Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

BackgroundDeploying accurate computable phenotypes in pragmatic trials requires a trade-off between precise and clinically sensical variable selection. In particular, evaluating the medical encounter to assess a pattern leading to clinically significant impairment or distress indicative of disease is a difficult modeling challenge for the emergency department.ObjectiveThis study aimed to derive and validate an electronic health record–based computable phenotype to identify emergency department patients with opioid use disorder using physician chart review as a reference standard.MethodsA two-algorithm computable phenotype was developed and evaluated using structured clinical data across 13 emergency departments in two large health care systems. Algorithm 1 combined clinician and billing codes. Algorithm 2 used chief complaint structured data suggestive of opioid use disorder. To evaluate the algorithms in both internal and external validation phases, two emergency medicine physicians, with a third acting as adjudicator, reviewed a pragmatic sample of 231 charts: 125 internal validation (75 positive and 50 negative), 106 external validation (56 positive and 50 negative).ResultsCohen kappa, measuring agreement between reviewers, for the internal and external validation cohorts was 0.95 and 0.93, respectively. In the internal validation phase, Algorithm 1 had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.96 (95% CI 0.863-0.995) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.98 (95% CI 0.893-0.999), and Algorithm 2 had a PPV of 0.8 (95% CI 0.593-0.932) and an NPV of 1.0 (one-sided 97.5% CI 0.863-1). In the external validation phase, the phenotype had a PPV of 0.95 (95% CI 0.851-0.989) and an NPV of 0.92 (95% CI 0.807-0.978).ConclusionsThis phenotype detected emergency department patients with opioid use disorder with high predictive values and reliability. Its algorithms were transportable across health care systems and have potential value for both clinical and research purposes.

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) since 1990 to advance evidence-based emergency care. ACEP clinical policies have drawn anecdotal criticism for bias, yet the overall quality of these guidelines has not previously been quantified. We sought to examine ACEP clinical policies using a recognized, validated appraisal instrument: Appraisal of Guideline for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II). Methods: Systematic assessment of current ACEP clinical policies using the AGREE II instrument, which contains 23 appraisal items (scored on a 1-7 scale) in six domains and two overall assessments. Each policy was independently appraised by five trained appraisers. Primary outcomes were AGREE II ratings for each item, domain, and "Overall Assessment," and scores were reported as standardized percentages from all five appraisers. Secondary analyses examined associations between AGREE II ratings and policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence, and strength of recommendations. Additional analysis examined relationships between domain and "Overall Assessment" ratings. Results: Twenty guidelines published from April 2007 to November 2017 were included. Of the six domains, "Scope and Purpose" scored highest (mean 90%) and "Applicability" scored lowest (mean 35%). The four remaining domains ("Stakeholder Involvement," "Rigor of Development,"

BackgroundThe delivery and initial resuscitation of a newborn infant are required but rarely practised skills in emergency medicine. Deliveries in the emergency department are high-risk events and deviations from best practices are associated with poor outcomes.IntroductionTelemedicine can provide emergency medicine providers real-time access to a Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP)-trained paediatric specialist. We hypothesised that adherence to NRP guidelines would be higher for participants with access to a remotely located NRP-trained paediatric specialist via telemedicine compared with participants without access.Materials and methodsProspective single-centre randomised trial. Emergency Medicine residents were randomised into a telemedicine or standard care group. The participants resuscitated a simulated, apnoeic and bradycardic neonate. In the telemedicine group a remote paediatric specialist participated in the resuscitation. Simulations were video recorded and assessed for adherence to guidelines using four critical actions. The secondary outcome of task load was measured through participants’ completion of the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and reviewers completed a detailed NRP checklist.ResultsTwelve participants were included. The use of telemedicine was associated with significantly improved adherence to three of the four critical actions reflecting NRP guidelines as well as a significant improvement in the overall score (p<0.001). On the NASA-TLX, no significant difference was seen in overall subjective workload assessment, but of the subscore components, frustration was statistically significantly greater in the control group (p<0.001).ConclusionsIn this study, telemedicine improved adherence to NRP guidelines. Future work is needed to replicate these findings in the clinical environment.

Introduction: Previous research has described technical aspects of telemedicine and the clinical impact of provider-topatient telemedicine; however, little is known about provider-to-provider telemedical interventions. Objective: The primary aim of this study was to compare two telemedicine delivery modes on the quality of a simulated neonatal resuscitation. Our secondary aim was to evaluate the providers' task load. Methods: This was a prospective, single-center, randomized, simulation-based trial comparing a remote neonatal team leader ("teleleader") versus a remote consultant ("teleconsultant"). Participants resuscitated a simulated, apneic, and bradycardic neonate. Performance was assessed by video review and task load was measured by the self-reported NASA task load index (NASA-TLX) tool. In the teleleader group, one remote neonatal specialist assumed the role of team leader in the resuscitation. In the teleconsultant group, the same remote specialist assumed the role of teleconsultant. Results: Twenty-two participants were included in the analyses. The teleleader group was associated with a higher overall checklist score compared to teleconsultants (median score 68%, interquartile range [IQR]: 66-69 vs. 58%, IQR: 42-62; p = 0.016). No significant difference was seen in overall subjective workload as measured by the NASA-TLX tool. However, mental demand and frustration were significantly greater with teleconsultants compared to teleleaders (mean mental demand: 14.1 vs. 17.0 out of 21; frustration: 7.9 vs. 14.7 out of 21). Conclusions: Simulated neonates randomized to teams with teleleaders received significantly better resuscitative care compared to those randomized to teams with teleconsultants. Mental demand and frustration were higher for providers in the teleconsultant compared to teleleader teams.