Although the sensitivity and specificity of the Duke criteria for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) have been validated by investigators from Europe and the United States, several shortcomings of this schema remain. The Duke IE database contains records collected prospectively on >800 cases of definite and possible IE since 1984. Databases on echocardiograms and on patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia at Duke University Medical Center are also maintained. Analyses of these databases, our experience with the Duke criteria in clinical practice, and analysis of the work of others have led us to propose the following modifications of the Duke schema. The category "possible IE" should be defined as having at least 1 major criterion and 1 minor criterion or 3 minor criteria. The minor criterion "echocardiogram consistent with IE but not meeting major criterion" should be eliminated, given the widespread use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Bacteremia due to S. aureus should be considered a major criterion, regardless of whether the infection is nosocomially acquired or whether a removable source of infection is present. Positive Q-fever serology should be changed to a major criterion.

No abstract

Our group has developed a ‘Step Up’ approach to the application of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in a rural trauma system. This incorporates viewing REBOA as a spectrum of technology. Examples of REBOA technology use to improve outcomes and provision of our system’s clinical practice guideline for the Step-Up application of REBOA technology in the care of trauma patients are presented.

No abstract

IntroductionIn June 2016, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Quality Network began its Reduce Avoidable Imaging Initiative, designed to “reduce testing and imaging with low risk patients through the implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations.” However, it is unknown whether New England emergency departments (ED) have already implemented evidence-based interventions to improve adherence to ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations related to imaging after their initial release in 2013. Our objective was to determine this, as well as whether provider-specific audit and feedback for imaging had been implemented in these EDs.MethodsThis survey study was exempt from institutional review board review. In 2015, we mailed surveys to 195 hospital-affiliated EDs in all six New England states to determine whether they had implemented Choosing Wisely-focused interventions in 2014. Initial mailings included cover letters denoting the endorsement of each state’s ACEP chapter, and we followed up twice with repeat mailings to non-responders. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and a comparison of state differences using Fisher’s exact test.ResultsA total of 169/195 (87%) of New England EDs responded, with all individual state response rates >80%. Overall, 101 (60%) of responding EDs had implemented an intervention for at least one Choosing Wisely imaging scenario; 57% reported implementing a specific guideline/policy/clinical pathway and 28% reported implementing a computerized decision support system. The most common interventions were for chest computed tomography (CT) in patients at low risk of pulmonary embolism (47% of EDs) and head CT in patients with minor trauma (45% of EDs). In addition, 40% of EDs had implemented provider-specific audit and feedback, without significant interstate variation (range: 29–55%).ConclusionOne year after release of the ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations, most New England EDs had a guideline/policy/clinical pathway related to at least one of the recommendations. However, only a minority of them were using provider-specific audit and feedback or computerized decision support. Few EDs have embraced the opportunity to implement the multiple evidence-based interventions likely to advance the national goals of improving patient-centered and resource-efficient care.