ObjectivesTo evaluate the changes in productivity when scribes were used by emergency physicians in emergency departments in Australia and assess the effect of scribes on throughput.DesignRandomised, multicentre clinical trial.SettingFive emergency departments in Victoria used Australian trained scribes during their respective trial periods. Sites were broadly representative of Australian emergency departments: public (urban, tertiary, regional referral, paediatric) and private, not for profit.Participants88 physicians who were permanent, salaried employees working more than one shift a week and were either emergency consultants or senior registrars in their final year of training; 12 scribes trained at one site and rotated to each study site.InterventionsPhysicians worked their routine shifts and were randomly allocated a scribe for the duration of their shift. Each site required a minimum of 100 scribed and non-scribed shifts, from November 2015 to January 2018.Main outcome measuresPhysicians’ productivity (total patients, primary patients); patient throughput (door-to-doctor time, length of stay); physicians’ productivity in emergency department regions. Self reported harms of scribes were analysed, and a cost-benefit analysis was done.ResultsData were collected from 589 scribed shifts (5098 patients) and 3296 non-scribed shifts (23 838 patients). Scribes increased physicians’ productivity from 1.13 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.17) to 1.31 (1.25 to 1.38) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 15.9% gain. Primary consultations increased from 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) to 1.04 (0.98 to 1.11) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 25.6% gain. No change was seen in door-to-doctor time. Median length of stay reduced from 192 (interquartile range 108-311) minutes to 173 (96-208) minutes, representing a 19 minute reduction (P<0.001). The greatest gains were achieved by placing scribes with senior doctors at triage, the least by using them in sub-acute/fast track regions. No significant harm involving scribes was reported. The cost-benefit analysis based on productivity and throughput gains showed a favourable financial position with use of scribes.ConclusionsScribes improved emergency physicians’ productivity, particularly during primary consultations, and decreased patients’ length of stay. Further work should evaluate the role of the scribe in countries with health systems similar to Australia’s.Trial registrationACTRN12615000607572 (pilot site); ACTRN12616000618459.

Objective: To determine the type and nature of incidents occurring within medical imaging settings in Australia and identify strategies that could be engaged to reduce the risk of their re-occurrence.Methods: 71 search terms, related to clinical handover and communication, were applied to 3976 incidents in the Radiology Events Register. Detailed classification and thematic analysis of a subset of incidents that involved handover or communication (n5298) were undertaken to identify the most prevalent types of error and to make recommendations about patient safety initiatives in medical imaging.Results: Incidents occurred most frequently during patient preparation (34%), when requesting imaging (27%) and when communicating a diagnosis (23%). Frequent problems within each of these stages of the imaging cycle included: inadequate handover of patients (41%) or unsafe or inappropriate transfer of the patient to or from medical imaging (35%); incorrect information on the request form (52%); and delayed communication of a diagnosis (36%) or communication of a wrong diagnosis (36%). Conclusion:The handover of patients and clinical information to and from medical imaging is fraught with error, often compromising patient safety and resulting in communication of delayed or wrong diagnoses, unnecessary radiation exposure and a waste of limited resources. Corrective strategies to address safety concerns related to new information

Importance Few prior studies have described the epidemiology of uveitis in the Australian population. Background To report the incidence and period prevalence of active uveitis in Melbourne and detail their subtypes and aetiologies. Design Cross‐sectional study using retrospective medical record review in a tertiary hospital. Participants Patients with a coded diagnosis of uveitis who attended the emergency department or specialist ocular immunology clinic at the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital between November 2014 through October 2015 (N = 1752). Methods Medical records were reviewed to confirm the date of diagnosis and subtype of uveitis. Incidence and prevalence rates were calculated utilizing estimates of the adult population residing in areas of greater Melbourne with more than 30 ocular‐related presentations to the emergency department annually. Main Outcomes and Measures Presence and date of onset, anatomical distribution and aetiology of uveitis. Results During the study period, 734 new cases of uveitis and 502 cases of pre‐existing uveitis requiring active treatment were confirmed. These figures yielded an incidence of 21.54 (CI 20.03, 23.15) per 100 000 person‐years and a period prevalence of 36.27 (CI 34.30, 38.35) per 100 000 persons. The distribution of prevalent uveitis cases was anterior (75%), intermediate (6%), posterior (15%) and panuveitis (4%). An infectious aetiology accounted for 13.4% of cases, a systemic associated disease for 26.4% of cases, and no cause was identified in 60.2% of cases. Conclusion and Relevance The incidence and prevalence rates of uveitis in urban Australia were lower than recent studies from the United States and Europe.

Background: Medical-specific incident reporting systems are critical to understanding error in healthcare but underreporting by doctors reduces their value. Objective: We conducted a pilot study of the implementation of an online EDspecific incident reporting system in Australasian hospitals and evaluated its use. Methods: The reporting system was based on the literature and input of experts. Thirty-one hospital EDs were approached to pilot the Emergency Medicine Events Register (EMER). The pilot evaluated: website usage and analytics, reporting behaviours and rates, the quality of information collected in EMER. Semi-structured interviews of three site champions responsible for implementing EMER were conducted. Results: Seventeen EDs expressed interest; however, due to delays and other barriers reporting only occurred at three sites. Over 354 days, the website received 362 unique visitors and 77 incidents. The median time to report was 4.6 min. The reporting rate was 0.07 reports per doctor month, suggesting a reporting rate of 0.08% of ED presentations. Data quality, as measured by the number of completed nonmandatory fields and ability to clas-