Patients with acute headache often undergo computed tomography (CT) followed by a lumbar puncture to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage. Our international study examined current practice, the perceived need for a clinical decision rule for acute headache and the required sensitivity for such a rule.

We approached 2100 emergency physicians from 4 countries (Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States) to participate in our survey by sampling the membership of their emergency associations. We used a modified Dillman technique with 3–5 notifications and a prenotification letter employing a combination of electronic mail and postal mail. Physicians were questioned about neurologically intact patients who presented with headache. Analysis included both descriptive statistics for the entire sample and stratification by country.

The total response rate was 54.7% (1149/2100). Respondents were primarily male (75.5%), with a mean age of 42.5 years and a mean 12.3 years of emergency department (ED) experience. Of the physicians who responded, 49.5% thought all acute headache patients should be investigated with CT and 57.4% felt CT should always be followed by lumbar puncture. Of the respondents, 95.7% reported they would consider using a clinical decision rule for patients with acute headache to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage. Respondents deemed the median sensitivity required by such a rule to be 99% (interquartile range 98%–99%). Approximately 1 in 5 physicians suggested that 100% sensitivity was required.

Emergency physicians report that they would welcome a clinical decision rule for headache that would determine which patients require costly or invasive tests to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage. The required sensitivity of such a rule was realistic. These results will inform and inspire the development of clinical decision rules for acute headache in the ED.

Emergency physicians (EPs) rarely find out what happens to patients after the patients leave their care, a process we call “outcome feedback.” Some suggest this hinders the practice of emergency medicine (EM); however, evidence is lacking. We sought to evaluate EPs' perception of the current and potential role of outcome feedback in EM.

We surveyed practising French- and English-speaking EPs from emergency departments within 100 km of Ottawa, Ont., in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The main outcomes included the prevalence, role and effect of outcome feedback.

Of the 297 physicians surveyed, 231 (77.8%) responded. The sample contained good representation of language groups, practice settings, sexes and age groups. All participants indicated that knowing outcomes is “essential” (62.6%) or “beneficial” (37.4%) to gaining experience in EM. Participants reported currently receiving passive outcome feedback in 10.0% of all cases, and seeking out (active) outcome feedback in 7.5% of all cases. The great majority of participants (97.3%) stated that they would like to receive more outcome feedback and believed that this would improve diagnostic accuracy (97.3%), clinical efficiency (85.5%), treatment outcomes (95.6%) and job satisfaction (95.1%). When asked to indicate “any possible negative effects that might arise from increased outcome feedback,” 62.1% indicated none. However, 17.9% hypothesized negative emotional effects and 11.5% suggested increased time requirements.

The overwhelming majority of EPs receive very little outcome feedback. Most would like more outcome feedback and believe it would improve the practice of EM.

Somatization of emotions accounts for excess emergency department (ED) visits in the form of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP) has been used to diagnose and manage somatization. We examined the effectiveness of this procedure for ED patients with MUS.

We implemented a service that included staff education, timely access to consultation and gathering of outcome data.

Patients were assessed and treated shortly after referral. There was a mean reduction of 3.2 (69.0%) ED visits per patient (standard deviation [SD] 6.4) the year afterward (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–5.0, p < 0.001). In comparison revisit rates during the same time interval for 3 available ED populations (i.e., those matched by visit rates, those with matching complaints and all patients referred to the service but never seen) showed either smaller reductions or higher ED use (ranging from a 15% reduction to a 43% increase). Treatments averaged 3.8 sessions per patient (SD 5.3). Self-reported symptoms improved significantly with the Brief Symptom Inventory global rating, which changed from a mean of 1.21 (SD 0.58) before assessment to 0.86 (SD 0.63) (p < 0.01) at the end of contact with the service. The service appeared acceptable to both emergency physicians and patients.

This emotion-focused assessment and treatment method appeared to be feasible and may be effective in reducing both symptoms and repeat ED use.

Residents must become proficient in a variety of procedures. The practice of learning procedural skills on patients has come under ethical scrutiny, giving rise to the concept of simulation-based medical education. Resident training in a simulated environment allows skill acquisition without compromising patient safety. We assessed the impact of a simulation-based procedural skills training course on residents' competence in the performance of critical resuscitation procedures.

We solicited self-assessments of the knowledge and clinical skills required to perform resuscitation procedures from a cross-sectional multidisciplinary sample of 28 resident study participants. Participants were then exposed to an intensive 8-hour simulation-based training program, and asked to repeat the self-assessment questionnaires on completion of the course, and again 3 months later. We assessed the validity of the self-assessment questionnaire by evaluating participants' skills acquisition through an Objective Structured Clinical Examination station.

We found statistically significant improvements in participants' ratings of both knowledge and clinical skills during the 3 self-assessment periods (p < 0.001). The participants' year of postgraduate training influenced their self-assessment of knowledge (F2,25 = 4.91, p < 0.01) and clinical skills (F2,25 = 10.89, p < 0.001). At the 3-month follow-up, junior-level residents showed consistent improvement from their baseline scores, but had regressed from their posttraining measures. Senior-level residents continued to show further increases in their assessments of both clinical skills and knowledge beyond the simulation-based training course.

Significant improvement in self-assessed theoretical knowledge and procedural skill competence for residents can be achieved through participation in a simulation-based resuscitation course. Gains in perceived competence appear to be stable over time, with senior learners gaining further confidence at the 3-month follow-up. Our findings support the benefits of simulation-based training for residents.

The primary objective of this study was to compare the results of nurse-performed urinalysis (NPU) interpreted visually in the emergency department (ED) with laboratory-performed urinalysis (LPU) interpreted by reflectance photometry.

This was a prospective observational study based on a convenience sample from my emergency practice. Emergency nurses, who were unaware of the study, performed usual dipstick analysis before sending the same urine sample to the laboratory for testing.

Of 140 urinalyses performed during the study period, 124 were suitable for analysis. When compared with the reference standard LPU, the NPU had an overall sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95%–100%) and a specificity of 49% (95% CI 33%–65%) for the presence of any 1 of blood, leukocyte esterase, nitrites, protein, glucose or ketones in the urine. Of 20 falsely positive NPUs, 18 were a result of the nurse recording 1 or more components as “trace” positive.

Although NPU does not yield identical results to LPU, a negative LPU is expected when the initial NPU in the ED is negative.

The organization of emergency medical care limits the ability of emergency physicians to know the outcomes of most of their patients after the patients leave the emergency department. This lack of outcome feedback may hinder the practice of emergency medicine (EM) by preventing “calibration” of the decision tools of practitioners. We sought to determine what is currently known about outcome feedback in EM, including its incidence, impact and modifiers.

We searched the following databases: PreMED-LINE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, DARE, Health Technology Assessment Database and AMED. We performed manual searches on abstract databases, reference lists, various health information and research websites, and nonindexed journals.

Selection entailed a 2-step screening process to exclude articles not pertaining to outcome feedback in EM.

Our search yielded 1128 bibliographic records, from which screening identified 7 relevant reports: 5 surveys, 1 system level evaluation and 1 intervention trial.

All studies were found to have “inadequate” or “unable to assess” reporting and study quality. Systems for outcome feedback to EM residents have been increasingly available since 1984, though they are perceived to be inadequate. Commonly used mechanisms for outcome feedback include automatic routing of discharge summaries, case conferences for admitted patients and telephone calls to patients or families for discharged patients. With respect to attending emergency physicians, no conclusions or clinical recommendations can be made given the level of available evidence.

The potential importance of outcome feedback remains, at this time, underevaluated. We propose a research framework, and hypothesize that increasing outcome feedback would increase emergency physician diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic outcomes, clinical efficiency and job satisfaction. Future research in this area should include surveys and focus groups, as well as simulated or real-world intervention trials.