We evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with the use of propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department (ED).

All patients receiving propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED between December 1, 2003, and November 30, 2005, were prospectively assessed. Propofol was administered using a standardized protocol, which included an initial dose of 0.25–0.5 mg/kg followed by 10–20 mg/minute until sedated. Efficacy was evaluated using procedural success rate, recovery time and physician satisfaction. Adverse respiratory effects were defined as apnea for more than 30 seconds or an oxygen saturation of less than 90%. Hypotension was defined as systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or > 20% decrease from baseline. Patient and physician satisfaction were determined using 5-point Likert scales.

Our study included 113 patients with a mean age of 50 (standard deviation [SD] 19) years; 62% were male. The most common procedures were orthopedic manipulation (44%), cardioversion (37%), and abscess incision and drainage (13%). The mean total propofol dose required was 1.6 (SD 0.9) mg/kg. Procedural success was achieved in 90% of cases and the mean patient recovery time was 7.6 (SD 3.4) minutes. No patient (0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0%–3%) experienced apnea; however, 1 patient (1%, 95% CI 0%–5%) experienced emesis, which resulted in an oxygen saturation <90%. Nine patients (8%, 95% CI 4%–15%) experienced hypotension and 7 (6%, 95% CI 3%–12%) experienced pain on injection. All patients were very satisfied (92%, 95% CI 85%–96%) or satisfied (8%, 95% CI 4%–15%), and 94% (95% CI 88%–98%) reported no recollection of the procedure. The majority of physicians were very satisfied (85%, 95% CI 77%–91%) or satisfied (6%, 95% CI 3%–12%) with the sedation and the conditions achieved.

When administered as part of a standardized protocol, propofol appears to be a safe and effective agent for performing procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED, and is associated with high patient and physician satisfaction.

Some low-acuity emergency department (ED) presentations are considered convenience visits and potentially avoidable with improved access to primary care services. This study assessed the frequency and determinants of patients' efforts to access alternative care before ED presentation.

Patients aged 17 years and older were randomly selected from 2 urban ED sites in Edmonton. Survey data were collected on use and characteristics of alternative care before the ED visit. Information was also collected on patient demographics and factors influencing their perception of whether the ED was the best care option.

Of the 1389 patients approached, 905 (65%) completed the survey and data from 894 participants were analyzed. Sixty-one percent reported that they sought alternative care before visiting the ED. Eighty-nine of the patients who attempted alternative access before the ED visit felt that the ED was their best care option. Results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that injury presentation, living arrangements, smoking status and whether or not patients had a family practitioner were predictors for seeking alternative care before visiting the ED.

Most ambulatory patients attempt to look for other sources of care before presenting to the ED. Despite this attempted access to alternative care, while patients wait for ED care, they perceive that the ED is their best care option at that point in time.

Numerous patients are assessed in the emergency department (ED) for chest pain suggestive of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and subsequently discharged if found to be at low risk. Exercise stress testing is frequently advised as a follow-up investigation for low-risk patients; however, compliance with such recommendations is poorly understood. We sought to determine if compliance with follow-up for exercise stress testing is higher in patients for whom the investigation is ordered at the time of ED discharge, compared with patients who are advised to arrange testing through their family physician (FP).

Low-risk chest pain patients being discharged from the ED for outpatient exercise stress test and FP follow-up were randomized into 2 groups. ED staff ordered an exercise stress test for the intervention group, and the control group was advised to contact their FP to arrange testing. The primary outcome was completion of an exercise stress test at 30 days, confirmed through both patient contact and stress test results. Patients were unaware that our primary interest was their compliance with the exercise stress testing recommendations.

Two-hundred and thirty-one patients were enrolled and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Completion of an exercise stress test at 30 days occurred in 87 out of 120 (72.5%) patients in the intervention group and 60 out of 107 (56.1%) patients in the control group. The difference in compliance rates (16.4%) between the 2 groups was statistically significant (χ2 = 6.69, p < 0.001) with a relative risk of 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.18–1.40), and the results remained significant after a “worst case” sensitivity analysis involving 4 control group cases lost to follow-up. When subjects were contacted by telephone 30 days after the ED visit, 60% of those who were noncompliant patients felt they did not have a heart problem and that further testing was unnecessary.

When ED staff order an outpatient exercise stress test following investigation for potential ACS, patients are more likely to complete the test if it is booked for them before ED discharge. After discharge, many low-risk chest pain patients feel they are not at risk and do not return to their FP for further testing in a timely manner as advised. Changing to a strategy of ED booking of exercise stress testing may help earlier identification of patients with coronary heart disease.

Evidence and consensus on best practices on the management of human bite injuries is lacking. Our objective was to identify factors that are associated with delay to emergency department (ED) presentation, antibiotic usage and patient admission.

We present a retrospective chart review of adults treated for human bites. Multivariable logistic regression models used demographic characteristics and bite circumstances and characteristics as factors associated with ED presentation more than 24 hours after the bite, antibiotic usage and hospital admission.

Of the 388 patients evaluated for a human bite, 66.5% were bitten during an altercation; 23.8% presented more than 24 hours after the bite; 50.3% were bitten on the hands or fingers, 23.5% on an extremity and 17.8% on the head or neck. Only 7.7% of all patients sustained closed-fist injuries; the majority had occlusional or other kinds of bites. The majority of patients (77.3%) received antibiotics and 11.1% were admitted to hospital. Patients who had greater odds of presenting more than 24 hours after the bite were black (odds ratio [OR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–3.13), Hispanic (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.22–5.89) and those who had a non-occupational bite (OR 3.87, 95% CI, 1.68–8.90). Patients had a greater chance of receiving antibiotics if they were bitten during an altercation (OR 1.87, 95% CI, 1.09–3.20) and were bitten on the hands or fingers (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.31-3.80). Patients had a greater chance of being admitted to the hospital if they were bitten during an altercation (OR 4.91, 95% CI 1.65–14.64), bitten on the hands or fingers (OR 5.26, 95% CI, 1.74–15.87) and if they presented ≥ 24 hours after the bite.

Most patients presented to the ED within 24 hours of their injury and received antibiotics. The circumstances surrounding the bite appeared to be associated with delay to ED presentation, receipt of antibiotics and admission to the hospital. There are ethnic background differences in delay to ED presentation. ED clinicians in our study favour antibiotic usage and admission based on the body location of the bite, despite little evidence to support these practices.

We sought to determine the emergency medicine training demographics of physicians working in rural and regional emergency departments (EDs) in southwestern Ontario.

A confidential 8-item survey was mailed to ED chiefs in 32 community EDs in southwestern Ontario during the month of March 2005. This study was limited to nonacademic centres.

Responses were received from 25 (78.1%) of the surveyed EDs, and demographic information on 256 physicians working in those EDs was obtained. Of this total, 181 (70.1%) physicians had no formal emergency medicine (EM) training. Most were members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CCFPs). The minimum qualification to work in the surveyed EDs was a CCFP in 8 EDs (32.0%) and a CCFP with Advanced Cardiac and Trauma Resuscitation Courses (ACLS and ATLS) in 17 EDs (68.0%). None of the surveyed EDs required a CCFP(EM) or FRCP(EM) certification, even in population centres larger than 50 000.

The majority of physicians working in southwestern Ontario community EDs graduated from family medicine residencies, and most have no formal EM training or certification. This information is of relevance to both family medicine and emergency medicine residency training programs. It should be considered in the determination of curriculum content and the appropriate number of residency positions.

The objective of this paper was to review the relation between fluoroquinolone (FQ) use and arthropathy in children.

The biomedical literature from January 1980 to February 2007 was searched using PubMed. Key search terms included fluoroquinolones, arthropathy, tendinopathy and children. Literature was included if it was a clinical trial or meta-analysis examining the use of 1 or more FQs in a pediatric human population and if it had a primary outcome measure of reported incidence of arthropathy or tendinopathy. Articles were excluded if the primary outcome measure was efficacy of an FQ in a particular pediatric disease state, and evaluated safety was a secondary end point.

Data was reviewed from 4 large retrospective studies. Three of the 4 studies failed to find a significant link between musculoskeletal injury and FQ treatment. One study reported a correlation between use of pefloxacin and arthropathy, but the authors' conclusions supported the use of FQs in select pediatric cases.

Arthropathy that occurs as a result of FQ use in children has not been adequately supported by published data from safety trials in human children. Concerns about arthropathy with FQs should not preclude their use by emergency physicians when appropriate and necessary in pediatric patients.