Explore the vast range of titles available.

Evidence based medicine (EBM) has been synonymous to delivery of quality care for almost thirty years. Since the movement’s inception, the assumption has been that decisions based on high quality evidence would translate to better care for patients. Despite EBM’s many attractive features and the substantive attention it has received in the contemporary clinical and medical education literature, how it is defined and operationalized as a component of training is often unclear and problematic. How to practice EBM is not well articulated in the literature; therefore, it becomes difficult to teach and equally challenging to assess. In this paper, we put forward a call for deeper consideration of how EBM is taught, and for clarification on how it is defined and operationalized in medical education. In preparing this paper, we considered questions such as what it means to practice EBM, the role that medical education plays in helping realize EBM, how the teaching of EBM can change to reflect recent developments in clinical practice and education, and whether transformations in the practice of medicine necessitate a change in how we teach EBM. We end with four avenues that may be pursued to advance the teaching of EBM in medical education: (1) consensus on what we mean by EBM; (2) clear articulation of EBM-associated competencies; (3) empirically and theoretically supported means of promoting EBM competencies; (4) ways to assess both skill acquisition and use of EBM. We discuss implications for educators of EBM.

What is known about the topic? Bed boarding is one of the major contributors to emergency department overcrowding. What did this study ask? What are the characteristics of patients with prolonged boarding times, and what are the impacts on patient-oriented outcomes? What did this study find? Patients who were older, sicker, and had isolation and telemetry requirements experienced longer boarding times, and longer inpatient length of stay even after correcting for confounders. Why does this study matter to clinicians? Organization-wide interventions to improve efficiency and flow are required to mitigate the burden of bed boarding.

Ground-level falls are common among older adults and are the most frequent cause of traumatic intracranial bleeding. The aim of this study was to derive a clinical decision rule that safely excludes clinically important intracranial bleeding in older adults who present to the emergency department after a fall, without the need for a computed tomography (CT) scan of the head. This prospective cohort study in 11 emergency departments in Canada and the United States enrolled patients aged 65 years or older who presented after falling from standing on level ground, off a chair or toilet seat, or out of bed. We collected data on 17 potential predictor variables. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of clinically important intracranial bleeding within 42 days of the index emergency department visit. An independent adjudication committee, blinded to baseline data, determined the primary outcome. We derived a clinical decision rule using logistic regression. The cohort included 4308 participants, with a median age of 83 years; 2770 (64%) were female, 1119 (26%) took anticoagulant medication and 1567 (36%) took antiplatelet medication. Of the participants, 139 (3.2%) received a diagnosis of clinically important intracranial bleeding. We developed a decision rule indicating that no head CT is required if there is no history of head injury on falling; no amnesia of the fall; no new abnormality on neurologic examination; and the Clinical Frailty Scale score is less than 5. Rule sensitivity was 98.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.9%–99.6%), specificity was 20.3% (95% CI 19.1%–21.5%) and negative predictive value was 99.8% (95% CI 99.2%–99.9%). We derived a Falls Decision Rule, which requires external validation, followed by clinical impact assessment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT03745755.

PurposeTo describe the impact of a new institutional Code Stroke protocol on ordering volume of head and neck CT angiographies (CTA), and to determine the number and proportion of these studies that resulted in an endovascular or surgical intervention.MethodsClinical and administrative data was collected on all head and neck CTAs ordered within the ED at two high-volume community hospitals and an affiliated urgent care centre during the 6-year period between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. Of those patients who underwent CTA, we identified those who were then transferred to a regional stroke centre for consideration of EVT and those who underwent carotid endarterectomy or stenting within 14 days.ResultsA total of 4719 CTAs were ordered during the 6-year period. There was nearly a tenfold rise in the yearly number of CTAs ordered per 10,000 ED visits, from 5.3 (in 2014) to 53.1 (in 2019). A total of 164 patients who underwent CTAs (3.5%) were ultimately transferred to a regional tertiary care centre, of whom 43 (0.9%) were transferred to a regional stroke centre for consideration of EVT. A total of 61 (1.3%) patients underwent a carotid intervention within 14 days.ConclusionLittle is known of the impacts on healthcare resources that have resulted from the system-wide changes made necessary by the widespread adoption of EVT. Our study shows that at our site, these system changes have resulted in large increases in CTA utilization with very small numbers of patients ultimately undergoing EVT or carotid intervention.

Evidence-based guidelines advise excluding pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using d-dimer in patients with a lower probability of PE. Emergency physicians frequently order computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography without d-dimer testing or when d-dimer is negative, which exposes patients to more risk than benefit. Our objective was to develop a conceptual framework explaining emergency physicians’ test choices for PE. We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews of emergency physicians in Canada. A nonmedical researcher conducted in-person interviews. Participants described how they would test simulated patients with symptoms of possible PE, answered a knowledge test and were interviewed on barriers to using evidence-based PE tests. We interviewed 63 emergency physicians from 9 hospitals in 5 cities, across 3 provinces. We identified 8 domains: anxiety with PE, barriers to using the evidence (time, knowledge and patient), divergent views on evidence-based PE testing, inherent Wells score problems, the drive to obtain CT rather than to diagnose PE, gestalt estimation artificially inflating PE probability, subjective reasoning and cognitive biases supporting deviation from evidence-based tests and use of evidence-based testing to rule out PE in patients who are very unlikely to have PE. Choices for PE testing were influenced by the disease, environment, test qualities, physician and probability of PE. Analysis of structured interviews with emergency physicians provided a conceptual framework to explain how these physicians use tests for suspected PE. The data suggest 8 domains to address when implementing an evidence-based protocol to investigate PE.

Addressing global health crises requires a receptive and expedient policy environment to minimise delays in making available potentially life-saving technologies. Over time, the policy environment has adapted to ensure that communities have expedited access to promising technologies, such as vaccines, that can mitigate morbidity and mortality. Emergency authorisations are one such policy mechanism. While these have been employed successfully for several diseases, such as influenza, Ebola and COVID-19, the policy mechanism is tied to contexts where key bodies have designated the disease an ‘emergency’, whereas no equivalent mechanism exists for those failing to acquire the designation (eg, malaria and tuberculosis). In this paper, we examine ethical issues associated with emergency authorisations. We argue that there is no moral difference between those diseases considered emergencies and many that fail to be designated as such with respect to impact on affected communities. Thus, tying access to an expedient policy mechanism for approval to an emergency designation is ethically unjustified—it should be based on considerations of risks and benefits, the disease burden and the values of the communities that carry those risks and not contingent on if the disease is designated an emergency. We suggest the need to further enhance the policy environment to ensure access to similar expedited approval programmes irrespective of if a disease is an emergency. Levelling the field for access to expedited approval programmes across diseases can help in moving towards achieving global health equity but is not a panacea.

PurposeTo describe the inter-physician variability in the utilisation rate and diagnostic yield of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) among a group of emergency department (ED) physicians working in a similar clinical environment.MethodsWe collected data on all CTPA studies ordered by ED physicians at three affiliated sites during a 2-year period between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. For each physician, we calculated individual CTPA utilisation rate (total number of CTPAs ordered per 1000 ED visits) and diagnostic yield (percentage of CTPAs that were positive for PE). Additional analysis was carried out in order to identify the highest orderers of CTPA and their diagnostic yield.ResultsSeventy-seven ED physicians who collectively ordered a total of 2788 CTPAs were included in the study. Utilisation rates ranged from 1.1 to 22.2 CTPA per 1000 ED visits (median: 5.2 CTPA/1000 ED visits; 25%ile: 3.6 CTPA/1000 ED visits; 75%ile: 7.9 CTPA/1000 ED visits) and the CTPA diagnostic yields ranged from 0% to 33% (median: 9.1%; 25%ile: 5.2%; 75%ile: 16.1%). Those physicians in the lower quartile for ordering rate had a higher mean diagnostic yield when compared to the higher quartiles.ConclusionThe findings of this study demonstrate variability in CTPA ordering patterns and diagnostic yields among physicians working within the same clinical environment. There is some suggestion that those physicians who order disproportionately higher numbers of CTPAs have lower diagnostic yields.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered a “gold standard” of evidence, provided they meet rigorous standards in design and execution. Recently, some investigators of the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial advocate reanalysis of results, deviating from the statistical analysis plan. We briefly review the rationale by the TOPCAT investigators and implications for interpreting trial data. Critical examination of existing literature. The TOPCAT trial showed variation in patient characteristics and outcomes among different geographic regions. The investigators suggest that the observed variation indicated unreliable data, warranting deviation from protocol. That lead to claims of therapeutic effectiveness for populations in select regions. We suggest that some variation is expected in multicentre RCTs and argue that discriminating between natural variation and unreliable data can be challenging. Thus, the warrant for deviation from protocol is not clear. The TOPCAT investigators highlight important concerns about heterogeneity in RCT samples and how that may impact our interpretation of the results. If we are to maintain rigor in the RCT methodology and preserve its status as a reliable form of evidence for clinical practice, we must carefully consider when it is appropriate to deviate from a protocol when analyzing and interpreting trial data.

Timely diagnosis and treatment for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) requires a coordinated response from multiple providers. Rapid intervention is key to reducing mortality and morbidity. Activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory may occur through verbal communication and may also involve the secure sharing of electrocardiographic images between frontline health care providers and interventional cardiologists. To improve this response, we developed a quick, easy-to-use, privacy-compliant smartphone app, that is SMART AMI-ACS (Strategic Management of Acute Reperfusion and Therapies in Acute Myocardial Infarction Acute Coronary Syndromes), for real-time verbal communication and sharing of electrocardiographic images among health care providers in Ontario, Canada. The app further provides information about diagnosis, management, and risk calculators for patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome. This study aims to integrate the app into workflow processes to improve communication for STEMI activation, resulting in decreased treatment times, improved patient outcomes, and reduced unnecessary catheterization laboratory activation and transfer. Implementation of the app will be guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Acceptability, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to measure impact. The study will use quantitative registry data already being collected through the SMART AMI project (STEMI registry), the use of the SMART AMI app, and quantitative and qualitative survey data from physicians. Survey questions will be based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Descriptive quantitative analysis and thematic qualitative analysis of survey results will be conducted. Continuous variables will be described using either mean and SD or median and IQR values at pre- and postintervention periods by the study sites. Categorical variables, such as false activation, will be described as frequencies (percentages). For each outcome, an interrupted time series regression model will be fitted to evaluate the impact of the app. The primary outcomes of this study include the usability, acceptability, and functionality of the app for physicians. This will be measured using electronic surveys to identify barriers and facilitators to app use. Other key outcomes will measure the implementation of the app by reviewing the timing-of-care intervals, false \"avoidable\" catheterization laboratory activation rates, and uptake and use of the app by physicians. Prospective evaluation will be conducted between April 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023. However, for the timing- and accuracy-of-care outcomes, registry data will be compared from January 1, 2019, to March 31, 2023. Data analysis is expected to be completed in Fall 2024, with the completion of a paper for publication anticipated by the end of 2024. Smartphone technology is well integrated into clinical practice and widely accessible. The proposed solution being tested is secure and leverages the accessibility of smartphones. Emergency medicine physicians can use this app to quickly, securely, and accurately transmit information ensuring faster and more appropriate decision-making for STEMI activation. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05290389; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05290389. DERR1-10.2196/55506.

Timely and appropriate care is critical for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Effective communication and prompt sharing of test results, particularly electrocardiograms (ECGs), between the referring emergency medicine (EM) physician or emergency medical service (EMS) paramedic and the interventional cardiologist (IC) are essential. This exchange relies on fax or SMS text messages. The SmartAMI-ACS (Strategic Management of Acute Reperfusion and Therapies in Acute Myocardial Infarction) App was developed to streamline communication. It is user friendly and privacy compliant, and enables rapid, secure ECG sharing to support faster, informed clinical decision-making. This paper details the results of targeted preimplementation surveys to establish barriers and enablers of using a smartphone app to transmit ECG images among ICs, EM physicians, and EMS paramedics to help tailor implementation interventions. To assess the proposed acceptability and uptake of the app, preimplementation surveys were disseminated to ICs, EM physicians, and EMS paramedics in one region of Ontario, Canada. Questions were generated based on selected components of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, results from a pilot study carried out at a regional hospital where the SmartAMI-ACS app was previously implemented, and predicted barriers based on expert guidance. The preimplementation surveys consisted of 7-point Likert scale questions (1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree) and open-ended questions. Open-ended data were extracted verbatim and analyzed using an inductive qualitative approach, with transcripts coded into descriptive qualitative codes and then collapsed into themes. Survey uptake was acceptable, with 9 of the invited 10 ICs, 51 of the invited 223 EM physicians, and 93 of the invited 1138 EMS paramedics responding. All groups recognized that current practices for sharing ECGs allowed room for improvement, accepting that fax can be inconvenient and SMS text messages may not be secure. When asked whether there was a need for a smartphone app to transmit ECGs, ICs (mean 6.67, SD 0.5), EM physicians (mean 5.57, SD 1.3), and EMS paramedics (mean 5.79, SD 1.45) consistently agreed. Commonly reported barriers were concerns over technological challenges, privacy issues, and cell phone reception strength. Through the identification of the barriers in each stakeholder group, implementation strategies were developed that facilitated the scale-up of this system-change intervention. Results from the 3 web-based preimplementation surveys to identify key barriers and enablers to the implementation of the app helped inform the selection of tailored implementation strategies to support the rollout of the app across the health region. The surveys identified key barriers around technology, privacy, and access to required Wi-Fi that needed to be addressed during app implementation to facilitate uptake and use. Results from the surveys, and ongoing evaluation of effectiveness, are informing the expansion of the app intervention to local ambulance services and other health regions.