Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used increasingly during resuscitation. The aim of this study was to assess whether combining POCUS and electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm findings better predicts outcomes during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department (ED).

We completed a health records review on ED cardiac arrest patients who underwent POCUS. Primary outcome measurements included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge.

POCUS was performed on 180 patients; 45 patients (25.0%; 19.2%–31.8%) demonstrated cardiac activity on initial ECG, and 21 (11.7%; 7.7%–17.2%) had cardiac activity on initial POCUS; 47 patients (26.1%; 20.2%–33.0%) achieved ROSC, 18 (10.0%; 6.3%–15.3%) survived to admission, and 3 (1.7%; 0.3%–5.0%) survived to hospital discharge. As a predictor of failure to achieve ROSC, ECG had a sensitivity of 82.7% (95% CI 75.2%–88.7%) and a specificity of 46.8% (32.1%–61.9%). Overall, POCUS had a higher sensitivity of 96.2% (91.4%–98.8%) but a similar specificity of 34.0% (20.9%–49.3%). In patients with ECG-asystole, POCUS had a sensitivity of 98.18% (93.59%–99.78%) and a specificity of 16.00% (4.54%–36.08%). In patients with pulseless electrical activity, POCUS had a sensitivity of 86.96% (66.41%–97.22%) and a specificity of 54.55% (32.21%–75.61%). Similar patterns were seen for survival to admission and discharge. Only 0.8% (0.0–4.7%) of patients with ECG-asystole and standstill on POCUS survived to hospital discharge.

The absence of cardiac activity on POCUS, or on both ECG and POCUS together, better predicts negative outcomes in cardiac arrest than ECG alone. No test reliably predicted survival.

While the use of formal trauma teams is widely promoted, the literature is not clear that this structure provides improved outcomes over emergency physician delivered trauma care. The goal of this investigation was to examine if a trauma team model with a formalized, specialty-based trauma team, with specific activation criteria and staff composition, performs differently than an emergency physician delivered model. Our primary outcome was survival to discharge or 30 days.

An observational registry-based study using aggregate data from both the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia trauma registries was performed with data from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2013. Inclusion criteria included patients 16 years-old and older who had an Injury Severity Score greater than 12, who suffered a kinetic injury and arrived with signs of life to a level-1 trauma centre.

266 patients from the trauma team model and 111 from the emergency physician model were compared. No difference was found in the primary outcome of proportion of survival to discharge or 30 days between the two systems (0.88, n=266 vs. 0.89, n=111; p=0.8608).

We were unable to detect any difference in survival between a trauma team and an emergency physician delivered model.

The emergency department (ED) left-without-being-seen (LWBS) rate is a performance indicator, although there is limited knowledge about why people leave, or whether they seek alternate care. We studied characteristics of ED LWBS patients to determine factors associated with LWBS.

We collected demographic data on LWBS patients at two urban hospitals. Sequential LWBS patients were contacted and surveyed using a standardized telephone survey. A matched group of patients who did not leave were also surveyed. Data were analysed using the Fisher exact test, chi-square test, and student t-test.

The LWBS group (n=1508) and control group (n=1504) were matched for sex, triage category, recorded wait times, employment and education, and having a family physician. LWBS patients were younger, more likely to present in the evening or at night, and lived closer to the hospital. A long wait time was the most cited reason for leaving (79%); concern about medical condition was the most common reason for staying (96%). Top responses for improved likelihood of waiting were shorter wait times (LWBS, 66%; control, 31%) and more information on wait times (41%; 23%). A majority in both groups felt that their condition was a true emergency (63%; 72%). LWBS patients were more likely to seek further health care (63% v. 28%; p<0.001) and sooner (median time 1 day v. 2-4 days; p=0.002). Among patients who felt that their condition was not a true emergency, the top reason for ED attendance was the inability to see their family doctor (62% in both groups).

LWBS patients had similar opinions, experiences, and expectations as control patients. The main reason for LWBS was waiting longer than expected. LWBS patients were more likely to seek further health care, and did so sooner. Patients wait because of concern about their health problem. Shorter wait times and improved communication may reduce the LWBS rate.