To determine the impact of total household decolonization with intranasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine gluconate body wash on recurrent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection among subjects with MRSA skin and soft-tissue infection.

Three-arm nonmasked randomized controlled trial.

Five academic medical centers in Southeastern Pennsylvania.

Adults and children presenting to ambulatory care settings with community-onset MRSA skin and soft-tissue infection (ie, index cases) and their household members.

Enrolled households were randomized to 1 of 3 intervention groups: (1) education on routine hygiene measures, (2) education plus decolonization without reminders (intranasal mupirocin ointment twice daily for 7 days and chlorhexidine gluconate on the first and last day), or (3) education plus decolonization with reminders, where subjects received daily telephone call or text message reminders.

Owing to small numbers of recurrent infections, this analysis focused on time to clearance of colonization in the index case.

Of 223 households, 73 were randomized to education-only, 76 to decolonization without reminders, 74 to decolonization with reminders. There was no significant difference in time to clearance of colonization between the education-only and decolonization groups (log-rank P=.768). In secondary analyses, compliance with decolonization was associated with decreased time to clearance (P=.018).

Total household decolonization did not result in decreased time to clearance of MRSA colonization among adults and children with MRSA skin and soft-tissue infection. However, subjects who were compliant with the protocol had more rapid clearance

Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00966446

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1–8

We sought to 1) identify best practices for training and mentoring clinician researchers, 2) characterize facilitators and barriers for Canadian emergency medicine researchers, and 3) develop pragmatic recommendations to improve and standardize emergency medicine postgraduate research training programs to build research capacity.

We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase using search terms relevant to emergency medicine research fellowship/graduate training. We conducted an email survey of all Canadian emergency physician researchers. The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) research fellowship program was analysed, and other similar international programs were sought. An expert panel reviewed these data and presented recommendations at the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) 2014 Academic Symposium. We refined our recommendations based on feedback received.

Of 1,246 potentially relevant citations, we included 10 articles. We identified five key themes: 1) creating training opportunities; 2) ensuring adequate protected time; 3) salary support; 4) infrastructure; and 5) mentorship. Our survey achieved a 72% (67/93) response rate. From these responses, 42 (63%) consider themselves clinical researchers (i.e., spend a significant proportion of their career conducting research). The single largest constraint to conducting research was funding. Factors felt to be positive contributors to a clinical research career included salary support, research training (including an advanced graduate degree), mentorship, and infrastructure. The SAEM research fellowship was the only emergency medicine research fellowship program identified. This 2-year program requires approval of both the teaching centre and each applying fellow. This program requires training in 15 core competencies, manuscript preparation, and submission of a large grant to a national peer-review funding organization.

We recommend that the CAEP Academic Section create a process to endorse research fellowship/graduate training programs. These programs should include two phases: Phase I: Research fellowship/graduate training would include an advanced research university degree and 15 core learning areas. Phase II: research consolidation involves a further 1-3 years with an emphasis on mentorship and scholarship production. It is anticipated that clinician scientists completing Phase I and Phase II training at a CAEP Academic Section-endorsed site(s) will be independent researchers with a higher likelihood of securing external peer-reviewed funding and be able to have a meaningful external impact in emergency medicine research.

To identify risk factors for recurrent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization.

Prospective cohort study conducted from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012.

Five adult and pediatric academic medical centers.

Subjects (ie, index cases) who presented with acute community-onset MRSA skin and soft-tissue infection.

Index cases and all household members performed self-sampling for MRSA colonization every 2 weeks for 6 months. Clearance of colonization was defined as 2 consecutive sampling periods with negative surveillance cultures. Recurrent colonization was defined as any positive MRSA surveillance culture after clearance. Index cases with recurrent MRSA colonization were compared with those without recurrence on the basis of antibiotic exposure, household demographic characteristics, and presence of MRSA colonization in household members.

The study cohort comprised 195 index cases; recurrent MRSA colonization occurred in 85 (43.6%). Median time to recurrence was 53 days (interquartile range, 36–84 days). Treatment with clindamycin was associated with lower risk of recurrence (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29–0.93). Higher percentage of household members younger than 18 was associated with increased risk of recurrence (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00–1.02). The association between MRSA colonization in household members and recurrent colonization in index cases did not reach statistical significance in primary analyses.

A large proportion of patients initially presenting with MRSA skin and soft-tissue infection will have recurrent colonization after clearance. The reduced rate of recurrent colonization associated with clindamycin may indicate a unique role for this antibiotic in the treatment of such infection.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;36(7):786–793

We aimed to use the consensus opinion of a group of expert emergency physicians to derive a set of emergency diagnoses for acute abdominal pain that might be used as clinically significant outcomes for future research.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of emergency physicians with expertise in abdominal pain. These experts were authors of textbook chapters, peer-reviewed original research with a focus on abdominal pain or widely published clinical guidelines. Respondents were asked to categorize 50 possible diagnoses of acute abdominal pain into 1 of 3 categories: 1) unacceptable not to diagnose on the first emergency department (ED) visit; 2) although optimal to diagnose on first visit, failure to diagnose would not be expected to have serious adverse consequences provided the patient had follow-up within the next 2–7 days; 3) if not diagnosed during the first visit, unlikely to cause long-term risk to the patient provided the patient had follow-up within the next 1–2 months. Standard descriptive statistical analysis was used to summarize survey data.

Thirty emergency physicians completed the survey. Of 50 total diagnoses, 16 were categorized as “unacceptable not to diagnose in the ED” with greater than 85% agreement, and 12 were categorized as “acceptable not to diagnose in the ED” with greater than 85% agreement.

Our study identifies a set of abdominal pain conditions considered by expert emergency physicians to be clinically important to diagnose during the initial ED visit. These diseases may be used as “clinically significant” outcomes for future research on abdominal pain.

We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of clinical prediction rules to exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED) setting.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We contacted content experts to identify additional articles for review. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched. We selected articles for review based on the following criteria: 1) enrolled consecutive ED patients; 2) incorporated variables from the history or physical examination, electrocardiogram and cardiac biomarkers; 3) did not incorporate cardiac stress testing or coronary angiography into prediction rule; 4) based on original research; 5) prospectively derived or validated; 6) did not require use of a computer; and 7) reported sufficient data to construct a 2 ∞ 2 contingency table. We assessed study quality and extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form.

Eight studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 7937 patients. None of the studies verified the prediction rule with a reference standard on all or a random sample of patients. Six studies did not report blinding prediction rule assessors to reference standard results, and vice versa. Three prediction rules were prospectively validated. Sensitivities and specificities ranged from 94% to 100% and 13% to 57%, and positive and negative likelihood ratios from 1.1 to 2.2 and 0.01 to 0.17, respectively.

Current prediction rules for ACS have substantial methodological limitations and have not been successfully implemented in the clinical setting. Future methodologically sound studies are needed to guide clinical practice.