ObjectivesDizziness and vertigo account for about 4 million emergency department (ED) visits annually in the United States, and some 160,000 to 240,000 (4% to 6%) have cerebrovascular causes. Stroke diagnosis in ED patients with vertigo/dizziness is challenging because the majority have no obvious focal neurologic signs at initial presentation. The authors sought to compare the accuracy of two previously published approaches purported to be useful in bedside screening for possible stroke in dizziness: a clinical decision rule (head impulse, nystagmus type, test of skew [HINTS]) and a risk stratification rule (age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of symptoms, diabetes [ABCD2]).MethodsThis was a cross‐sectional study of high‐risk patients (more than one stroke risk factor) with acute vestibular syndrome (AVS; acute, persistent vertigo or dizziness with nystagmus, plus nausea or vomiting, head motion intolerance, and new gait unsteadiness) at a single academic center. All underwent neurootologic examination, neuroimaging (97.4% by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), and follow‐up. ABCD2 risk scores (0–7 points), using the recommended cutoff of ≥4 for stroke, were compared to a three‐component eye movement battery (HINTS). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR–) were assessed for stroke and other central causes, and the results were stratified by age. False‐negative initial neuroimaging was also assessed.ResultsA total of 190 adult AVS patients were assessed (1999–2012). Median age was 60.5 years (range = 18 to 92 years; interquartile range [IQR] = 52.0 to 70.0 years); 60.5% were men. Final diagnoses were vestibular neuritis (34.7%), posterior fossa stroke (59.5% [105 infarctions, eight hemorrhages]), and other central causes (5.8%). Median ABCD2 was 4.0 (range = 2 to 7; IQR = 3.0 to 4.0). ABCD2 ≥ 4 for stroke had sensitivity of 61.1%, specificity of 62.3%, LR+ of 1.62, and LR– of 0.62; sensitivity was lower for those younger than 60 years old (28.9%). HINTS stroke sensitivity was 96.5%, specificity was 84.4%, LR+ was 6.19, and LR– was 0.04 and did not vary by age. For any central lesion, sensitivity was 96.8%, specificity was 98.5%, LR+ was 63.9, and LR– was 0.03 for HINTS, and sensitivity was 99.2%, specificity was 97.0%, LR+ was 32.7, and LR– was 0.01 for HINTS “plus” (any new hearing loss added to HINTS). Initial MRIs were falsely negative in 15 of 105 (14.3%) infarctions; all but one was obtained before 48 hours after onset, and all were confirmed by delayed MRI.ConclusionsHINTS substantially outperforms ABCD2 for stroke diagnosis in ED patients with AVS. It also outperforms MRI obtained within the first 2 days after symptom onset. While HINTS testing has traditionally been performed by specialists, methods for empowering emergency physicians (EPs) to leverage this approach for stroke screening in dizziness should be investigated.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives. Diagnostic errors are a known patient safety concern across all clinical settings, including the emergency department (ED). We conducted a systematic review to determine the most frequent diseases and clinical presentations associated with diagnostic errors (and resulting harms) in the ED, measure error and harm frequency, as well as assess causal factors. Methods. We searched PubMed®, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL®), and Embase® from January 2000 through September 2021. We included research studies and targeted grey literature reporting diagnostic errors or misdiagnosis-related harms in EDs in the United States or other developed countries with ED care deemed comparable by a technical expert panel. We applied standard definitions for diagnostic errors, misdiagnosis-related harms (adverse events), and serious harms (permanent disability or death). Preventability was determined by original study authors or differences in harms across groups. Two reviewers independently screened search results for eligibility; serially extracted data regarding common diseases, error/harm rates, and causes/risk factors; and independently assessed risk of bias of included studies. We synthesized results for each question and extrapolated U.S. estimates. We present 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) or plausible range (PR) bounds, as appropriate. Results. We identified 19,127 citations and included 279 studies. The top 15 clinical conditions associated with serious misdiagnosis-related harms (accounting for 68% [95% CI 66 to 71] of serious harms) were (1) stroke, (2) myocardial infarction, (3) aortic aneurysm and dissection, (4) spinal cord compression and injury, (5) venous thromboembolism, (6/7 – tie) meningitis and encephalitis, (6/7 – tie) sepsis, (8) lung cancer, (9) traumatic brain injury and traumatic intracranial hemorrhage, (10) arterial thromboembolism, (11) spinal and intracranial abscess, (12) cardiac arrhythmia, (13) pneumonia, (14) gastrointestinal perforation and rupture, and (15) intestinal obstruction. Average disease-specific error rates ranged from 1.5 percent (myocardial infarction) to 56 percent (spinal abscess), with additional variation by clinical presentation (e.g., missed stroke average 17%, but 4% for weakness and 40% for dizziness/vertigo). There was also wide, superimposed variation by hospital (e.g., missed myocardial infarction 0% to 29% across hospitals within a single study). An estimated 5.7 percent (95% CI 4.4 to 7.1) of all ED visits had at least one diagnostic error. Estimated preventable adverse event rates were as follows: any harm severity (2.0%, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.6), any serious harms (0.3%, PR 0.1 to 0.7), and deaths (0.2%, PR 0.1 to 0.4). While most disease-specific error rates derived from mainly U.S.-based studies, overall error and harm rates were derived from three prospective studies conducted outside the United States (in Canada, Spain, and Switzerland, with combined n=1,758). If overall rates are generalizable to all U.S. ED visits (130 million, 95% CI 116 to 144), this would translate to 7.4 million (PR 5.1 to 10.2) ED diagnostic errors annually; 2.6 million (PR 1.1 to 5.2) diagnostic adverse events with preventable harms; and 371,000 (PR 142,000 to 909,000) serious misdiagnosis-related harms, including more than 100,000 permanent, high-severity disabilities and 250,000 deaths. Although errors were often multifactorial, 89 percent (95% CI 88 to 90) of diagnostic error malpractice claims involved failures of clinical decision-making or judgment, regardless of the underlying disease present. Key process failures were errors in diagnostic assessment, test ordering, and test interpretation. Most often these were attributed to inadequate knowledge, skills, or reasoning, particularly in “atypical” or otherwise subtle case presentations. Limitations included use of malpractice claims and incident reports for distribution of diseases leading to serious harms, reliance on a small number of non-U.S. studies for overall (disease-agnostic) diagnostic error and harm rates, and methodologic variability across studies in measuring disease-specific rates, determining preventability, and assessing causal factors. Conclusions. Although estimated ED error rates are low (and comparable to those found in other clinical settings), the number of patients potentially impacted is large. Not all diagnostic errors or harms are preventable, but wide variability in diagnostic error rates across diseases, symptoms, and hospitals suggests improvement is possible. With 130 million U.S. ED visits, estimated rates for diagnostic error (5.7%), misdiagnosis-related harms (2.0%), and serious misdiagnosis-related harms (0.3%) could translate to more than 7 million errors, 2.5 million harms, and 350,000 patients suffering potentially preventable permanent disability or death. Over two-thirds of serious harms are attributable to just 15 diseases and linked to cognitive errors, particularly in cases with “atypical” manifestations. Scalable solutions to enhance bedside diagnostic processes are needed, and these should target the most commonly misdiagnosed clinical presentations of key diseases causing serious harms. New studies should confirm overall rates are representative of current U.S.-based ED practice and focus on identified evidence gaps (errors among common diseases with lower-severity harms, pediatric ED errors and harms, dynamic systems factors such as overcrowding, and false positives). Policy changes to consider based on this review include: (1) standardizing measurement and research results reporting to maximize comparability of measures of diagnostic error and misdiagnosis-related harms; (2) creating a National Diagnostic Performance Dashboard to track performance; and (3) using multiple policy levers (e.g., research funding, public accountability, payment reforms) to facilitate the rapid development and deployment of solutions to address this critically important patient safety concern.

Objectives With clinical use of high‐sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), more frequent troponin elevations will occur. However, the burden and implications of these elevations are not well understood. The authors quantified the prevalence of elevated hsTnI in patients presenting with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who do not have elevated troponin with a current generation assay (cardiac troponin I [cTnI]) and determined the association of these newly detected elevations with a composite of all‐cause mortality and subsequent cardiac hospitalization. Methods This was a prospective observational study of 808 subjects evaluated for possible ACS and followed for up to 1 year. Troponin values were measured with hsTnI (Abbott Laboratories) and cTnI (Abbott and Beckman Coulter). Cardiac hospitalization was defined as hospitalization for ACS, revascularization, acute heart failure (AHF), or tachy/brady arrhythmia that occurred after the index emergency department (ED) visit or hospital discharge. Results Forty subjects (5%) were diagnosed with ACS (26 myocardial infarction and 14 unstable angina). On the initial sample, the prevalence of elevated hsTnI among subjects with nonelevated cTnI was 9.2% using a gender‐neutral cutoff (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.1% to 11.4%) and 11.1% using a gender‐specific cutoff (95% CI = 8.8% to 13.4%). Adjudicated diagnoses for subjects whose initial samples had elevated hsTnI but nonelevated cTnI (gender‐neutral cutoff) were as follows: three (4.6%) ACS, 15 (23.1%) AHF, three (4.6%) volume overload etiology unclear/noncardiac, three (4.6%) cardiac (non‐ACS), and 41 (63.1%) other. Of the 65 patients whose initial samples had hsTnI but nonelevated cTnI, eight developed cTnI elevation on subsequent serial sampling. After traditional cardiovascular risk factors and renal function were adjusted for, subjects with elevated initial hsTnI but nonelevated cTnI (initial and serial sampling) had a higher risk of all‐cause mortality and subsequent cardiac hospitalization than subjects with both nonelevated hsTnI and nonelevated cTnI (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.14 to 3.19). Conclusions On the initial sample, 9% to 11% of subjects without cTnI elevation had hsTnI elevation. Although the majority of the patients with these newly detected hsTnI elevations did not have ACS, they had a higher risk for all‐cause mortality and subsequent cardiac hospitalization.

The incidence of SIDS has decreased by 40% since the Back to Sleep campaign was initiated. However, the rate of SIDS in the District of Columbia continues to be approximately double the national rate. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and determinants of prone sleeping among infants in the District of Columbia and to ascertain what information is being provided to parents by health care professionals by a cross-sectional survey of parents of infants 0-6 months of age presenting for well child care at Children's Health Center, Children's National Medical Center, in Washington, DC. We recruited a consecutive sample of 126 parent-infant pairs, of which 92.9% were African-American. The average infant was 73 days old, was 3,003 grams at birth, and was full term. When asked how the infants were placed for sleep the night before the interview, 34.1 % of parents had placed the infant supine, 50.8% side, and 15.1% prone. Nearly half (48%) of infants slept in an adult bed with the mother. More than one third of the infants had been placed prone for sleep at least once since hospital discharge. Most common reasons for sleeping supine included SIDS risk reduction or health care professional advice. Side sleepers did so primarily because of concern about vomiting, health care provider advice, or SIDS. Infants were placed prone primarily because the infant slept better. When asked about information received from a health care provider, 70.6% of parents stated that they had received information about sleep position and 64.3% about the hazards of passive smoking. Eight parents observed nursery personnel placing their infants prone. Only 16.7% of the total study population had received a Back to Sleep brochure, read it, and recalled that it recommended back sleeping. Infants were more likely to sleep prone if there was a grandparent in the home (OR 2.9, p<0.05) or if they were the firstborn (OR 2.17, p<0.05). Infants were more likely to sleep supine if parents had heard a back recommendation from a health care professional (OR 5.7, p<0.001). Infants were least likely to sleep supine if the parents had heard a side or a side/back recommendation (OR 0.26, p=0.001). Infant sleep position was not ter, reading the Back to Sleep brochure. In conclusion, more than one third (35.7%) of infants in this predominantly African-American population have been placed prone for sleep at least once; 15% slept prone the night before the interview. Almost one third of parents received no information about sleep position, but parents receiving a verbal supine recommendation were most likely to place their infant supine. Receiving written information did not affect sleep position. Improved educational efforts for parents of African-American newborns should continue to focus on encouraging supine positioning, smoke cessation, and other safe sleep practices.

Introduction The objective of this study was to review and critically appraise the medical education literature pertaining to a flipped-classroom (FC) education model, and to highlight influential papers that inform our current understanding of the role of the FC in medical education. Methods A search of the English-language literature querying Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsychINFO, PubMed, and Scopus identified 296 papers related to the FC using either quantitative, qualitative, or review methods. Two reviewers independently screened each category of publications using previously established exclusion criteria. Eight reviewers then independently scored the remaining 54 publications using either a qualitative, quantitative, or review-paper scoring system. Each scoring system consisted of nine criteria and used parallel metrics that have been previously used in critical appraisals of education research. Results A total of 54 papers (33 quantitative, four qualitative, and 17 review) on FC met a priori criteria for inclusion and were critically appraised and reviewed. The top 10 highest scoring articles (five quantitative studies, two qualitative studies, and three review papers) are summarized in this article. Conclusion This installment of the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) Academy Critical Appraisal series highlights 10 papers that describe the current state of literature on the flipped classroom, including an analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of an FC approach, practical implications for emergency medicine educators, and next steps for future research.

Background As medical infrastructures are strained by SARS-CoV-2, rapid and accurate screening tools are essential. In portions of the world, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing remains slow and in limited supply, and computed tomography is expensive, inefficient, and involves exposure to ionizing radiation. Multiple studies evaluating the efficiency of lung point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) have been published recently, but include relatively small cohorts and often focus on characteristics associated with severe illness rather than screening efficacy. This study utilizes a retrospective cohort to evaluate the test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, predictive values) of lung POCUS in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, and to determine lung score cutoffs that maximize performance for use as a screening tool. Results Lung POCUS examinations had sensitivity 86%, specificity 71.6%, NPV 81.7%, and PPV 77.7%. The Lung Ultrasound Score had an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.78, 0.90). When including only complete examinations visualizing 12 lung fields, lung POCUS had sensitivity 90.9% and specificity 75.6%, with NPV 87.2% and PPV 82.0% and an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI 0.83, 0.96). Lung POCUS was less accurate in patients with a history of interstitial lung disease, severe emphysema, and heart failure. Conclusions When applied in the appropriate patient population, lung POCUS is an inexpensive and reliable tool for rapid screening and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients with influenza-like illness. Adoption of lung POCUS screening for SARS-CoV-2 may identify patients who do not require additional testing and reduce the need for RT-PCR testing in resource-limited environments and during surge periods.