Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) is a part of resuscitation of trauma patients recommended by international panel consensus. The purpose of FAST is to identify free fluid, which necessarily means blood in acute trauma patients. In this article, the authors focused on various aspects of FAST in the emergency department, prehospital care, pediatric setting, training and general pearls/pitfalls. Detailed techniques and interpretation of FAST are beyond the scope of this article.

This study aims to evaluate the mobile emergency severity index (ESI) tool in terms of validity compared with the original ESI triage. The original ESI and mobile ESI were used with patients at the Department of Emergency Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Thailand. Eligible patients were evaluated by sixth-year medical students/emergency physicians using either the original or mobile ESI. The ESI results for each patient were compared with the standard ESI. Concordance and kappa statistics were calculated for pairs of the evaluators. There were 486 patients enrolled in the study; 235 patients (48.4%) were assessed using the mobile ESI, and 251 patients (51.6%) were in the original ESI group. The baseline characteristics of patients in both groups were mostly comparable except for the ED visit time. The percentages of concordance and kappa statistics in the original ESI group were lower than in the mobile group in all three comparisons (medical students vs gold standard, emergency physicians vs gold standard, and medical students vs emergency physicians). The highest kappa in the original ESI group is 0.69, comparing emergency physicians vs gold standard, while the lowest kappa in the application group is 0.84 comparing the medical students vs gold standard. Both medical students and emergency physicians are more confident with the mobile ESI application triage. In conclusion, the mobile ESI has better inter-rater reliability, and is more user-friendly than the original paper form.

Background. Ruptured appendicitis has a high morbidity and mortality and requires immediate surgery. The Alvarado Score is used as a tool to predict the risk of acute appendicitis, but there is no such score for predicting rupture. This study aimed to develop the prediction score to determine the likelihood of ruptured appendicitis in an Asian population. Methods. This study was a diagnostic, retrospective cross-sectional study in the Emergency Medicine Department of Ramathibodi Hospital between March 2016 and March 2018. The inclusion criteria were age >15 years and an available pathology report after appendectomy. Clinical factors included gender, age>60 years, right lower quadrant pain, migratory pain, nausea and/or vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, fever>37.3°C, rebound tenderness, guarding, white blood cell count, polymorphonuclear white blood cells (PMN) > 75%, and pain duration before presentation. The predictive model and prediction score for ruptured appendicitis were developed by multivariable logistic regression analysis. Result. During the study period, 480 patients met the inclusion criteria; of these, 77 (16%) had ruptured appendicitis. Five independent factors were predictive of rupture, age>60 years, fever>37.3°C, guarding, PMN>75%, and duration of pain>24 hours to presentation. A score >6 increased the likelihood ratio of ruptured appendicitis by 3.88 times. Conclusion. Using the Ramathibodi Welawat Ruptured Appendicitis Score (RAMA WeRA Score) developed in this study, a score of >6 was associated with ruptured appendicitis.