Coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) outbreak is a public health emergency and a global pandemic. During the present coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis, telemedicine has been recommended to screen suspected patients to limit risk of exposure and maximise medical staff protection. We constructed the protective physical barrier with telemedicine technology to limit COVID-19 exposure in ED. Our hospital is an urban community hospital with annual ED volume of approximately 50 000 patients. We equipped our patient exam room with intercom and iPad for telecommunication. Based on our telemedicine screening protocol, physician can conduct a visual physical examination on stable patients via intercom or videoconference. Telemedicine was initially used to overcome the physical barrier between patients and physicians. However, our protocol is designed to create a protective physical barrier to protect healthcare workers and enhance efficiency in ED. The implementation can be a promising protocol in making ED care more cost-effective and efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Background The association between physician self-reported empathy and burnout has been studied in the past with diverse findings. We aimed to determine the association between empathy and burnout among United States emergency medicine (EM) physicians using a novel combination of tools for validation. Methods This was a prospective single-center observational study. Data were collected from EM physicians. From December 1, 2018 to January 31, 2019, we used the Jefferson scale of empathy (JSE) to assess physician empathy and the Copenhagen burnout inventory (CBI) to assess burnout. We divided EM physicians into different groups (residents in each year of training, junior/senior attendings). Empathy, burnout scores and their association were analyzed and compared among these groups. Results A total of 33 attending physicians and 35 EM residents participated in this study. Median self-reported empathy scores were 113 (interquartile range (IQR): 105 - 117) in post-graduate year (PGY)-1, 112 (90 - 115) in PGY-2, 106 (93 - 118) in PGY-3 EM residents, 112 (105 - 116) in junior and 114 (101 - 125) in senior attending physicians. Overall burnout scores were 43 (33 - 50) in PGY-1, 51 (29 - 56) in PGY-2, 43 (42 - 53) in PGY-3 EM residents, 33 (24 - 47) in junior attending and 25 (22 - 53) in senior attending physicians separately. The Spearman correlation (ρ) was -0.11 and β-weight was -0.23 between empathy and patient-related burnout scores. Conclusion Self-reported empathy declines over the course of EM residency training and improves after graduation. Overall high burnout occurs among EM residents and improves after graduation. Our analysis showed a weak negative correlation between self-reported empathy and patient-related burnout among EM physicians.

Introduction This study is aimed to investigate the association of intraosseous (IO) versus intravenous (IV) route during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from the database inception through April 2020. Our search strings included designed keywords for two concepts, i.e. vascular access and cardiac arrest. There were no limitations implemented in the search strategy. We selected studies comparing IO versus IV access in neurological or survival outcomes after OHCA. Favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was pre-specified as the primary outcome. We pooled the effect estimates in random-effects models and quantified the heterogeneity by the I2 statistics. Time to intervention, defined as time interval from call for emergency medical services to establishing vascular access or administering medications, was hypothesized to be a potential outcome moderator and examined in subgroup analysis with meta-regression. Results Nine retrospective observational studies involving 111,746 adult OHCA patients were included. Most studies were rated as high quality according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The pooled results demonstrated no significant association between types of vascular access and the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27–1.33; I2, 95%). In subgroup analysis, time to intervention was noted to be positively associated with the pooled OR of achieving the primary outcome (OR: 3.95, 95% CI, 1.42–11.02, p: 0.02). That is, when the studies not accounting for the variable of “time to intervention” in the statistical analysis were pooled together, the meta-analytic results between IO access and favourable outcomes would be biased toward inverse association. No obvious publication bias was detected by the funnel plot. Conclusions The meta-analysis revealed no significant association between types of vascular access and neurological outcomes at hospital discharge among OHCA patients. Time to intervention was identified to be an important outcome moderator in this meta-analysis of observation studies. These results call for the need for future clinical trials to investigate the unbiased effect of IO use on OHCA CPR.