Intravenous urography in the emergency department: when do we need it?

Intravenous urography (IVU) is a useful radiographic study in the detection of renal and ureteral calculi. However, it is time consuming, expensive, and exposes the patient to i.v. contrast and radiation. To determine the impact of utilizing IVU less for the detection of renal calculi, criteria for ordering IVU in the emergency department (ED) were evaluated, and patients with high probability of positive IVU were identified. Variables included presence of acute flank pain with haematuria, prior history of renal calculus, degree of haematuria, and uncontrolled pain. We reviewed patients presenting with acute flank and abdominal pain with haematuria from May 1995 to May 1996 at a large urban university hospital. Charts were abstracted for prior history, reason for ordering IVU, time in the ED, laboratory results, IVU result, final diagnosis, and disposition. Data was analysed with Student's t-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. A total of 302 patients were identified, and 185 underwent IVU during the study period. For patients with prior history of renal calculi 82% had positive IVU (sensitivity 51%, specificity 87%). For patients with both acute flank pain and haematuria, 92% had a positive IVU (sensitivity 93%, specificity 43%), and 19% of patients with abdominal pain of unclear aetiology with haematuria had a positive IVU. All patients with uncontrolled pain had evidence of high-grade obstruction on IVU. Degree of haematuria was not predictive of a positive IVU from ROC curve derivation. IVU is a useful study in the ED but may be overutilized, leading to lengthy patient stays. The combined objective findings of acute flank pain and haematuria are sensitive, and prior history is specific in identifying patients with renal calculi. Degree of haematuria was not useful in predicting renal calculi. By utilizing the criteria of acute flank pain and haematuria as a decision aid, 66% of all IVUs ordered could have been avoided.     

Do we know what people die of in the emergency department?

Objective: To establish the discrepancy rate between the predicted cause of death and the actual cause of death as determined by postmortem examination result, for all deaths in the emergency department reported to the Scottish Procurator Fiscal and subsequently undergoing postmortem examination. Methods: A prospective study of all patients who were dead on arrival or died in the emergency department of a busy Glasgow hospital over a 12 month period. The most senior emergency physician present at the time of death predicted the cause of death. This was then compared to the actual postmortem examination determined cause of death and was considered either to be correct or incorrect. Results: During the study period, 146 patients were pronounced dead in the department. Of these, 81 patients (age range 39–99 years, median 71; male:female 2.5:1) had death certificates issued, 63 patients (age range 26 days to 99 years, median 48; male:female 2.4:1) had a postmortem performed by the forensic pathologist, and two patients underwent a "view and grant". Of the 63 deaths reported to the Procurator Fiscal, the emergency physician attributed 51 (80.1%) to non-trauma, 9 (14.2%) to trauma, and in 3 (4.7%) cases were uncertain. Of the 63 (39.7%) deaths, 25 were inaccurately predicted (99% confidence interval 24.3% to 56.6%; p<0.0)1. Cardiovascular related and drugs poisoning deaths occurred most commonly. They were also the most accurately predicted cause of deaths. Intracranial events, pulmonary thromboembolism, and airway obstruction were also frequently predicted, but were often wrong. Conclusions: This study highlights the difficulties in accurately identifying cause of death for patients who die suddenly. This could have implications for the accuracy of health service statistics.     

What do we know about patients dying in the emergency department?

OBJECTIVE: To determine our knowledge in terms of cause of death and quality of death certification about patients who die in the emergency department. To establish the role of autopsy in this matter. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all patients dying in an academic emergency department (ED) of a tertiary hospital over a period of 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-six patients died in the ED in 1998. In 141/196 patients the cause of death could be determined on clinical grounds. In 53/196 patients, the antemortem clinical diagnosis was unknown. Twenty-nine out of 53 patients underwent autopsy. In all but one patient autopsy revealed the cause of death. After retrospective analysis of all patient data (notes, biology, radiology and pathological investigation), the major causes of death were cardiac (19.4%), cerebral (non-traumatic) (16.8%), trauma (15.3%) and unknown (13.3%). In the patient group with sudden cardiac arrest of unclear origin, the postmortem cause of death was identified as cardiac (51.7%), non-traumatic bleeding (10.3%), infectious (10.3%) and pulmonary embolism (3.4%). In the group of patients with a clinically clear cause of death, who underwent autopsy, 14 class II findings according to the Goldman's classification of autopsy diagnoses (i.e. major diagnosis whose detection would not have altered therapy nor outcome) were found in 16 patients. No class I findings (i.e. major diagnosis whose detection would have altered therapy or outcome) were noted. Altogether, major discrepancies between the antemortem presumed cause of death according to the notes and the real cause of death was found in 15.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Autopsy remains a very important tool to establish the cause of death in patients dying in ED. The concordance between the antemortem presumed cause of death recorded in the patient notes and the real cause (all patient data) is poor.     

Jehovah's Witnesses in the emergency department: what are their rights?

The Jehovah''s Witnesses Society is best known to outsiders for its refusal of blood products, even when such a refusal may result in death. Since the introduction of the blood ban in 1945, Jehovah''s Witness (JW) parents have fought for their rights to refuse blood on behalf of their children, based on religious beliefs and their right to raise children as they see fit. Adolescent JWs have also sought to refuse blood products based on their beliefs, regardless of the views of their parents. Adult JWs have fought to protect their autonomy when making both contemporaneous and advance treatment refusal. The refusal of blood products by JWs raises ethical and legal dilemmas that are not easily answered. Do an individual''s rights (namely bodily control, right to privacy, right to decide about life/death issues, right to religious freedom) outweigh society''s rights (namely the preservation of life, the prevention of suicide, the protection of innocent third parties, and the maintenance of the ethical integrity of the medical profession)? Does the right to choose outweigh the value of human life? For doctors, conflict occurs between the desire to respect patient autonomy and the need to provide good medical care. The Watchtower Society (the JW governing body) imposes a strict code of moral standards among its members, and it is unlikely that individual JWs are making truly autonomous decisions about blood transfusions. While young children and adolescents are protected by the courts and conscious adults are afforded autonomy, dilemmas still arise in the emergency situation. This article examines the rights of young children, adolescents, and adults, focusing in the latter half on adults in the emergency situation.     

Discharge instructions for emergency department patients: what should we provide?

Effective communication between the physician and patient is required for optimum post-emergency department management. Written emergency department discharge instructions, when used to complement verbal instructions, have been shown to improve communication and patient management. This review examines the purpose, advantages, and disadvantages of three commonly used types of discharge instruction. The desirable features of discharge instructions are described. It is recommended that structured, pre-formatted instruction sheets be provided to all patients discharged to home, that emergency departments establish uniform policies to promote best practice in communication, and that the use of discharge instructions be considered as an emergency department performance indicator.     

Blood transfusion in burns: what do we do?

Over 11 million units of blood are transfused yearly in the United States. Although blood transfusion is common in burns, data are lacking on appropriate transfusion thresholds. The purpose of the study was to identify current burn center physician blood transfusion practices. A 30-question survey of blood transfusion practices was developed and sent to burn center directors. The survey assessed demographics, burn experience, and blood transfusion thresholds. Physicians were asked to list factors affecting their blood transfusion thresholds and then to give their blood transfusion threshold for patients based on age and percent burn. The final section presents three case scenarios with alterations in one physiological parameter to assess the effect on transfusion thresholds. A total of 55 of the 180 surveys (31%) were returned. Mean number of burn beds was 15.7 +/- 1.4, with 264 +/- 25 burn admissions per year. The respondents had been in burn care for 15.9 +/- 1.4 years. Their mean hemoglobin transfusion threshold was 8.12 +/- 1.7 g/dl. The most frequent reasons for transfusion were ongoing blood loss (22%), anemia (20%), hypoxia (13%), and cardiac disease (12%). Inhalation injury influenced the decision to transfuse blood in 34%. The hemoglobin level below which respondents would transfuse blood increased with increasing TBSA burn, history of cardiac disease, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and age. Blood transfusion thresholds in burns vary based on burn percentage, age, and presence of cardiac disease. To date, no standard of care exists for blood transfusions in burns. Future prospective studies are needed to determine the appropriate use of blood in burns.     

What is the effect of reporting all emergency department radiographs?

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of formal radiological reporting of all emergency department (ED) radiographs on clinical practice and patient outcome, and to consider whether a selective reporting policy might prove safe and effective.

Methods: All radiographs taken in a single ED over a six month period were prospectively studied simultaneously in both the emergency and radiology departments to detect cases where a radiograph that was considered normal by ED staff was then reported as abnormal by the reporting radiologist. Whenever such a discrepancy occurred the patient's records were scrutinised to ascertain the source of the discrepancy, with a gold standard interpretation derived from senior clinical review and additional investigations where indicated. The clinical impact of the radiologist's formal report was then assessed. Accuracy of interpretation was considered in relation to the grade of ED staff and the radiographic examination obtained.

Results: During the study period, 19 468 new patient attendances to the ED generated 11 749 radiographic examinations. Discrepancies were detected in 175 patients (1.5% of all radiographic examinations). Of these, 136 (1.2%) were subsequently shown to have been incorrectly interpreted in the ED (ED false negatives), with 40 patients (0.3%) undergoing a change in management as a result. In the remaining 39 the ED interpretation was judged to be correct (radiology false positives), with 16 patients undergoing further investigations or visits to the ED to confirm this.

Conclusions: The formal reporting of ED radiographs by the radiology department detects a number of clinically important abnormalities that have been overlooked. However, this formal reporting also generates a number of incorrect interpretations that may lead to further unnecessary investigations. Some groups of ED radiographs (such as those interpreted by an ED consultant and films of the fingers and toes) may not require formal radiological reporting. The adoption of a selective reporting policy may reduce the reporting workload of the radiology department without compromising patient care.

     

Nursing memoirs: why do we do what we do?

According to Black, Deeny and McKenna, "defining what nurses do, and why, has been the endeavour of many researchers" (1997). With the events of 9-11, many people have spent recent months reflecting on that which constitutes their focus, evoking memories from the past. In the aftermath of 9-11, nurses have likewise stopped to reconsider why we do what we do. The purpose of this article is to examine what nursing literature says about why nurses do what they do and share the findings in the context of my own story as a nurse.     

Droperidol in the emergency department: is it safe?

Droperidol is an antipsychotic and antiemetic drug that has been used extensively by Emergency Physicians, Psychiatrists, and Anesthesiologists worldwide since 1967. It also has been used effectively for other diverse conditions, such as treatment of headache and vertigo. As of January 2001, Droperidol was no longer available in Europe after its founder, Janssen-Cilag Pharmaceuticals, discontinued its distribution. In December 2001, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a black box warning on the use of Droperidol in response to an association between Droperidol and fatal cardiac dysrhythmias, such as torsade de pointes, resulting from prolongation of the QT interval. In this review we closely examine the pharmacology, indications, use, and complications associated with Droperidol, and speculate on its future use in the Emergency Department.