Objective The objective was to assess anxiety and burnout levels, home life changes, and measures to relieve stress of U.S. academic emergency medicine (EM) physicians during the COVID‐19 pandemic acceleration phase. Methods We sent a cross‐sectional e‐mail survey to all EM physicians at seven academic emergency departments. The survey incorporated items from validated stress scales and assessed perceptions and key elements in the following domains: numbers of suspected COVID‐19 patients, availability of diagnostic testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety, severity of work burnout, identification of stressors, changes in home behaviors, and measures to decrease provider anxiety. Results A total of 426 (56.7%) EM physicians responded. On a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, and 7 = extremely), the median (interquartile range) reported effect of the pandemic on both work and home stress levels was 5 (4–6). Reported levels of emotional exhaustion/burnout increased from a prepandemic median (IQR) of 3 (2–4) to since the pandemic started a median of 4 (3–6), with a difference in medians of 1.8 (95% confidence interval = 1.7 to 1.9). Most physicians (90.8%) reported changing their behavior toward family and friends, especially by decreasing signs of affection (76.8%). The most commonly cited measures cited to alleviate stress/anxiety were increasing personal protective equipment (PPE) availability, offering rapid COVID‐19 testing at physician discretion, providing clearer communication about COVID‐19 protocol changes, and assuring that physicians can take leave for care of family and self. Conclusions During the acceleration phase, the COVID‐19 pandemic has induced substantial workplace and home anxiety in academic EM physicians, and their exposure during work has had a major impact on their home lives. Measures cited to decrease stress include enhanced availability of PPE, rapid turnaround testing at provider discretion, and clear communication about COVID‐19 protocol changes.

Twitter: @MarkLangdorf.Study objective: Chest computed tomography (CT) diagnoses more injuries than chest radiography, so-called occult injuries. Wide availability of chest CT has driven substantial increase in emergency department use, although the incidence and clinical significance of chest CT findings have not been fully described. We determine the frequency, severity, and clinical import of occult injury, as determined by changes in management. These data will better inform clinical decisions, need for chest CT, and odds of intervention.Methods: Our sample included prospective data (2009 to 2013) on 5,912 patients at 10 Level I trauma center EDs with both chest radiography and chest CT at physician discretion. These patients were 40.6% of 14,553 enrolled in the parent study who had either chest radiography or chest CT. Occult injuries were pneumothorax, hemothorax, sternal or greater than 2 rib fractures, pulmonary contusion, thoracic spine or scapula fracture, and diaphragm or great vessel injury found on chest CT but not on preceding chest radiography. A priori, we categorized thoracic injuries as major (having invasive procedures), minor (observation or inpatient pain control >24 hours), or of no clinical significance. Primary outcome was prevalence and proportion of occult injury with major interventions of chest tube, mechanical ventilation, or surgery. Secondary outcome was minor interventions of admission rate or observation hours because of occult injury.Results: Two thousand forty-eight patients (34.6%) had chest injury on chest radiography or chest CT, whereas 1,454 of these patients (71.0%, 24.6% of all patients) had occult injury. Of these, in 954 patients (46.6% of injured, 16.1% of total), chest CT found injuries not observed on immediately preceding chest radiography. In 500 more patients (24.4% of injured patients, 8.5% of all patients), chest radiography found some injury, but chest CT found occult injury. Chest radiography found all injuries in only 29.0% of injured patients. Two hundred and two patients with occult injury (of 1,454, 13.9%) had major interventions, 343 of 1,454 (23.6%) had minor interventions, and 909 (62.5%) had no intervention. Patients with occult injury included 514 with pulmonary contusions (of 682 total, 75.4% occult), 405 with pneumothorax (of 597 total, 67.8% occult), 184 with hemothorax (of 230 total, 80.0% occult), those with greater than 2 rib fractures (n¼672/1,120, 60.0% occult) or sternal fracture (n¼269/281, 95.7% occult), 12 with great vessel injury (of 18 total, 66.7% occult), 5 with diaphragm injury (of 6, 83.3% occult), and 537 with multiple occult injuries. Interventions for patients with occult injury included mechanical ventilation for 31 of 514 patients with pulmonary contusion (6.0%), chest tube for 118 of 405 patients with pneumothorax (29.1%), and 75 of 184 patients with hemothorax (40.8%). Inpatient pain control or observation greater than 24 hours was conducted for 183 of 672 patients with rib fractures (27.2%) and 79 of 269 with sternal fractur...

Since the first medical student ultrasound electives became available more than a decade ago, ultrasound in undergraduate medical education has gained increasing popularity. More than a dozen medical schools have fully integrated ultrasound education in their curricula, with several dozen more institutions planning to follow suit. Starting in June 2012, a working group of emergency ultrasound faculty at the California medical schools began to meet to discuss barriers as well as innovative approaches to implementing ultrasound education in undergraduate medical education. It became clear that an ongoing collaborative could be formed to discuss barriers, exchange ideas, and lend support for this initiative. The group, termed Ultrasound in Medical Education, California (UMeCali), was formed with 2 main goals: to exchange ideas and resources in facilitating ultrasound education and to develop a white paper to discuss our experiences. Five common themes integral to successful ultrasound education in undergraduate medical education are discussed in this article: (1) initiating an ultrasound education program; (2) the role of medical student involvement; (3) integration of ultrasound in the preclinical years; (4) developing longitudinal ultrasound education; and (5) addressing competency.

BackgroundUnnecessary diagnostic imaging leads to higher costs, longer emergency department stays, and increased patient exposure to ionizing radiation. We sought to prospectively derive and validate two decision instruments (DIs) for selective chest computed tomography (CT) in adult blunt trauma patients.Methods and FindingsFrom September 2011 to May 2014, we prospectively enrolled blunt trauma patients over 14 y of age presenting to eight US, urban level 1 trauma centers in this observational study. During the derivation phase, physicians recorded the presence or absence of 14 clinical criteria before viewing chest imaging results. We determined injury outcomes by CT radiology readings and categorized injuries as major or minor according to an expert-panel-derived clinical classification scheme. We then employed recursive partitioning to derive two DIs: Chest CT-All maximized sensitivity for all injuries, and Chest CT-Major maximized sensitivity for only major thoracic injuries (while increasing specificity). In the validation phase, we employed similar methodology to prospectively test the performance of both DIs.We enrolled 11,477 patients—6,002 patients in the derivation phase and 5,475 patients in the validation phase. The derived Chest CT-All DI consisted of (1) abnormal chest X-ray, (2) rapid deceleration mechanism, (3) distracting injury, (4) chest wall tenderness, (5) sternal tenderness, (6) thoracic spine tenderness, and (7) scapular tenderness. The Chest CT-Major DI had the same criteria without rapid deceleration mechanism. In the validation phase, Chest CT-All had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%–100%), a specificity of 20.8% (95% CI 19.2%–22.4%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (95% CI 98.9%–100%) for major injury, and a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 93.6%–96.9%), a specificity of 25.5% (95% CI 23.5%–27.5%), and a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.5%–95.8%) for either major or minor injury. Chest CT-Major had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%–100%), a specificity of 31.7% (95% CI 29.9%–33.5%), and a NPV of 99.9% (95% CI 99.3%–100%) for major injury and a sensitivity of 90.7% (95% CI 88.3%–92.8%), a specificity of 37.9% (95% CI 35.8%–40.1%), and a NPV of 91.8% (95% CI 89.7%–93.6%) for either major or minor injury. Regarding the limitations of our work, some clinicians may disagree with our injury classification and sensitivity thresholds for injury detection.ConclusionsWe prospectively derived and validated two DIs (Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major) that identify blunt trauma patients with clinically significant thoracic injuries with high sensitivity, allowing for a safe reduction of approximately 25%–37% of unnecessary chest CTs. Trauma evaluation protocols that incorporate these DIs may decrease unnecessary costs and radiation exposure in the disproportionately young trauma population.

No abstract

Objectives The objective was to provide a longitudinal assessment of anxiety levels and work and home concerns of U.S. emergency physicians during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods We performed a longitudinal, cross‐sectional email survey of clinically active emergency physicians (attending, fellow, and resident) at seven academic emergency departments. Follow‐up surveys were sent 4 to 6 weeks after the initial survey and assessed the following: COVID‐19 patient exposure, availability of COVID‐19 testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety/stress, changes in behaviors, and performance on a primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen (PC‐PTSD‐5). Logistic regression explored factors associated with a high PC‐PTSD‐5 scale score (≥3), indicating increased risk for PTSD. Results Of the 426 surveyed initial respondents, 262 (61.5%) completed the follow‐up survey. While 97.3% (255/262) reported treating suspected COVID‐19 patients, most physicians (162/262, 61.8%) had not received testing themselves. In follow‐up, respondents were most concerned about the relaxing of social distancing leading to a second wave (median score = 6, IQR = 4–7). Physicians reported a consistently high ability to order COVID‐19 tests for patients (median score = 6, IQR = 5–7) and access to personal protective equipment (median score = 6, IQR = 5–6). Women physicians were more likely to score ≥ 3 than men on the PC‐PTSD‐5 screener on the initial survey (43.3% vs. 22.5%; Δ 20.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.3% to 31.5%), and despite decreases in overall proportions, this discrepancy remained in follow‐up (34.7% vs. 16.8%; Δ 17.9%, 95% CI = 7.1% to 28.1%). In examining the relationship between demographics, living situations, and institution location on having a PC‐PTSD‐5 score ≥ 3, only female sex was associated with a PC‐PTSD‐5 score ≥ 3 (adjusted odds ratio = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.28 to 4.79). Conclusions While exposure to suspected COVID‐19 patients was nearly universal, stress levels in emergency physicians decreased with time. At both initial and follow‐up assessments, women were more likely to test positive on the PC‐PTSD‐5 screener compared to men.

Background: Chest radiography (CXR) is the most common imaging in adult blunt trauma patient evaluation. Knowledge of the yields, attendant costs, and radiation doses delivered may guide effective chest imaging utilization.

We have validated the NEXUS Chest decision instrument, which may safely reduce the need for chest imaging in blunt trauma patients older than 14 years.