Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: While family presence during resuscination has been researched extensively in the international and especially American medical literature, in Israel this subject has rarely been researched. Because such policies have become common practice in many countries, it is important to investigate the attitudes of health care staff in Israeli emergency departments to better understand the potential implication of adopting such policies.

Objectives: To examine the attitudes of the physicians and nurses in the ED of Soroka Medical Center to FPDR[1]. 

Methods: The methods we used were both qualitative (partly structured open interviews of 10 ED staff members from various medical professions) and quantitative (an anonymous questionnaire that collected sociodemographic, professional, and attitude data).

Results: The qualitative and quantitative results showed that most staff members opposed FPDR. The main reasons for objecting to FPDR were concern about family criticism, the added pressure that would be put on the staff members, fear of lawsuits, fear of hurting the feelings of the families, and the danger of losing one’s objectivity while treating patients. Physicians objected more strongly to FPDR than did nurses.  

Conclusions: More research is needed on FPDR in Israel, including an examination of its medical, ethical, legal and logistic aspects. In addition to the views of the medical staff, the attitudes of patients and their families should also be examined.

[1] FPDR = family presence during resuscitation

 

Background: Clinicians’ impression of adolescents' alcohol or drug involvement may underestimate substance-related pathology.

Objectives: To describe the characteristics of adolescents presenting to the pediatric emergency department due to substance abuse and to determine whether physicians can reliably identify these patients.

Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of all patients aged 12–18 years presenting to a pediatric emergency department between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2006 for whom a urine drug screen or ethanol blood levels was ordered. According to departmental protocol urine drug screen and ethanol levels are taken for specific indications. Based on the history and clinical findings the pediatrician in the ED[1] assessed on a 5-point likelihood scale the possibility that the patients’ symptoms were related to substance abuse.

Results: Of the 139 patients in the study group 40 (30%) tested positive for ethanol or drugs of abuse. The median age was 16. Compared with patients who tested negative, there were more patients with decreased level of consciousness among patients who tested positive for ethanol or drugs (5% vs. 33% respectively, P < 0.001). The median physician estimate for the likelihood of substance abuse was 5 in patients who tested positive and 2 in patients who tested negative (P < 0.001). The likelihood of a positive drug/ethanol test was not affected by age or gender.
Conclusions: Since the likelihood of substance abuse is higher in patients presenting with a low level of consciousness, physicians may accurately assess the likelihood of substance abuse in these patients

Background: Locally delivered steroids by inhalers or nebulizers have been shown in small trials to be effective in acute asthma attack, but evidence-based data are insufficient to establish their place as routine management of adult asthma attacks.

Objectives: To determine the efficacy of nebulized compared to systemic steroids in adult asthmatics admitted to the emergency department following an acute attack.

Methods: Adult asthmatics admitted to the ED[1] were assigned in random consecutive case fashion to one of three protocol groups: group 1 – nebulized steroid fluticasone (Flixotide Nebules®), group 2 – intravenous methylprednisolone, group 3 – combined treatment by both routes. Objective and subjective parameters, such as peak expiratory flow, oxygen saturation, heart rate, and dyspnea score, were registered before and 2 hours after ED treatment was initiated. Steroids were continued for 1 week following the ED visit according to the protocol arm. Data on hospital admission/discharge rate, ED readmissions in the week after enrollment and other major events related to asthma were registered.

Results: Altogether, 73 adult asthmatics were assigned to receive treatment: 24 patients in group 1, 23 in group 2 and 26 in group 3. Mean age was 44.4 ± 16.8 years (range 17–75 years). Peak expiratory flow and dyspnea score significantly improved in group 1 patients compared with patients in the other groups after 2 hours of ED treatment (P = 0.021 and 0.009, respectively). The discharge rate after ED treatment was significantly higher in groups 1 and 3 than in group 2 (P = 0.05). All 73 patients were alive a week after enrollment. Five patients (20.8%) in the Flixotide treatment arm were hospitalized and required additional systemic steroids. Multivariate analysis of factors affecting hospitalization rate demonstrated that severity of asthma (odds ratio 8.11) and group 2 (OD[2] 4.17) had a negative effect, whereas adherence to chronic anti-asthma therapy (OD 0.49) reduced the hospitalization rate.

Conclusions: Our study cohort showed the advantage of nebulized steroid fluticasone versus systemic corticosteroids in adult asthmatics managed in the ED following an acute attack. Both these and previous results suggest that nebulized steroids should be used, either alone or in combination with systemic steroids, to treat adults with an acute asthma attack.

Background: Emergency room triage of patients presenting with chest pain syndromes may be difficult. Under-diagnosis may be dangerous, while over0diagnosis may be costly.

Objectives: To report our initial experience with an emergency room cardiologist-based chest pain unit in Israel.

Methods: During a 5 week pilot study, we examined resource utilization and ER [1] diagnosis in 124 patients with chest pain of uncertain etiology or non-high risk acute coronary syndrome. First assessment was performed by the ER physicians and was followed by a second assessment by the CPU[2] team. Assessment was based on the following parameters: medical history and examination, serial electrocardiography, hematology, biochemistry and biomarkers for ACS[3], exercise stress testing and/or 64-slice multi-detector cardiac computed tomography angiography. Changes in decision between initial assessment and final CPU assessment with regard to hospitalization and utilization of resources were recorded.

Results: All patients had at least two cardiac troponin T measurements, 19 underwent EST[4], 9 echocardiography and 29 cardiac MDCT[5]. Fourteen patients were referred for early cardiac catheterization (same/next day). Specific working diagnosis was reached in 71/84 patients hospitalized, including unstable angina in 39 (31%) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in 12 (10%). Following CPU assessment, 40/124 patients (32%) were discharged, 49 (39%) were admitted to Internal Medicine and 35 (28%) to the Cardiology departments. CPU assessment and extended resources allowed discharge of 30/101 patients (30%) who were initially identified as candidates for hospitalization after ER assessment. Furthermore, 13/23 (56%) of patients who were candidates for discharge after initial ER assessment were eventually hospitalized. Use of non-invasive tests was significantly greater in patients discharged from the ER (85% vs. 38% patients hospitalized) (P < 0.0001). The mean ER stay tended to be longer (14.9 ± 8.6 hours vs. 12.9 ± 11, P = NS) for patients discharged. At 30 days follow-up, there were no adverse events (myocardial infarction or death) in any of the 40 patients discharged from the ER after CPU assessment. One patient returned to the ER because of chest pain and was discharged after re-assessment. 

Conclusions: Our initial experience showed that an ER cardiologist-based chest pain unit improved assessment of patients presenting to the ER with chest pain, and enhanced appropriate use of diagnostic tests prior to decision regarding admission/discharge from the ER.

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of abnormal coagulation studies in ED[1] patients evaluated for suspected ACS[2], and to investigate whether abnormal international normalized ratio/partial thromboplastin time testing resulted in changes in patient management and whether abnormal results could be predicted by history and physical examination.

Methods: In this retrospective observational study, hospital and ED records were obtained for all patients with a diagnosis of ACS seen in the ED during a 3 month period. ED records were reviewed to identify all patients in whom the cardiac laboratory panel was performed. Other data included demographics, diagnosis and disposition, historical risk factors for abnormalities of coagulation, ED and inpatient management, INR[3]/PTT[4], platelet count and cardiac enzymes. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed.

Results: Complete data were available for 223 of the 227 patients (98.7%). Of these, 175 (78.5%) patients were admitted. The mean age was 64.2 years. Thirteen patients (5.8%) were diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction. Of the 223 patients, 29 (13%) and 23 (10%) had INR and PTT results respectively beyond the reference range. Seventy percent of patients with abnormal coagulation test results had risk factors for coagulation disorders. The abnormal results of the remaining patients included only a mild elevation and therefore no change in management was initiated.

Conclusions: Abnormal coagulation test results in patients presenting with suspected ACS are rare, they can usually be predicted by history, and they rarely affect management. Routine coagulation studies are not indicated in these patients.

Background: The long-standing and ongoing controversy regarding administration of analgesia to patients with acute abdominal pain prior to final diagnosis has not yet been resolved, despite considerable research. Consequently, wide variations in clinical practice exist.

Objectives: To determine the motives, attitudes and practices of emergency physicians, internists and surgeons in Israeli emergency departments regarding the administration of analgesia before diagnosis in patients with acute abdominal pain.

Methods: Questionnaires were completed by 122 physicians in 21 EDs[1] throughout Israel and the replies were analyzed.

Results: Most EDs did not have a clear policy on analgesia for undifferentiated abdominal pain, according to 65% of the responders. More internists (75%) than surgeons (54%) (P = 0.02) and more emergency physicians (81%) than all other physicians (60%) (P = 0.05) held this opinion. Most respondents (64%) supported administration of analgesia pre-diagnostically. Support for analgesia was significantly stronger among internists (75%) compared to surgeons (52%) (P = 0.03). Despite this wide support, most respondents (68%) indicated that analgesia was rarely or never given pre‑diagnostically and, when it was, more surgeons (58%) than other physicians made that decision. Most internists (73%) and all surgeons reported that patients receive analgesia only after being examined by surgeons. Time allocated to the ED (part‑ or full‑time) significantly (P = 0.02) influenced decision-making, with 51% of part-time physicians vs. 25% of full-time opposing prompt administration of analgesia. Opinions on who should decide were divided according to medical specialty, with surgeons and internists almost opposed, as well as by physician age and percent of his/her time spent working in the ED. More surgeons than internists (P = 0.0005) reported that analgesia sometimes interfered with making a diagnosis. Most physicians (90%) stated that opiates impede diagnosis, to some extent. However, 58% of them supported the administration of opiates, more or less frequently. Intramuscular diclofenac was the most preferred analgesic, followed by intravenous morphine and pethidine; individual preferences extended beyond the list of actually administered drugs.

Conclusions: There is no consensus on the administration of analgesia for undiagnosed acute abdominal pain in EDs in Israel. Physicians’ attitudes are influenced by training, experience, and percent of personal time allocated to work in the ED.

The treatment of acute pain and anxiety in children undergoing therapeutic and diagnostic procedures in the emergency department has improved dramatically in recent years. The availability of non-invasive monitoring devices and the use of short-acting sedative and analgesic medications enable physicians to conduct safe and effective sedation and analgesia treatment. In today's practice of pediatric emergency medicine, sedation and analgesia has been considered as the standard of care for procedural pain. In most pediatric emergency departments throughout North America, "procedural sedation and analgesia" treatment is being performed by non-anesthesiologists (qualified emergency physicians and nurses). In 2003, the Israel Ministry of Health published formal guidelines for pediatric sedation by non-anesthesiologists; this important document recognizes for the first time the need for pediatric sedation and analgesia in the operating room. We describe the basic principles of procedural sedation and analgesia in children and urge physicians working in pediatric emergency rooms in Israel to expand their knowledge and be more involved in the treatment of pediatric procedural pain.

Background: Understanding discharge instructions is crucial to optimal healing but may be compromised in the hectic environment of the emergency department.

Objectives: To determine parents’ understanding of ED[1] discharge instructions and factors that may affect it.

Methods: A convenience sample of parents of children discharged home from the ED of an urban tertiary care pediatric facility (n=287) and a suburban level II general hospital (n=195) completed a 13-item questionnaire covering demographics, level of anxiety, and quality of physician’s explanation. Parents also described their child’s diagnosis and treatment instructions and indicated preferred auxiliary methods of delivery of information. Data were analyzed using the BMPD statistical package.

Results: Full understanding was found in 72% and 78% of the parents at the respective centers for the diagnosis, and in 82% and 87% for the treatment instructions (P  = NS between centers). There was no statistical correlation between level of understanding and parental age, gender, education, level of anxiety before or after the ED visit, or time of day. The most contributory factor to lack of understanding was staff use of medical terminology. Parents suggested further explanations by a special discharge nurse and written information as auxiliary methods.

Conclusions: Overall, parental understanding of ED discharge instructions is good. However, there remains a considerable number (about 20%) who fail to fully comprehend the diagnosis or treatment directives. This subset might benefit from the use of lay terminology by the staff, institution of a special discharge nurse, or use of diagnosis-specific information sheets.

Background: The emergency department is one of the hospital’s busiest facilities and is frequently described as a bottleneck. Management by constraint is a managerial methodology that helps to focus on the most critical issues by identifying such bottlenecks. Based on this theory, the benefit of adding medical staff may depend on whether or not physician availability is the bottleneck in the system.

Objective: To formulate a dynamic statistical model to forecast the need for allocating additional medical staff to improve the efficacy of work in the emergency department, taking into account patient volume.

Methods: The daily number of non-trauma admissions to the general ED[1] was assessed for the period 1 January 1992 to 1 December 1995 using the hospital computerized database. The marginal benefit to shortening patient length of stay in the ED by adding a physician during the evening shift was examined for different patient volumes. Data were analyzed with the SAS software package using a Gross Linear Model.

Results: The addition of a physician to the ED staff from noon to midnight significantly shortened patient LOS[2]: an average decrease of 6.61 minutes for 80–119 admissions (P<0.001). However, for less than 80 or more than 120 admissions, adding a physician did not have a significant effect on LOS in the ED.

Conclusions: The dynamic model formulated in this study shows that patient volume determines the effectiveness of investing manpower in the ED. Identifying bottleneck critical factors, as suggested by the theory of constraints, may be useful for planning and coordinating emergency services that operate under stressful and unpredictable conditions. Consideration of patient volume may also provide ED managers with a logical basis for staffing and resource allocation.