Objective:To examine the effect of emergency immobilization on neurologic outcome of patients who have blunt traumatic spinal injuries. Methods: A 5-year retrospective chart review was carried out at 2 university hospitals. All patients with acute blunt traumatic spinal or spinal cord injuries transported directly from the injury site to the hospital were entered. None of the 120 patients seen at the University of Malaya had spinal immobilization during transport, whereas all 334 patients seen at the University of New Mexico did. The 2 hospitals were comparable in physician training and clinical resources. Neurologic injuries were assigned to 2 categories, disabling or not disabling, by 2 physicians acting independently and blinded to the hospital of origin. Data were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression, with hospital location, patient age, gender, anatomic level of injury, and injury mechanism serving as explanatory variables. Results: There was less neurologic disability in the unimmobilized Malaysian patients (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.03-3.99; p = 0.04). This corresponds to a ~2 % chance that immobilization has any beneficial effect. Results were similar when the analysis was limited to patients with cervical injuries (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.64-3.62; p = 0.34). Conclusion: Out-of-hospital immobilization has little or no effect on neurologic outcome in patients with blunt spinal injuries.

The chief complaint is a patient's self-reported primary reason for presenting for medical care. The clinical utility and analytical importance of recording chief complaints have been widely accepted in highly developed emergency care systems, but this practice is far from universal in global emergency care, especially in limited-resource areas. It is precisely in these settings, however, that the use of chief complaints may have particular benefit. Chief complaints may be used to quantify, analyze, and plan for emergency care and provide valuable information on acute care needs where there are crucial data gaps. Globally, much work has been done to establish local practices around chief complaint collection and use, but no standards have been established and little work has been done to identify minimum effective sets of chief complaints that may be used in limited-resource settings. As part of the Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, "Global Health and Emergency Care: A Research Agenda," the breakout group on data management identified the lack of research on emergency chief complaints globally-especially in low-income countries where the highest proportion of the world's population resides-as a major gap in global emergency care research. This article reviews global research on emergency chief complaints in high-income countries with developed emergency care systems and sets forth an agenda for future research on chief complaints in limited-resource settings.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2013; 20:1241-1245 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine A ny analysis of emergency care must take account of a fundamental aspect of the presentation itself: the chief complaint. Despite the fact that the chief complaint is "the patient's reason for seeking care or attention, expressed in terms as close as possible to those used by [the] patient or responsible

The acute management of potential spinal injuries in trauma patients is undergoing radical reassessment. Until recently, it was mandatory that nearly all trauma patients be immobilized with a back board, hard cervical collar, head restraints, and body strapping until the spine could be cleared radiologically. This practice is still recommended by many references. It is now clear that this policy subjects most patients to expensive, painful, and potentially harmful treatment for little, if any, benefit. Low-risk patients can be safely cleared clinically, even by individuals who are not physicians. Patients at high risk for spinal instability should be removed from the hard surface to avoid tissue ischemia. Understanding the rationale for these changes requires knowledge of mechanisms of injury, physiology, and biomechanics as they apply to spinal injuries.

Background: Short-term experiences in global health (STEGH) are increasingly common in medical education, as they can provide learners with opportunities for service, learning, and sharing perspectives. Academic institutions need high-quality preparatory curricula and mentorship to prepare learners for potential challenges in ethics, cultural sensitivity, and personal safety; however, availability and quality of these are variable.Objective: The objective of this study is to create and evaluate an open-access, interactive massive open online course (MOOC) that prepares learners to safely and effectively participate in STEGH, permits flexible and asynchronous learning, is free of charge, and provides a certificate upon successful completion.Methods: Global health experts from 8 countries, 42 institutions, and 7 specialties collaborated to create The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Health (PGGH): the first course of this kind on the edX platform. Demographic data, pre- and posttests, and course evaluations were collected and analyzed.Results: Within its first year, PGGH enrolled 5935 learners from 163 countries. In a limited sample of 109 learners, mean posttest scores were significantly improved (p < 0.01). In the course’s second year, 213 sampled learners had significant improvement (p < 0.001).Conclusion: We created and evaluated the first interactive, asynchronous, free-of-charge global health preparation MOOC. The course has had significant interest from US-based and international learners, and posttest scores have shown significant improvement.

No abstract