with clinically significant thoracic injuries with high sensitivity, allowing for a safe reduction of approximately 25%-37% of unnecessary chest CTs. Trauma evaluation protocols that incorporate these DIs may decrease unnecessary costs and radiation exposure in the disproportionately young trauma population.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's (ACGME) proposal to mandate 48-month training for all emergency medicine residency programs represents a significant departure from the current system where both 36- and 48-month formats successfully coexist.The ACGME's justification relies on a methodologically flawed survey that never directly asked program directors about optimal training duration. Instead, it calculated totals by summing individual rotation estimates without considering integrated curricula or practical constraints. Even if these results were to be accepted, directors of three-year programs reported a mean desired duration of only 41.6 months-hardly justifying a universal 48-month mandate.Current evidence contradicts the ACGME's rationale. Three-year graduates achieve higher board pass rates (93.1% vs 90.8%) and demonstrate equivalent clinical performance to four-year graduates. The mandate would impose substantial financial burdens on trainees-an opportunity cost exceeding $200,000-$250,000-while potentially deterring qualified applicants and discouraging fellowship training.We urge the ACGME to pause implementation and provide compelling evidence that a 48-month mandate is necessary and demonstrably superior to the current model.

Most medical schools teach cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during the final year in course curriculum to prepare students to manage the first minutes of clinical emergencies. Little is known regarding the optimal method of instruction for this critical skill. Simulation has been shown in similar settings to enhance performance and knowledge. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of high-fidelity simulation training vs. standard manikin training for teaching medical students the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for high-quality CPR. This was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm study of 70 fourth-year medical students to either simulation (SIM) or standard training (STD) over an eight-month period. SIM group learned the AHA guidelines for high-quality CPR via an hour session that included a PowerPoint lecture with training on a high-fidelity simulator. STD group learned identical content using a low-fidelity Resusci Anne® CPR manikin. All students managed a simulated cardiac arrest scenario with primary outcome based on the AHA guidelines definition of high-quality CPR (specifies metrics for compression rate, depth, recoil, and compression fraction). Secondary outcome was time to emergency medical services (EMS) activation. We analyzed data via Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. Outcomes were performed on a simulated cardiac arrest case adapted from the AHA Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) SimMan® Scenario manual. Students in the SIM group performed CPR that more closely adhered to the AHA guidelines of compression depth and compression fraction. Mean compression depth was 4.57 centimeters (cm) (95% confidence interval [CI] [4.30-4.82]) for SIM and 3.89 cm (95% CI [3.50-4.27]) for STD, p=0.02. Mean compression fraction was 0.724 (95% CI [0.699-0.751]) for SIM group and 0.679 (95% CI [0.655-0.702]) for STD, p=0.01. There was no difference for compression rate or recoil between groups. Time to EMS activation was 24.7 seconds (s) (95% CI [15.7-40.8]) for SIM group and 79.5 s (95% CI [44.8-119.6]) for STD group, p=0.007. High-fidelity simulation training is superior to low-fidelity CPR manikin training for teaching fourth-year medical students implementation of high-quality CPR for chest compression depth and compression fraction.

Open access (OA) medical publishing is growing rapidly. While subscription-based publishing does not charge the author, OA does. This opens the door for \"predatory\" publishers who take authors' money but provide no substantial peer review or indexing to truly disseminate research findings. Discriminating between predatory and legitimate OA publishers is difficult. We searched a number of library indexing databases that were available to us through the University of California, Irvine Libraries for journals in the field of emergency medicine (EM). Using criteria from Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado librarian and an expert on predatory publishing, and the Research Committee of the International Federation for EM, we categorized EM journals as legitimate or likely predatory. We identified 150 journal titles related to EM from all sources, 55 of which met our criteria for OA (37%, the rest subscription based). Of these 55, 25 (45%) were likely to be predatory. We present lists of clearly legitimate OA journals, and, conversely, likely predatory ones. We present criteria a researcher can use to discriminate between the two. We present the indexing profiles of legitimate EM OA journals, to inform the researcher about degree of dissemination of research findings by journal. OA journals are proliferating rapidly. About half in EM are legitimate. The rest take substantial money from unsuspecting, usually junior, researchers and provide no value for true dissemination of findings. Researchers should be educated and aware of scam journals.

Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using telesimulation to deliver an emergency medical services (EMS) course on mass casualty incident (MCI) training to healthcare providers overseas. We conducted a feasibility study to establish the process for successful delivery of educational content to learners overseas via telesimulation over a five-month period. Participants were registrants in an EMS course on MCI triage broadcast from University of California, Irvine Medical Simulation Center. The intervention was a Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) course. The primary outcome was successful implementation of the course via telesimulation. The secondary outcome was an assessment of participant thoughts, feelings, and attitudes via a qualitative survey. We also sought to obtain quantitative data that would allow for the assessment of triage accuracy. Descriptive statistics were used to express the percentage of participants with favorable responses to survey questions. All 32 participants enrolled in the course provided a favorable response to all questions on the survey regarding their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes toward learning via telesimulation with wearable/mobile technology. Key barriers and challenges identified included dependability of Internet connection, choosing appropriate software platforms to deliver content, and intercontinental time difference considerations. The protocol detailed in this study demonstrated the successful implementation and feasibility of providing education and training to learners at an off-site location. In this feasibility study, we were able to demonstrate the successful implementation of an intercontinental MCI triage course using telesimulation and wearable/mobile technology. Healthcare providers expressed a positive favorability toward learning MCI triage via telesimulation. We were also able to establish a process to obtain quantitative data that would allow for the calculation of triage accuracy for further experimental study designs.

Testicular torsion, or the twisting of the spermatic cord compromising blood flow to the testis, is a urologic emergency with the potential to cause infertility in male patients. The diagnosis may be clinical or confirmed using imaging, with ultrasound being the modality of choice. We present a case of right lower quadrant pain with radiation to the groin and right scrotum in a young male. A computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis was ordered to assess for appendicitis, which showed a \"whirl\" sign on the inferior periphery of the images near the scrotum. The finding was not appreciated during the emergency department visit and the patient was discharged home. He returned 48 hours later due to continued pain and was ultimately diagnosed with testicular torsion via ultrasound and surgical pathology. This is the first reported case to our knowledge identifying \"whirl\" sign for the diagnosis of testicular torsion. This finding was not appreciated by multiple clinicians during the initial patient presentation, highlighting the uncommon nature of the finding.

The updated American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA) Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke were published in January 2018.1 The purpose of the guidelines is to provide an up-to-date, comprehensive set of recommendations for clinicians caring for adult patients with acute arterial ischemic stroke in a single document. The guidelines detail new and updated recommendations that reflect and incorporate the most recent literature in the evaluation and management of acute ischemic stroke. Some sections of the latest guidelines have sparked debate in the medical community. Debate with regard to deciding the optimal diagnostic and treatment strategy for patients is healthy and anticipated with the release of new medical literature or recommendations. However, what is somewhat puzzling and unanticipated with the release of these new guidelines is that within two months of their release the AHA/ASA rescinded its recently released guidelines, publishing a \"correction\" in which several parts of the document have been deleted.2 An action such as this at the guideline level is unprecedented in recent history and has left stakeholders in the medical community somewhat confused as to the rationale for its occurrence. This article will inform the emergency medicine (EM) healthcare professional of the recent correction of the updated stroke guidelines, identify which sections have been removed (deleted), and will provide a brief summary of the pertinent updates (that have not been deleted) to the 2018 stroke guidelines that have particular relevance to the EM community.