Deaths due to opioid overdose have reached unprecedented levels in Canada; over 12,800 opioid-related deaths occurred between January 2016 and March 2019, and overdose death rates increased by approximately 50% from 2016 to 2018.1 In 2016, Health Canada declared the opioid epidemic a national public health crisis,2 and life expectancy increases have halted in Canada for the first time in decades.3 Children are not exempt from this crisis, and the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada has recently prioritized the prevention of problematic substance use among Canadian youth.4

Emergency medical services (EMS) is called for a 65-year-old man with a 1-week history of cough, fever, and mild shortness of breath now reporting chest pain. Vitals on scene were HR 110, BP 135/90, SpO2 88% on room air. EMS arrives at the emergency department (ED). As the patient is moved to a negative pressure room, he becomes unresponsive with no palpable pulse. What next steps should be discussed in order to protect the team and achieve the best possible patient outcome?

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) are two common arrhythmias that present to the emergency department (ED) and are a major risk factor for stroke. The 2014 Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines recommend starting oral anticoagulation (OAC) upon ED discharge for patients with CHADS65 scores of ≥1 to reduce stroke risk. The goal of this study was to identify whether the ED patient population presenting with new onset AF/AFL with CHADS65 ≥ 1 are appropriately initiated on OAC by ED physicians. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review (Jan-Dec 2017) of ED visits at two academic hospitals in Ontario. The year 2017 was chosen to allow for adequate time from the publishing of the CCS guidelines for uptake into clinical practice. Inclusion criteria: patients with a new diagnosis of AF/AFL who are discharged by ED physicians. Exclusion criteria: patients with a history of AF/AFL, already on OAC, admitted to hospital, presenting with arrhythmia other than AF/AFL, and charts without adequate information to calculate CHADS65 score. Charts were reviewed in detail to assess CHADS65 score, ED physician decision to prescribe OAC, referral rates to outpatient clinics and timing of follow up. Results: A total of 1272 charts were reviewed. 1124 were excluded. 148 charts were identified as patients with new onset AF/AFL presenting to the ED who were discharged by ED physicians. 24/148 (16%) were appropriately prescribed OAC. 124/148 (84%) were not prescribed OAC. Of these 40/124 (32%) were CHADS65 0 while the other 84/124 (67%) were CHADS65 ≥ 1 who should have been considered for OAC. Further review determined that 78/84 (92%) were referred to outpatient clinics for the decision regarding OAC with the mean (SD) number of days to follow up being 11(±15). Importantly 1/84 (1.2%) returned prior to their scheduled appointment with a stroke. Only 6/84 (7%) had no follow up arranged. Conclusion: Overall, we found that the rate of OAC prescription by ED physicians for patients being discharged with a new diagnosis of AF/AFL with a CHADS65 score ≥1 was 16%. This is despite the CCS 2014 recommendation of starting OAC for all patients with a CHADS65 score ≥1. It appears that ED physicians are continuing to defer the decision to prescribe OAC to outpatient clinics. Further projects can explore barriers to application of the CCS guidelines and create knowledge translation tools.

There is no patient emergency more important than protecting health care workers during a pandemic.

Transporting patients with communicable diseases is common in critical care transport operations. At Ornge, Ontario's critical care transport provider, 13.7% of patients required contact, droplet, or airborne precautions during transport in 2019–2020. Ensuring that staff are protected while transporting patients with communicable diseases must remain a prime directive for medical transport administrators and operators. Success in safety requires a robust system of hazard identification and adherence to generally accepted methods of hazard control. This commentary will discuss some of the administrative and engineering controls, as well as the personal protective equipment (PPE) strategies deployed at Ornge.

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) syncope management is extremely variable. We developed practice recommendations based on the validated Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) and outpatient cardiac monitoring strategy with physician input. Methods: We used a 2-step approach. Step-1: We pooled data from the derivation and validation prospective cohort studies (with adequate sample size) conducted at 11 Canadian sites (Sep 2010 to Apr 2018). Adults with syncope were enrolled excluding those with serious outcome identified during index ED evaluation. 30-day adjudicated serious outcomes were arrhythmic (arrhythmias, unknown cause of death) and non-arrhythmic (MI, structural heart disease, pulmonary embolism, hemorrhage)]. We compared the serious outcome proportion among risk categories using Cochran-Armitage test. Step-2: We conducted semi-structured interviews using observed risk to develop and refine the recommendations. We used purposive sampling of physicians involved in syncope care at 8 sites from Jun-Dec 2019 until theme saturation was reached. Two independent raters coded interviews using an inductive approach to identify themes; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results: Of the 8176 patients (mean age 54, 55% female), 293 (3.6%; 95%CI 3.2-4.0%) experienced 30-day serious outcomes; 0.4% deaths, 2.5% arrhythmic, 1.1% non-arrhythmic outcomes. The serious outcome proportion significantly increased from low to high-risk categories (p < 0.001; overall 0.6% to 27.7%; arrhythmic 0.2% to 17.3%; non-arrhythmic 0.4% to 5.9% respectively). C-statistic was 0.88 (95%CI0.86–0.90). Non-arrhythmia risk per day for the first 2 days was 0.5% for medium-risk, 2% for high-risk and very low thereafter. We recruited 31 physicians (14 ED, 7 cardiologists, 10 hospitalists/internists). 80% of physicians agreed that low risk patients can be discharged without specific follow-up with inconsistencies around length of ED observation. For cardiac monitoring of medium and high-risk, 64% indicated that they don't have access; 56% currently admit high-risk patients and an additional 20% agreed to this recommendation. A deeper exploration led to following refinement: discharge without specific follow-up for low-risk, a shared decision approach for medium-risk and short course of hospitalization for high-risk patients. Conclusion: The recommendations were developed (with online calculator) based on in-depth feedback from key stakeholders to improve uptake during implementation.

Introduction: Management of acute atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) in the emergency department (ED) can be performed with chemical or electrical cardioversion. Procainamide is the most common chemical agent used in Canada; however, there is substantial practice variation. The objective of this systematic review was to provide comparative evidence on return to normal sinus rhythm (NSR) and adverse events to better support clinical decisions. Methods: Systematic search of five electronic databases and grey literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective controlled cohort studies including adults (≥17 years) with recent-onset of AFF comparing intravenous procainamide with other cardioversion strategies (e.g., electrical cardioversion, placebo or other antiarrhythmic drugs) were eligible. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019142080). Results: From 4060 potentially relevant citations, 7 studies were considered eligible and three RCTs and two cohort studies included in the analysis. Procainamide was less effective in promoting return to NSR at 1st attempt compared to other chemical (RR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.90) and electrical (RR 0.58; 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.64) options. Electrical cardioversion was more effective in restoring NSR compared to procainamide when used as 2nd attempt in one RCT (RR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.92). Pre-specified serious adverse events were assessed and reported by two studies showing that hypotension was more common in patients receiving procainamide in comparison with electrical cardioversion (RR 20.57; 95% CI: 1.59 to 265.63). Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was infrequently reported with only two studies reporting that no patients withdrew from the study following treatment with procainamide. The remaining studies provided incomplete data reporting on adverse events. Conclusion: Shared decision-making for patients with acute AFF in the ED requires knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of comparative interventions. Overall, procainamide is less effective than other chemical options and electrical cardioversion strategies to restore NSR. Evidence shows that hypotension is a concern when procainamide is administered; however, the overall adverse events information provided from the studies is suboptimal.

A previously healthy 42-year-old male developed a fever and cough shortly after returning to Canada from overseas. Initially, he had mild upper respiratory tract infection symptoms and a cough. He was aware of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and the advisory to self-isolate and did so; however, he developed increasing respiratory distress over several days and called 911. On arrival at the emergency department (ED), his heart rate was 130 beats/min, respiratory rate 32 per/min, and oxygenation saturation 82% on room air. As per emergency medical services (EMS) protocol, they placed him on nasal prongs under a surgical mask at 5 L/min and his oxygen saturation improved to 86%.