The COVID-19 pandemic has produced significant changes in emergency medicine patient volumes, clinical practice, and has accelerated a number of systems-level developments. Many of these changes produced efficiencies in emergency care systems and contributed to a reduction in crowding and access block. In this paper, we explore these changes, analyse their risks and benefits and examine their sustainability for the future to the extent that they may combat crowding. We also examine the necessity of a system-wide approach in addressing ED crowding and access block.

No abstract

No abstract

Medical schools provide the foundation for a physician’s growth and lifelong learning. They also require a large share of government resources. As such, they should seek opportunities to maintain trust from the public, their students, faculty, universities, regulatory colleges, and each other. The accreditation of medical schools attempts to assure stakeholders that the educational process conforms to appropriate standards and thus can be trusted. However, accreditation processes are poorly understood and the basis for accrediting authorities’ decisions are often opaque.  We propose that increasing transparency in accreditation could enhance trust in the institutions that produce society’s physicians. While public reporting of accreditation results has been established in other jurisdictions, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, North American accrediting bodies have not yet embraced this more transparent approach. Public reporting can enhance public trust and engagement, hold medical schools accountable for continuous quality improvement, and can catalyze a culture of collaboration within the broader medical education ecosystem. Inviting patients and the public to peer into one of the most formative and fundamental parts of their physicians’ professional training is a powerful tool for stakeholder and public engagement that the North American medical education community at large has yet to use.

Objective To develop comprehensive guidance that captures international impacts, causes, and solutions related to emergency department crowding and access block Methods Emergency physicians representing 15 countries from all IFEM regions composed the Task Force. Monthly meetings were held via video-conferencing software to achieve consensus for report content. The report was submitted and approved by the IFEM Board on June 1, 2020. Results A total of 14 topic dossiers, each relating to an aspect of ED crowding, were researched and completed collaboratively by members of the Task Force. Conclusions The IFEM report is a comprehensive document intended to be used in whole or by section to inform and address aspects of ED crowding and access block. Overall, ED crowding is a multifactorial issue requiring systems-wide solutions applied at local, regional, and national levels. Access block is the predominant contributor of ED crowding in most parts of the world.

ObjectiveTo develop comprehensive guidance that captures international impacts, causes, and solutions related to ED crowding and access block.MethodsEmergency physicians representing 15 countries from all the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) regions composed the task force. Monthly meetings were held via video‐conferencing software to achieve consensus for report content. The report was submitted and approved by the IFEM Board on June 1, 2020.ResultsA total of 14 topic dossiers, each relating to an aspect of ED crowding, were researched and completed collaboratively by members of the task force.ConclusionsThe IFEM report is a comprehensive document intended to be used in whole or by section to inform and address aspects of ED crowding and access block. Overall, ED crowding is a multifactorial issue requiring systems‐wide solutions applied at local, regional, and national levels. Access block is the predominant contributor of ED crowding in most parts of the world.

ObjectivesThere has been limited evaluation of handover from emergency medical services (EMS) to the trauma team. We sought to characterize these handover practices to identify areas of improvement and determine if handover standardization might be beneficial for trauma team performance.MethodsData were prospectively collected over a nine-week period by a trained observer at a Canadian level one trauma centre. A randomized scheduled was used to capture a representative breadth of handovers. Data collected included outcome measures such as duration of handover, structure of the handover, and information shared, process measures such as questions and interruptions from the trauma team, and perceptions of the handover from nurses, trauma team leaders and EMS according to a bidirectional Likert scale.Results79 formal verbal handovers were observed. Information was often missing regarding airway (present 22%), breathing (54%), medications (59%), and allergies (54%). Handover structure lacked consistency beyond the order of identification and mechanism of injury. Of all questions asked, 35% were questioning previously given information. The majority of handovers (61%) involved parallel conversations between team members while EMS was speaking. There was a statistically significant disparity between the self-evaluation of EMS handovers and the perceived quality determined by nurses and trauma team leaders.ConclusionsWe have identified the need to standardize handover due to poor information content, a lack of structure and active listening, information repetition, and discordant expectations between team members. These data will guide the development of a co-constructed framework integrating the perspectives of all team members.

No abstract