Many emergency department (ED) visits are non-urgent. Postulated reasons for these visits include lack of access to family physicians, convenience and 24/7 access, perceived need for investigations or treatment not available elsewhere, and as a mechanism for expedited referral to other specialists. We conducted a patient survey to determine why non-urgent patients use our tertiary care ED. Our primary objective was to determine how often the lack of a family physician was associated with non-urgent ED use.

The survey was administered to Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) Level IV and V patients who attended the ED of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, NS, from March 7 to March 13, 2005.

Of the 352 eligible patients, 235 completed the survey (response rate, 67%). Fifty-six percent (132/235) had an acute medical problem of less than 48 hours, including 48% (114/235) with a recent injury. Thirty-four percent (82/235) had been referred to the ED, 49% (114/235) believed they required a specific service that was unavailable elsewhere (e.g., radiology, suturing, casting) and 43% (100/235) presented because of self-perceived urgency of their condition. Eighty-four percent (198/235) had a family physician; 23% (55/235) used the ED because of limited access to theirfamily physician and 3% (6/235) used the ED because they did not have a family physician.

In this setting, most non-urgent ED visits involved patients who required a specific service offered by the ED, patients who believed their condition was urgent, or patients who were referred from the community to the ED. From a patient perspective, relatively few visits would be considered inappropriate. Lack of a family physician was not associated with non-urgent ED use; however, inability to obtain timely access to the FP was a factor in one-quarter of cases.

To examine the effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) on visits to a community hospital emergency department (ED) during the early stage of the Toronto outbreak in 2003 and for the same period in 2004. We focused on visits for respiratory illness (SARS-like symptoms) and different age groups.

This study is a retrospective review of ED discharge diagnoses obtained from a computerized database, examining the 4-week period starting March 28 for the years 2001-2004. We obtained the discharge diagnosis, age and visit date for each ED patient during the relevant time intervals, then compared visit data from 2003 and 2004 with a baseline derived from the average number of visits during 2001 and 2002. We constructed groupings based on age and respiratory-illness symptoms.

During the SARS outbreak in 2003, ED visits declined by 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18%–24%) over the 4-week study period. The greatest reduction was for combined infant and toddler visits (69%; 95% CI, 58%–79%); these did not recover the following year. However, during the SARS outbreak there was a large increase in the number of visits for respiratory illnesses in adults (61%; 95% CI, 46%–75%) and in teenagers (132%; 95% CI, 82%–182%).

During the SARS outbreak, total ED visits fell. The relative decline was most notable for infants and toddlers. By contrast, there was an increase in respiratory illness–related visits for adults and teenagers. In 2004, the year following the SARS outbreak, visit patterns shifted toward baseline levels, but ED visits by infants and toddlers remained depressed.

Several randomized controlled trials have suggested that mild induced hypothermia may improve neurologic outcome in comatose cardiac arrest survivors. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials was designed to determine if mild induced hypothermia improves neurologic outcome, decreases mortality, or is associated with an increased incidence of adverse events.

The following databases were reviewed: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2005), EMBASE (1980 to November 2005), CINAHL (1982 to November 2005) and Web of Science (1989 to November 2005). For each included study, references were reviewed and the primary author contacted to identify any additional studies.

Studies that met inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of adult patients (>18 years of age) with primary cardiac arrest who remained comatose after return of spontaneous circulation. Patients had to be randomized to mild induced hypothermia (32°C-34°C) or normothermia within 24 hours of presentation. Only studies reporting pre-determined outcomes including discharge neurologic outcome, mortality or significant treatment-related adverse events were included. There were no language or publication restrictions.

Four studies involving 436 patients, with 232 cooled to a core temperature of 32°C-34°C met inclusion criteria. Pooled data demonstrated that mild hypothermia decreased inhospital mortality (relative ratio [RR] 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.92) and reduced the incidence of poor neurologic outcome (RR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.84). Numbers needed to treat were 7 patients to save 1 life, and 5 patients to improve neurologic outcome. There was no evidence of treatment-limiting side effects.

Therapeutically induced mild hypothermia decreases in-hospital mortality and improves neurologic outcome in comatose cardiac arrest survivors. The possibility of treatment-limiting side effects cannot be excluded.

To clarify the benefits, risks and timing of glucose control and intensive insulin therapy in several groups, specifically the neurologic, cardiac and septic populations of patients, commonly seen in the emergency department.

Electronic search of MEDLINE (1966–2005; once with PubMed and once with Ovid) and Embase (1980–2005) using the terms insulin and glucose combined with emergency medicine, intensive care, cardiology and emergency department.

There is considerable controversy in the literature surrounding the use of strict glucose control in cardiac, neurologic and septic patients. Much of this literature is non-randomized, and the timing of therapy is poorly investigated.

Hyperglycemia is associated with adverse outcomes in acutely ill neurologic, cardiac and septic patients, but it remains unclear whether this is a causative association. Glucose control and intensive insulin therapy may be useful in some patient subgroups; however, controlled trials of aggressive glycemic control have provided insufficient evidence to justify subjecting patients to the real risks of iatrogenic hypoglycemia. We recommend a cautious approach to the control of glucose levels in acutely ill emergency department patients, with a target glucose of below 8 to 9 mmol/L.