A System for the System – System Errors in the ED

The Gist: In addition to cognitive biases, systems errors are ubiquitous in the emergency department (ED).  Free Open Access Medical education (FOAM) has inspired me to realize that one may mitigate some of these errors to improve patient care/outcomes by vigilance.

As a fan of metacognition, I attempt to mitigate my cognitive errors through simple practices. A few months into residency, I occasionally find myself frustrated by systems-based errors.  Finally, something to blame other than myself!  As that attitude is not terribly productive, I've adopted steps to attempt to overcome these errors, something I foresee as an evolving and expanding process.

Systems-based errors: reflect flaws or problems with process that are part and parcel of the health care delivery system.  These errors are often rooted in inefficiencies, issues with coordination of care, and communication [1].
    Case #1:  A 54 y/o male presented to Janus General with fever to 38.8C, malaise, and weakness over the past 2 days. BP 126/82, HR 90. Patient had a PICC line to the right arm that appeared clean, status-post left hip wash out for septic arthritis 3 weeks prior.  I ordered labs and fluid, with plans for antibiotics.  Despite repeatedly checking for the lab results, they didn't appear.  Eventually, I called the lab - who reported receiving the specimens just minutes earlier as the hospital's tube delivery system had malfunctioned.  This resulted in another blood draw from the patient for a repeat lactate (which turned out to be 6), as the specimen was too old, a delay in more aggressive care, and a silly/guilty feeling doctor.  Studies demonstrate that delays in antibiotic administration impact mortality, so while the patient didn't appear to be in the sickest group of patients this still could have resulted in a bad outcome [2].  But, it's the system's fault, right?

    Things I try to do to mitigate systems errors:
    Communicate with nursing and support staff.  Oftentimes, they can help get things done more expeditiously or identify barriers to the proposed treatment plan.

    Call the lab, radiology, pharmacy, etc.  Many steps exist between placing an order for a diagnostic evaluation or intervention and the completion of the order and an error can occur at any point. Furthermore, it's anecdotal, but I've been impressed with how face-to-face or verbal discussion of the "why" or need for urgency can expedite care.

    Establish a consistent method to reassess patients/labs.  Time can fly in the ED and often our attention is divided by unexpected sick patients.  For example, we can handle a mostly stable GI bleeder, a septic patient, and a chest pain patient.  However, the minute one begins to crash or a code rolls in, our attention becomes divided and non-critical patients may be placed on the back-burner.  As a trainee, it's easy to think that a stable patient will remain stable but this isn't always the case.  Furthermore, interruptions are rampant in the ED and this forced shift in attention may lead to delays in reassessment [3].
    • Some keep running list of things in their pocket/workstation that need follow up.  A unique solution offered by Dr. Jeremy Faust - use Siri [4].  "Siri, remind me to re-examine room 4 in 30 minutes." 
    Beware of alarm fatigue.  Alarms constantly ring in the ED and pop up in the EMR - but on occasion, they actually mean something.  It's important to catch it when it does.

    Approach sign out with caution.  This area of emergency medicine has garnered much attention as it may lead to a hotbed of cognitive errors and the nature of sign-out can vary within the institution. Most of the literature revolves around the inpatient experience, but I think that the vulnerability of this process translates into the ED [5]. Physicians and hospitals approach sign out differently, but there's a call for increased standardization [6].  Consider standardizing your own approach.
    • Re-examine the patient, their vital signs, and crucial diagnostic/interventional endeavors.  
    • Tip from Dr. Jeremy Faust - start sign-out saying something along the lines of: I'm intentionally going to be a bit annoying, don't take it personally.  Then, aggressively go through the case. Two heads are better than one. 
    Reexamine information received from outside physicians/transferring facilities.  Information often gets left out or lost in the series of communications surrounding transfers in care or partial work ups - minimize this by utilizing the patient's data.
    • Take a gander at a patient's EKG or diagnostics for yourself.  The "sinus bradycardia" for suspected accidental beta-blocker overdose may actually be a high degree AV block or a radiograph may be revealing.  
    Establish a consistent method of follow up.  A myth exists that emergency physicians do not or should not follow up their patients.  As a result of the discontinuity of care, we will not typically see our mistakes unless we look for them. Check out the EM Res podcast on this topic.
    • In the EMR, I keep a list, by month, of patients I see in the ED so I can easily check up on patients.  This takes 1 extra click per patient but saves time attempting to recollect the name and has created the expectation within myself that I will follow up on some of those patients.
    • Consider a "bounceback" program.  This provides larger buy-in, but provides an invaluable educational opportunity.  At my institution, if a patient returns within 7 days, we receive a notification.  Oftentimes these are unpreventable (the daily drunk patient) or an indication that we provided good discharge instructions; however, more often than not there's a pearl for the future.
    Use the EMR or family members to get to know the patient.  In the ED we don't know (most of) our patients, which can create fragmented care and an incomplete picture of our patient.  Valuable information can be found in the EMR (ex: the patient does, in fact, have baseline confusion and left sided weakness) or from family members who may be able to explicitly detail how the patient is different from baseline.

    Case #2 (months later): A 51 y/o female presented to Janus General with cough, tachypnea, decreased oral intake.  Temperature 37.6C, BP 106/78, HR 136. Physical exam significant for tachypnea, rhonci in bilateral lung fields, and dry mucosa.  I discussed the plan with the nurse, emphasizing the patient's need for fluids and aggressive care.  The patient had no access and prior unsuccessful attempts, so the nurse quickly identified the need for ultrasound guidance.  Siri reminded me to check on the antibiotics and reassess the vital signs while suturing another patient.  The patient's vital signs, lactate, and clinical appearance normalized in the ED after several liters of fluid and the patient went on to do well.

    Are there problems with attempted fixes for systems errors?
    • Improvements will fade as time passes secondary to decreased awareness, other foci of improvement, and lessened enthusiasm [1]
    • Fixes may produce opportunities for more errors
    References:
    1. Graber M, Gordon R, Franklin N. Reducing diagnostic errors in medicine: what’s the goal? Acad. Med. 2002;77(10):981–92. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12377672.2.
    2.  Gaieski DF, Mikkelsen ME, Band RA,et al.  Impact of time to antibiotics on survival in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in whom early goal-directed therapy was initiated in the emergency departmentCrit Care Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):1045-53.
    3. Elson, Ordell. Emergency Department Workplace Interruptions: Are Emergency Physicians “‘Interrupt-driven’” and “‘Multitasking’”? Academic Emergency Medicine 2000;7(11):1239–1243.
    4.  Faust, JS. "The 'Sultan of Signout'" ACEP News. August 2013. p 12-13.
    5. Arora V, Johnson J, Lovinger D et al. Communication failures in patient sign-out and suggestions for improvement: a critical incident analysisQual Saf Health Care. 2005 December; 14(6): 401–407.
    6.  Dhingra KR, Elms A, Hobgood C. Reducing error in the emergency department: a call for standardization of the sign-out process. Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Dec;56(6):637-42.

    Tools in the ED – Clinical Decision Instrument Basics

    The Gist:  Clinical decision instruments (CDIs) are all the rage in Emergency Medicine, especially for trainees still developing gestalt; however, these tools often require proper understanding and finesse for correct utilization.  FOAM (Free Open Access Medical education) sources such as Dr. Radecki's posts on NEXUSPECARN abdominal trauma, and the Ottawa SAH Rule as well as Dr. Spiegel's post on the Ottawa SAH Rule have helped hone the way I think about and utilize decision aids. This editorial in Annals of Emergency Medicine (podcast here) is a concise, excellent synopsis of questions to ask when evaluating CDIs.

    CDIs are tools, not rules.  These are typically derived through statistical methods in discrete populations. While the tools then undergo validation, these aids are artificial creations to assist providers in decision making and are not infallible. In the words of Mel Herbert regarding CDIs in Oct 2013's EMRAP : "you don't need to slavishly follow them."

    What does the decision tool add to the clinical context?
    • Is the CDI better than clinician gestalt in pursuing work-up or treatment of a disease process?
      • In the editorial, Green explains this well using the PECARN blunt abdominal tool.  Physician gestalt in ordering CTs for clinically significant abdominal injury: Sensitivity 99%, Specificity 56%.  The PECARN tool offered a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 42% [1].  Thus, no real added benefit from the tool.
      • Numerous studies investigating pulmonary embolism (PE) have determined that strict application of tools perform no better than physician gestalt within the study populations [5]. 
    • Is the tool usable? Washington University's EM Journal club covered an example of issues with usability ACS CDIs.
    Clinical decision aids shouldn't replace gestalt.  
    • CDIs often appear to distill and codify components that comprise gestalt, which may be an enticing way to substitute clinical judgment.  As a medical student, I used these tools to aid in developing gestalt.  However, this could potentially be a bad habit in the making (see next point).
    • Many CDIs utilize gestalt as an entry criteria or as part of the actual aid.  
      • For example, in Tintinalli, Dr. Jeff Kline recommends applying PERC when the gestalt is there's a <15% chance that the patient has a PE, as this was the way in which the CDI was validated [3,4]. Thus, applying PERC to the wrong population may be deleterious.
    • Dr. Seth Trueger posted his PE diagnostic algorithm following an international Twitter debate on pathways and pre-test probability.  The gist of both of these is that a provider should consider the patient's clinical situation and downstream consequences or work up that may result. 

      What clinical question was the decision tool designed to answer?
      • Tools such as the Wells and Geneva scores were designed and validated as risk stratification tools, not rule-out or rule-in criteria.  
        • In this podcast, Dr. Scott Weingart offered some points of clarification on using CDIs to determine which patients to work up for PE.  He also harps on the point above - these scores are not designed to make the decision to work up/not work up a PE.
      • Measured outcome. Does the outcome reflect the clinical parameter you care about?
        • The Canadian Head CT aid seeks to identify head injuries that required neurosurgical intervention, not those that would resolve with no alteration in management.  One must decide whether this is the outcome both provider and patient care about.
      Is the patient part of the applicable population?
      • For example, it's important to note that the Canadian Head CT aid only applies to patients with: GCS 13-15, witnessed LOC, amnesia to the head injury event, or confusion and the authors excluded patients with "minor head injuries" that didn't have one of the aforementioned factors (see this post for more specific discussion of this example) [6].  Broadly applying the tool to patients who don't meet inclusion criteria or were excluded in the studied populations may lead to inappropriate stratification or intervention.
      • The performance of decision aids may depend on the prevalence of disease in the population. For example, PERC and Wells perform less well in high prevalence populations [5].
      • Various other factors such as developing vs developed setting, resources, etc may also alter the applicability of the decision aid in one's population. The more similar a paper's population is to your own, the more usable the decision aid.  For example, some decision aids may rely on a neurological exam performed by a neurologist versus an emergency physician.
      Has the decision aid been validated? If so, how?
      • Once a group derives a CDI, the tool must be validated to test it's rigor.  Dr. Newman gives a great explanation on this podcast (20 min mark). There are a few ways in which this typically happens:
        • Internal or external - validated in the same institution(s) or in other populations
        • Prospective or retrospective - data collected prospectively or retrospectively
        • Statistical or clinical - tool validated through statistical means or in "real life." The latter demonstrates usability and utility. 
        • Example: one can continue a data-collection study of parameters of the derivation portion of the study or one can use the tool in a population going forward to determine clinical utility. This is an example of the latter using the Canadian Head CT aid.
      Know whether a decision tool is a one-way or two-way instrument.  Misapplication of these tools may lead to excessive resource utilization and undermine the specificity of the aids.  [1]
      • One Way Decision Tools - Useful if all criteria are met.
        • Example: If someone is negative by PERC when utilized appropriately, it can indicate that the patient's risk of PE is below the test threshold. Conversely, one cannot say that if a patient is not PERC negative, then they necessitate work up for PE. 
      • Two Way Decision Tools - Can help a clinician decide both when to pursue an action and when not to pursue the action.  The "Ottawa ankle rule" is an example. [1]
      Note: I'm a mere novice with minimal statistics or EBM training, so these thoughts are more to be a reminder for myself than an in-depth analysis.

      References:
      1.  Green SM.  When do clinical decision rules improve patient care?  Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Aug;62(2):132-5. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.02.006. Epub 2013 Mar 30.
      3.  Kline, J.  Thromboembolism.  Tintinalli's Emergency Medicine.  7th ed.  p 434.
      4.  Kline, J. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. Thromb Haemost. 2008 May;6(5):772-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.02944.x. Epub 2008 Mar 3.
      5. Lucassen W, Geersing GJ, Erkens PM, et al. Clinical decision rules for excluding pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 4;155(7):448-60. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-7-201110040-00007.
      6.  Stiell IG, Lesiuk H, Wells GA, et al.  The Canadian CT Head Rule Study for patients with minor head injury: rationale, objectives, and methodology for phase I (derivation). Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Aug;38(2):160-9.

      Blocked – ED Analgesia for Hip/Femur Fractures

      The Gist: Emergency physicians can safely provide regional analgesia under ultrasound guidance in patients with hip and femur fractures. Implementation of this analgesic modality has been slow in the US, probably secondary to knowledge translation issues, but momentum in practice and the literature base is growing. Check out this great Free Open Access Medical education (FOAM) podcast on femoral nerve blocks and nerve blocks in general. As a medical student and resident, I received training and performed these blocks with anesthesia in the peri-operative setting, an experience I highly recommend.

      The Case: An 81 year old female presented to Janus General's ED status-post fall with a shortened, externally rotated left leg. The patient complained of severe pain, pulse 105, BP 110/70.  X-rays showed a left intertrochanteric hip fracture, orthopedics consulted, and the patient received <0.1 mg/kg morphine.  The patient continued to report pain and was noted to be in atrial fibrillation, with a ventricular response of 130, and BP 96/60 on the monitor.  She was rate controlled with diltiazem, spontaneously converted her rhythm, remained uncomfortable throughout her ED stay, and received her surgery later in her hospital course.  A discussion over the potential for an ED placed nerve block initially failed (see section: "Why aren't we doing this more?') but after the patient's less than easy ED course, interest in this modality grew - could/should we do this in the ED?

      Why a nerve block?
      • Better pain control compared with standard care (opiates, typically) in both femur and hip fractures, with a hearty duration of analgesia [1-5].
        • In addition to many studies without a placebo group, a small ED RCT comparing placebo (saline) to ultrasound guided femoral nerve block in hip fracture patients, who also received standard care (morphine) demonstrated superior pain control [2]. 
      • Reduced consumption of opioids/additional analgesics [1-5].  
        • Note: While we can imagine ways in which this could result in clinically important benefits such as preserved mental status and respiratory and cardiovascular stability, this surrogate measure doesn't necessarily translate into a patient oriented outcome. 
      • Trends toward less delirium [1].  Both severe pain and pharmaceuticals can caused patients to be altered.  Limitations: most studies excluded patients with dementia or other cognitive impairments and this mostly stems from the in-patient literature.
      • It's safe, especially under ultrasound guidance [1-5,7-9].
      • It's easy and physicians typically feel comfortable after brief training sessions  [7, 11].
      Type of regional anesthesia - Two main types exist for these indication, the femoral nerve block (FNB) and the fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), sometimes called a "modified FNB," as it deposits anesthetic in a similar region [8].  Detailed instructions: Ultrasound podcastNeuroaxiom website. Note: a good neurovascular exam should always precede a nerve block.
      • FICB (video) - targets the nerves of the lumbar plexus (L2-L4) and provides more proximal coverage than the femoral nerve block with a larger volume (typically bupivacaine diluted with saline).  Operator places needle more laterally than in the FNB, thereby reducing risk of intravascular infiltration/damage (use of ultrasound for both techniques weakens this point).  Landmark technique can be performed safely without ultrasound, if needed [5,7]. Probably covers the hip better than the FNB.
      • FNB - sometimes called a "3-in-1 block", as the goal is to target the femoral, lateral femoral cutaneous, and obturator nerves.  Routinely used for femur fractures in the pediatric population. 
      • Definitive literature on which block performs best is lacking, especially since most relied upon landmark techniques or nerve stimulators rather than ultrasound guidance.  Some anesthesiologists scoff at the notion of FNB for hip fracture and find the FICB more reasonable; however, there's literature to support FNB in acute hip fracture management as well [2,3].  
        • Likourezos et al from Maimonides Medical Center just finished a study of hip fracture patients randomized to FICB, FNB, or intravenous morphine. Results are pending but may help elucidate this distinction. 
      Are people actually doing this?
      • Yes.  Much medical practice is location dependent, owing to the interests, training, and flux of individuals/thought and this is no different.  Dr. Al Sacchetti described the integration into his practice in the EMRAP Feb 2012 episode, and EPMonthly featured an article as well.  Here are some thoughts from the UK and commentary from Australia:  

      • It's not just a bunch of procedure hungry members of the FOAM community pushing a sexy procedures, core texts such as Tintinalli recommend considering FNB in hip fracture [6].  Papers report that since 2004 in some Denmark hospitals, ED placed FICB are routinely administered in hip fracture patients prior to x-ray in Denmark [7].
      Why aren't we doing this more
      • Lack of knowledge.  While many people have been doing this for years and uptake appears to be greater outside of the US, some are unaware that this modality is easily and commonly performed by emergency physicians.  
        • A survey of emergency physicians in 3 Canadian teaching hospitals demonstrates that while the majority acknowledged the benefit of the nerve blocks in hip fractures, the majority did not perform them [10].  This argues against the assertion that lack of knowledge is key and is more likely a knowledge translation issue.
      • Time.  It's initially quicker to order morphine on the computer than 10-15 minutes at the patient's bedside but we may fail to consider the potential consequences of analgesics/sedation in vulnerable populations.  However, re-dosing of opioids is common, especially as patient's may be in the ED for several hours and complications of these interventions may also end up resulting in more time demand on the EP.  
        • Note: Time estimate based on my experience as a trainee in the OR setting (which included consent and components not typically performed in ED FNB/FICB blocks: full sterile drape/procedure, and catheter placement). Studies have demonstrated feasibility in the ED setting [2-5,7].
      • Consultants.  Confrontation with orthopedics is a commonly cited excuse for not providing regional anesthesia in the ED, yet often this is cited without talking with ortho about a particular patient's case.  Instead of initiating dialogue, it's often assumed that the orthopedist will decline.


      • Although, safely performed around the world for decades, it's relatively new in US EDs and therefore hasn't become routine like many other places.  Intravenous analgesia has been a mainstay of many ED pain complaints for years and has become routinized and we may skip over thinking - "What is best for this patient?" An increasing number of emergency departments have protocols to place blocks prior to x-rays in patients over 50 with hip/femur fractures.  The US emergency department literature on this analgesic modality is growing quickly, but much of it stems from the 21st century and many EPs have not received formal training [10].  There's a balance between being an early adopter and waiting to be pushed to adopt a practice.  
      • Ultrasound is an integral part of EM residency training in the US and is creeping into medical school curriculum.  Utilization of ultrasound may be daunting for some who have become accustomed to a particular practice pattern. 
      Downsides:
      • Duration of analgesia - this is part of the benefit of the nerve block.
      • Interference with motor movement - Some argue that a patient may be more prone to falls but this is in the in-patient/operative literature and has not resulted in any increase in mortality or morbidity [1].  This has not been demonstrated in any of the ED literature, and is amenable to fall protocol/precaution [2-5, 7].
      • Concerns about ay also mask a developing compartment syndrome.  Case reports exist of compartment syndrome in the setting of a nerve block, but these are post-operative and the breadth of the literature doesn't support this as a concern in most patients [8].
      • Like any procedure, there are risks such as infection, bleeding, nerve damage, etc; however, these are exceedingly rare and a risk-benefit evaluation is necessary [1-5, 7-9].
      References:
      1. Abou-Setta AM, Beaupre LA, Jones CA, et al. Pain Management Interventions for Hip Fracture. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 30. AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC022-EF. May 2011.
      2. Beaudoin FL, Haran JP, Liebmann O. A comparison of ultrasound-guided three-in-one femoral nerve block versus parenteral opioids alone for analgesia in emergency department patients with hip fractures: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20(6):584–91.
      3. Beaudoin FL, Nagdev A, Merchant RC, et al. Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve blocks in elderly patients with hip fractures. Am J Emerg Med. 2010;28(1):76–81. 
      4. Haines L, Dickman E, Ayvazyan S, et al. Ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca compartment block for hip fractures in the emergency department. J Emerg Med. 2012;43(4):692–7. 
      5. Godoy Monzon D, Iserson K V, Vazquez J a. Single fascia iliaca compartment block for post-hip fracture pain relief. J Emerg Med.  2007;32(3):257–62. 
      6. Steele MT.  Tintinalli's Emergency Medicine.  7th ed.  p 1856.
      7. 1. Høgh A, Dremstrup L, Jensen SS, et al. Fascia iliaca compartment block performed by junior registrars as a supplement to pre-operative analgesia for patients with hip fracture. Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction (Online). 2008;3(2):65–70.
      8. Karagiannis G, Hardern R. Best evidence topic report. No evidence found that a femoral nerve block in cases of femoral shaft fractures can delay the diagnosis of compartment syndrome of the thighEmerg Med J. 2005 Nov;22(11):814.
      9. Wedel DJ, Horlocker TT. Miller's Anesthesia. 7th ed. pp. 1652-1655.
      10.Haslam L, Lansdown A, Lee J, et al. Survey of Current Practices: Peripheral Nerve Block Utilization by ED Physicians for Treatment of Pain in the Hip Fracture Patient Population. Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ. 2013;16(1):16–21.

      Kappa – It’s Greek to Me

      The Gist:  Many junior physicians use clinical decision instruments as an objective means of risk stratification or clinical decision making; however, these have subjective components.  Kappa, a measure of interrater agreement, is a commonly expressed statistic in medical literature, particularly in clinical decision aids.  Understanding the use, strengths, and weaknesses of kappa may help with application of decision aids and appraisal of literature.

      The Case: A 13 year old boy presented to the Janus General ED after being struck in the head with a baseball bat.  He had a slight headache, no vomiting, normal mental status, and unremarkable physical exam except a hematoma over his left parietal region.
      • I presented the case as low-risk by PECARN with ~<0.05% chance of a clinically significant injury.  An attending inquired as to how I determined that the mechanism was "not severe."  Would my assessment change if Mark McGuire swung the bat that hit my patient?  Similarly, where was my threshold with the 18 month old that fell off a bed? Did the precise number of feet matter? The truth was, probably not, not because it wasn't listed in the objective criteria of the decision aid, but because after my assessment of the patient, I already estimated that the likelihood of a clinically significant injury was minimal. I wondered:  How did they come up with these variables (was there really a difference between falls from 3 ft and 4 ft)? How frequently would other people disagree with my seemingly "objective" determinations?
      I found a paper by Nigrovic et al the next day that evaluated the agreement between nurses and physicians in the application of PECARN to mild blunt head injury pediatric patients.  This study demonstrates the differential level of agreement, or reliability, between elements of the PECARN predictors - with notable differences between subjective and objective components.*  For example, everyone agreed on vomiting, but anything containing the word "severe" was a little more nebulous.
      • History of vomiting - 97% agreement between nursing and physician assessment, with an outstanding kappa of 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.93). 
      • Severe injury mechanism - 76% agreed, kappa 0.24 (95% CI 0.13-0.35) in the age<2 cohort and kappa = 0.37 (95% CI 0.29-0.45) in the age 2-18 group.
      Wait, what is this kappa (k) business?
      • It quantifies interrater reliability - a measure of the degree of agreement between observers that is greater than chance alone.
        • Sometimes, even in medicine, clinicians and trainees guess.  For example, when reading a radiograph and deciding on atelectasis versus infiltrate, a physician may hedge and choose one.  This may seem straightforward, but imagine a variable such as severity of headache.  Suppose one clinician has a terrific headache and rates headaches encountered that day as non- or less severe.  The cases when that clinician and another agree would therefore be based on chance.  
      • Calculation: (Observed Agreement - Agreement Expected by Chance)/(1-Agreement Expected by Chance) - Ok, so, the actual calculation is more complicated and is explained here.
      • Assesses precision/reliability
        • Using the aforementioned study, one can see that nurses and physicians reliably detected the presence of vomiting but less reliably agreed on the presence of a severe mechanism of injury or severe headache.
      What does the value mean?
      • -1.0 = perfect disagreement, +1.0 = perfect agreement


      What are the limitations of kappa?
      • The expected agreement is affected by abnormal prevalence.  In a skewed sample, the observed agreement may be markedly different than the relative agreement (1).  This is referred to as the kappa paradox, and there are various ways to compensate for this issue.
        • Rare findings - agreement between observers may not be as reliable and will be reflected by a lower kappa.  Looking at the Nigrovic et al paper, the kappa for palpable skull fracture is abysmal at 0.00, yet the proportion of physicians and nurses in agreement was 98%.  This exists as a product of the rarity of the finding, as 1/434 and 7/434 physician and nursing assessments were positive, respectively.  Similarly, signs of basilar skull fracture was fair at 0.37 with an enormous confidence interval (95% CI 0.07-0.67).  
      • Generalizability. Diversity of skill/experience may affect kappa.
        • Are the raters emergency physicians? medical students? specialized radiologists?
        • This was ostensibly what Nigrovic et al sought to determine - do clinicians at various levels of expertise agree?  The answer - it depends.  
      What now? As a junior trainee, the ways I evaluate patients and objective data is different than that of a senior clinician.   Thus, I'm armed with this knowledge to acknowledge the limitations of the clinical decision instruments I use, understand why and how the variables are not hard and fast "rules," and use both to better patient care.
        *Note: The developers of PECARN (original study) only selected criteria with a minimum kappa of 0.5 (with a lower bound of the confidence interval of 0.40).

        References
        1.  de Vet HC, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Hoekstra OS, Knol DL.  Clinicians are right not to like Cohen’s κ 2013;346:f2125
        2.  Nigrovic LE, Schonfeld D, Dayan PS, Fitz BM, Mitchell SR, Kuppermann N. Nurse and Physician Agreement in the Assessment of Minor Blunt Head Trauma. Pediatrics. 2013. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23979081. Accessed August 29, 2013.

        A Disunion of the Literature – NSAIDs and Fracture

        The Gist:  Currently, practice and literature are divisive with regard to issues of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDS) and bone healing in fractures; however, analgesic dosed NSAIDs are probably ok in the acute fracture process in most patients.  Check out this open access article by Yates et al.

        The Case:  A 11 y/o male presented to Janus General with left forearm edema and deformity after falling during a basketball game.  Imaging demonstrated a non-displaced, transverse radius fracture with less than ten degrees of volar angulation. The patient received ibuprofen, was placed in a splint, and follow up with orthopedics was arranged.  Later, the orthopedist instructed me not to give NSAIDs to patients with fractures "because they delay healing."  I was marginally acquainted with the controversy from reading these bits of FOAM (Free Open Access Medical education) previously: The Trauma Professional and Jacobi EM's take, but I was startled enough by the physician's rigid statement of fact to review the literature myself.

        Why the worry?
        • Non-union is a feared, delayed complication of fracture and is estimated to occur in ~1% of long bone fractures although this rate is higher in other fractures and influenced by individual factors (1).
        • Studies of NSAIDs in fracture healing conducted in rats tend to show delayed fracture healing, delayed callus formation, and increased prevalence of non-union -see Table 1 in this article (2,3).  
        • The biologic plausibility - The initially inflammation generated by a fracture plays a role in creating the environment for bone healing (5).  NSAIDs inhibit cyclo-oxygenase (COX), decreasing the presence of some prostaglandins (2). Prostaglandins such as PGF2A and PGE2 aid in bone healing by stimulating osteoblasts.  These prostaglandins are also thought to play a role in angiogenesis necessary for bone repair/regeneration as well as bone metabolism (3).  Thus, COX inhibition and interference with these cytokines may interrupt the body's natural way of repairing itself.
        The Human Literature:  Oftentimes, animal studies and in vitro experiments don't translate into how things work in the human body and it appears this is the case with NSAIDs and fracture, as the data is a wash.  Why might this be?
        • No prospective RCTs with sufficient power have been conducted that reflect NSAIDs dosed for analgesia in patients with acute fracture.  
        • Clinical practice contains far more variables than a well designed laboratory study, thus confounding the data.  For example, mechanism of injury, smoking and glycemic control can affect fracture healing rates but these vary individually (1).  
        • Studies look at various kinds of fractures that have disparate expected rates of non-union (ex: post-op spinal surgery has 10-15% rates of non-union vs 1-5% of long bone fractures) (4).
        • Retrospective studies examining NSAIDs and delayed healing often involved routine, protracted dosing of NSAIDs or may have been more common in patients with more complicated fractures or signs of complications, as they consumed more NSAIDs.  
        This free, full text article by Wheeler et al summarizes the human studies with NSAIDs in fracture healing in Table 2 on the second page.  Below are some of the highlights from the literature: 

        Burd et al Retrospective, increased incidence of non-union in NSAID group (26% vs 7%, p = 0.004) and those with worse fractures.
        • Note: The patients in this study received indomethacin 25 mg TID x 6 weeks, which is not consistent with our acute pain dosing (they were looking at inhibiting heterotopic bone formation).
        Bhattacharyya et al  Retrospective database review, looking at patients who filled prescriptions for an NSAID in the 90 days after humeral shaft fracture.  The study only showed a significant difference in non-union in patients exposed to NSAIDS between 61-90 days (RR 3.9, 95%CI 2.0–6.2)
        • Limitation: NSAID use was neither quantified nor specified by type.  Of note, this cohort of 9995 patients predominantly included older adults (mean age = 77)
        Adolphson et al.  n=42, RCT with piroxicam in post-menopausal women with distal radius fractures with dorsal displacement (Colles), no delay in fracture healing.

        Dodwell et al - meta-analysis, inconclusive.  The pooled odds ratio for nonunion was significantly higher in patients exposed to NSAIDs when the heterogeneous studies of variable quality were analyzed together (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.6-5.6). The higher quality studies alone did not demonstrate an increased odds of non-union (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.8-6.3).
        • Limitations: Case control and cohort studies only, long bone and spine surgeries pooled together, variable NSAID and dosing.
        What I've taken away for my practice:
        • Ensure adequate immobilization of fractures to mitigate pain (5).
        • Provide analgesia to patients using my pain algorithm, which will continue include NSAIDs (such as ibuprofen 400 mg) or acetaminophen as needed for pain in patients with fracture. 
        • Consider the individual patient and factors that may put them at risk for impaired healing (high risk fracture, osteoporosis, smoking status, diabetes, etc).
        • Encourage patients to use the lowest effective dose of NSAIDs for the shortest period of time as the data suggests that higher doses of NSAIDs may be associated with delayed healing (4*,6).
        • Avoid aggravating colleagues and continuing dialogue on this evolving topic, when possible, by factoring in which orthopedist is on-call when prescribing NSAIDs. 
        References:
        2.  Pountos I, et al.  Do Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Affect Bone Healing? A Critical Analysis. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012; 2012: 606404
        3.  Kurmis et al. The effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration on acute phase fracture-healing: a review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 May 2;94(9):815-23. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01743. 
        4.  Reuben SS.  High dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs compromise spinal fusion. Can J Anaesth. 2005 May;52(5):506-12.  *note: this study is authored by an individual who had 21 other publications retracted due to falsified studies, so findings should be taken with a grain of salt.
        5.  Menkes J.  Tintinalli's Emergency Medicine.  7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Medical. 2011.  p.1789
        6. Dodwell ER, et al.  NSAID exposure and risk of nonunion: a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies.
        Calcif Tissue Int. 2010 Sep;87(3):193-202. 

        Tackling The Most Commonly Abnormal ED "Vital Sign"

        The Gist:  Pain is subjective and ubiquitous in the emergency department (ED).  Treatment of pain in the ED varies widely between practitioners and is often not formally taught as part of the curriculum, lending this aspect of EM to often be characterized as "art."  I came up with a rough pain control algorithm for acute pain or recurrent pain as I get started in Emergency Medicine, roughly based on an evidence based template from Lipp et al (note: I'm not an expert and this is far less useful for complex pain complaints such as migraine and does not address procedural sedation).
        Check out this article by Dr. Leon Gussow of The Poison Review on the darker side of the emphasis of pain as a Joint Commission mandated vital sign in the ED.  

        Regional Analgesia - It appears that, with the aid of ultrasound, nerve blocks are increasingly common in the ED. These are great for orthopedic and soft tissue injuries, and there seems to be a movement to increase utilization for hip fractures (Haslam et alHaines et al)
        Upsides:   Patient may not need sedation or sedating analgesics, thereby preserving mentation, respiratory drive, and hemodynamics.  Great, targeted analgesia 
        Downsides: Potentially time consuming, invasive, disrupts neuro exam, potential for systemic toxicity (use ultrasound!).  
        Pearls
          • Practice these on an anesthesia rotation. 
          • Use ultrasound:  Ultrasound Guided Nerve Block EducationPart IPart IIFemoral Nerve BlocksSonoguide.com.  Sonospot.com has many useful posts on publications and tipstricks for ultrasound guided nerve blocks (searchable).
          • Perform a solid neurovascular exam before performing the block.  Monitor patients afterward. 
          • Work with consultants (ex: ortho for blocks for femur and hip fractures).
        Non-opioid Analgesics - Acetaminophen (APAP) and Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective for mild to moderate pain (2).
        Upsides:  NSAIDs are especially useful in prostaglandin-potentiated conditions, such as dysmenorrhea, gout, rheumatoid arthritis, and ureteral colic (1, 2).  APAP is safe in pregnancy (1,3).
        Downsides: 
          • Dose-limiting adverse effects on the gastrointestinal tract (NSAIDS). Must be cognisant of total APAP load across all medications so 4g/day is not exceeded  (1,2).
          • NSAIDS may have untoward effects in patients on other medications including: warfarin (bleeding), diuretics/lithium/ACE-I/methotrexate (renal insufficiency and subsequent therapeutic index issues) (1).
          • NSAIDS may induce or worsen renal insufficiency in elderly patients, those with pre-existing renal disease, or in the setting of dehydration (3).
        Pearls:
          • Ceiling dose for analgesia from ibuprofen lies in a 400mg dose (higher ceiling dose for anti-inflammatory effect), discussed in this blog post by Dr. Chris Bond. 
          • Parenteral keterolac offers no better analgesia compared with ibuprofen or naproxen, and costs much more (Dr. Bond's postArora et al, 2, 4).
          • IV APAP, used internationally with success, has made an appearance in the US over the past couple of years, but comes at a cost of more than $10 USD per 1g dose without drastically better analgesia.  The focus on IV APAP is the potential opioid sparing effect (Kwiatkowski et al)
        Opioid Analgesia - These get the most attention in the ED, partially due to the focus on abuse.  There are many drugs in this category but they tend to fall into groups:  
        • Opiates (derived from the opium plant) - morphine, codeine
        • Semi-synthetics - hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, buprenorphine, heroin 
        • Synthetics - fentanyl, alfentanil, sufentanil, remifentanil, methadone, tramadol, propoxyphene, meperidine
        Upsides
          • Good analgesia for visceral and somatic pain
          • Many opioids are titratable
        Downsides:  
          • Respiratory depression
          • Histamine release - pruritus, flushing, hives, and/or hypotension.
          • Released from mast cells, may be mistaken for allergic reaction (which has an immunologic component). 
            • Opiates tend to cause more histamine release than the semi-synthetics and synthetics (6).
          • Potential for abuse/dependence
        Pearls:
          • IV morphine starting dose for moderate-to-severe pain = 0.1 - 0.15 mg/kg. 
            • Patients in severe pain or opioid-tolerant, will not obtain adequate analgesia with a single 0.1-mg/kg dose and may require additional doses.
          • Oral opioids (hydrocodone) may take 30-60 min to achieve analgesia (3). 
            • This may be off-set by time to establish an IV, etc (Miner et al)
          • Oxycodone starting dose 0.125 mg/kg (Miner et al) in most patient populations.
          • IV hydromorphone starting dose 1mg, with an additional 1mg dose if analgesia not achieved (5).
            • less renal clearance so may be better in patients with renal insufficiency (2,4)
            • less histamine release (6).
          • When discharging a patient home with opioids, consider checking the state monitoring program online (ACEP clinical policy, Level C).  This can be time consuming and is generally limited to a single state.  Listen to Dr. Scott Weingart's Practical Evidence podcast on this.
          • When prescribing, prescribe a short course (ex: 3 days).
          • It's widely accepted that analgesia doesn't "mask" surgical pathology, which was a historic concern in patients with suspected intra-abdominal pathology (1-4).
        Poppies in Turkey
        References:
        1.  Miner J, Paris P, Yealy D.  "Pain Management."  Rosen's Emergency Medicine.  7th ed. p 2410-2428.  
        2.  Lipp C, Dhaliwal R, Lang E.  Analgesia in the emergency department: a GRADE-based evaluation of research evidence and recommendations for practice.  Critical Care 2013, 17:212 
        3.  Ducharme, J.  "Acute Pain Management in Adults."  Tintinalli's Emergency Medicine.  7th ed.  p 259-265.
        4.  Heins, Alan. Focus On: Effective Acute Pain Management.  October 2005.  ACEP.