Introduction Barrier enclosure devices were introduced to protect against infectious disease transmission during aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMP). Recent discussion in the medical community has led to new designs and adoption despite limited evidence. A scoping review was conducted to characterize devices being used and their performance. Methods We conducted a scoping review of formal databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Scopus), grey literature, and hand-searched relevant journals. Forward and reverse citation searching was completed on included articles. Article/full-text screening and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorized by publication type, device category, intended medical use, and outcomes (efficacy – ability to contain particles; efficiency – time to complete AGMP; and usability – user experience). Results Searches identified 6489 studies and 123 met criteria for inclusion (k = 0.81 title/abstract, k = 0.77 full-text). Most articles were published in 2020 (98%, n = 120) as letters/commentaries (58%, n = 71). Box systems represented 42% ( n = 52) of systems described, while plastic sheet systems accounted for 54% ( n = 66). The majority were used for airway management (67%, n = 83). Only half of articles described outcome measures (54%, n = 67); 82% ( n = 55) reporting efficacy, 39% ( n = 26) on usability, and 15% ( n = 10) on efficiency. Efficacy of devices in containing aerosols was limited and frequently dependent on use of suction devices. Conclusions While use of various barrier enclosure devices has become widespread during this pandemic, objective data of efficacy, efficiency, and usability is limited. Further controlled studies are required before adoption into routine clinical practice.

IntroductionThe use of search engines and online social media (OSM) websites by healthcare providers is increasing and may even be used to search for patient information. This raises several ethical issues. The objective of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of OSM and web-searching for patient information and to explore attitudes towards the ethical appropriateness of these practices by physicians and trainees in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe conducted an online survey study of Canadian emergency physicians and trainees listed under then Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) and senior medical students at the University of Toronto.ResultsWe received 530 responses (response rate 49.1%): 34.9% medical students, 15.5% residents, 49.6% staff physicians. Most had an active Facebook account (74%). Sixty-four participants (13.5%) had used Google to research a patient and 10 (2.1%) had searched for patients on Facebook. There were no differences in these results based on level of training, and 25% of physicians considered using Facebook to learn about a patient “very unethical.” The most frequent ethical concerns were with violation of patient confidentiality, dignity, and consent. The practice was usually not disclosed to patients (14%), but often disclosed to senior colleagues (83%).ConclusionThis is the first study examining the prevalence of and attitudes towards online searching for obtaining patient information in the ED. This practice occurs among staff physicians and trainees despite ethical concerns. Future work should explore the utility and desirability of searching for patient information online.

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding has been associated with adverse events, including short-term death and hospitalization among discharged patients. The mechanisms are poorly understood, but may include altered physician decision-making about ED discharge of higher-risk patients. One example is patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke, who are at high risk of subsequent stroke. While hospitalization is frequently recommended, little consensus exists on which patients require admission.

Although women with ischemic stroke or TIA are less likely than men to undergo carotid screening and revascularization, this difference is largely explained by potential contraindications to surgery and by sex differences in the severity of carotid disease.

No abstract

Facebook and social media networking applications use is ubiquitous across all ages and cultures. Facebook has finally begun to appear in the medical-scientific press. Today's medical literature is focused on concerns of professionalism in young health care practitioners vis-à-vis the lay public as they continuously expose themselves through this online social medium. With over 500 million users, Facebook hosts many of our patients, who are also exposed to the Internet and social media. Nobody so far has considered the opposite issue: that of physician invasion of privacy by ''looking-up'' a patient on Facebook during clinical practice for purposes of history-taking or diagnostic clues in situations where patients are too ill to provide needed information. We need to consider the ethical implications of privacy invasion in the current era of information technology. We need to acquire and maintain a certain level of ''social media competency'' to better debate the issues around Facebook and how we integrate on-line content with our patients' histories of present illness (HPI) or past medical histories (if at all).

Health document entitled, "Setting Priorities for the Health Care System," the KGH Medical Staff Rules, and the B.C. Health Quality Matrix occurred. A summary presentation to the full ED on change management and leadership in residency occurred at completion. Conclusion: This innovative leadership and administration elective was the culmination of a need to see more formal post graduate leadership training in residency. The rotation was based on the CanMEDS framework, particularly the "leader" competency, and was based on recent evidence regarding leadership and administration competencies in emergency medicine. We hope this serves as a potential model for other rotation based electives or core rotations that desire to blend leadership competencies with clinical emergency medicine.

Funding and support: By JACEP Open policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist.