Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Acute non-traumatic abdominal pain is typically evaluated by abdomino-pelvic computed tomography (CT) with oral and venous contrast. The accuracy of unenhanced CT for diagnosis in this setting has not been widely studied.

Objectives: To assess the accuracy of unenhanced CT in establishing the etiology of acute non-traumatic abdominal pain.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical and imaging records of patients aged ≥ 18 years who presented to the emergency department (ED) during a 6-month period with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain of unknown etiology, and who were evaluated with non-contrast CT within 24 hours of ED admission. Clinical details were recorded. A presumptive clinical diagnosis and CT diagnosis were compared to the discharge diagnosis which was considered the reference standard. The requirement for informed consent was waived.

Results: Altogether, 315 patients met the inclusion criteria – 138 males (44%) and 177 females (56%); their mean age was 45 years (range 18–90). Clinical diagnosis correlated with the CT findings in 162 of the cases (51%). CT was accurate in 296/315 cases (94%). The leading diagnosis in cases of a mismatch between CT diagnosis and discharge diagnosis was infection mostly in the urinary tract (12/18). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 91%, 99%, 91% and 85% respectively. The discharge diagnosis was unchanged in the patients who returned to the ED within 1 week of the first admission.

Conclusions: In this study, unenhanced CT proved to be a feasible, convenient and legitimate examination for the evaluation of patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain presenting to the ED.

Background: Acute musculoskeletal pain is one of the most commonly reported symptoms among patients visiting the emergency department (ED). Treatment with over-the-counter pain medications, given by nurses, results in improved pain management and reduces the waiting time to drug administration without significant side effects. Opioid analgesics are extensively used for acute pain in the ED. Compared to morphine, oxycodone has a much more specific pharmacological activity, higher analgesic potential, and more tolerable side effects.

Objectives: To assess the degree of pain reduction using different protocols, including dypirone and oxycodone given by nurses, in treating acute musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department (primary outcome) and to evaluate the need for rescue medications (secondary outcome).

Methods: This observational prospective clinical trial compared two groups of 50 patients, each one visiting the ED due to musculoskeletal pain. One group was treated with dipyrone syrup and the other was treated with oxycodone syrup. The primary outcome was pain reduction measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The secondary outcome was the difference in need for rescue medications.

Results: The reduction in the NRS was greater in the patients treated with oxycodone. This finding was statistically and clinically significant (P < 0.001). The need for rescue medications was also significantly reduced in this group of patients (P = 0.007).

Conclusions: This study showed that the administration of over-the-counter oxycodone syrup by nurses decreases the post-treatment pain reported by patients, reduces the need for rescue medications, and increases the satisfaction of the medical staff.

Background: Falls are a common problem among hospitalized patients, having a significant impact on quality of life and resource utilization.

Objectives: To develop and validate a fall-risk assessment tool for patients hospitalized in the department of medicine that will combine simplicity with adequate accuracy for routine use.

Methods: This observational cohort study was conducted on the medical wards of an urban tertiary teaching hospital, and included all patients who fell in the medical wards during a 1 year period (n=140) compared to other hospitalized patients.

Results: Significant correlates of falls were previous falls, impairing medical conditions, impaired mobility, and altered mental state. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, only previous falls (odds ratio 3.8 with 95% confidence interval 2.65–5.45, P < 0.0001) and acute impairing medical conditions (OR[1] 1.56, CI[2] 1.06–2.29, P < 0.05) correlated independently with a higher risk for falls. Impaired mobility retained an OR of 1.46 (CI 0.95–2.24, P = 0.084). Accordingly, defining patients with either a history of previous falls or both acute impairing medical state and impaired mobility as fall-prone patients provided a sensitivity and specificity of 67% and 63%, respectively. In a subsequent prospective validation trial on 88 patients who fell during hospitalization and 436 controls, the sensitivity and specificity of this fall-risk grouping were 64% and 68% respectively.

Conclusions: Our new simple and easy-to-use fall-risk assessment tool identified most of the fall-prone patients. These findings suggest that using this tool may enable us to prevent two-thirds of falls on the medical ward by providing effective fall-prevention facilities to only one-third of the patients.