IntroductionEstimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of sex trafficking victims live in the United States. Several screening tools for healthcare professionals to identify sex trafficking victims have been proposed, but the effectiveness of these tools in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Our primary objective in this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a screening survey to identify adult victims of sex trafficking in the ED. We also compared the sensitivity of emergency physician concern and a screening survey for identifying sex trafficking victims in the ED and determined the most effective question(s) for identifying adult victims of sex trafficking.MethodsWe enrolled a convenience sample of medically stable female ED patients, age 18–40 years. Patients completed a 14-question survey. Physician concern for sex trafficking was documented prior to informing the physician of the survey results. A “yes” answer to any question or physician concern was considered a positive screen, and the patient was offered social work consultation. We defined a “true positive” as a patient admission for or social work documentation of sex trafficking. Demographic and clinical information were collected from the electronic medical record.ResultsWe enrolled 143 patients, and of those 39 (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [20%–35%]) screened positive, including 10 (25%, 95% CI [13%–41%]) ultimately identified as victims of sex trafficking. Sensitivity of the screening survey (100%, 95% CI [74%–100%]) was better than physician concern (40%, 95% CI [12%–74%]) for identifying victims of sex trafficking, difference 60%, 95% CI [30%–90%]. Physician specificity (91%, 95% CI [85%–95%]), however, was slightly better than the screening survey (78%, 95% CI [70%–85%]), difference 13%, 95% CI [4%–21%]. All 10 (100%, 95%CI [74%–100%]) “true positive” cases answered “yes” to the screening question regarding abuse.ConclusionIdentifying adult victims of sex trafficking in the ED is feasible. A screening survey appears to have greater sensitivity than physician concern, and a single screening question may be sufficient to identify all adult victims of sex trafficking in the ED.
We present a case of vertebral osteomyelitis in a previously healthy, adolescent Caucasian female athlete. After months of lower back pain, spinal imaging demonstrated phlegmon and suspected osteomyelitis of the L4 vertebral body. A bone biopsy was obtained, and microbiologic cultures yielded pure growth of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Poona ( S. Poona), a member of the nontyphoid Salmonella group associated with food-borne gastroenteritis in the United States. This case represents the first reported association of S. Poona with osteomyelitis and is interesting in that the infection developed in a patient without traditional risk factors for invasive Salmonella disease (i.e. sickle cell disease). This case highlights the importance of keeping a broad differential diagnosis for lower back pain and emphasizes the value of obtaining specimens for microbiologic culture to aid in diagnosing non-traditional and potentially emerging bacterial pathogens.
Two attendings began loupes-only microsurgery after starting at our institution. Among 273 flaps done in years one through three after transitioning to loupes-only microsurgery, there was no significant difference in loss rate between years 1 and 2 (1.6% vs. 1.0%, p=0.62) or years 1 and 3 (1.6% vs. 0.9%, p=0.59). CONCLUSIONS:Loupes-only microsurgery is a safe alternative to the operating microscope for free flap breast reconstruction using the deep inferior epigastric system. Our total flap loss rate of 1.2% in 1,649 flaps is at the low end of acceptable, published flap loss rates. There is no substantial learning curve with this technique. Further research should focus on financial ramifications of loupes-only microsurgery, including extension of practice to the community setting and alteration in total operative time. The ergonomics of loupes-only microsurgery also merits investigation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.