Introduction: Falls are a common presentation to the emergency department among geriatric patients. The incidence of intracranial bleeding following a fall is unclear and approach to ordering a CT head scan is not standardized. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the incidence of intracranial bleeding after a fall in geriatric patients. Methods: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO. Two authors independently searched Medline and EMBASE (OVID interface) from conception till 20th June 2018. The search combined multiple MESH terms and text words for [falls], [elderly] and [brain injury]. The search was repeated in Google Scholar and recent conference abstracts were reviewed. Studies were included if > 80% of the included patients were > 65 years who presented to the emergency department after a fall on level ground. We excluded studies enrolling select populations (for example trauma team activation, neurosurgical patients or only anticoagulated patients). There were no language restrictions. The random effects model was used to perform a meta-analysis on the incidence of intracranial bleeding in geriatric patients after a fall on level ground. Results: From the 7,043 titles and abstracts, 175 full articles were reviewed and 7 studies, including 6758 patients, were included in the analysis. 2/7 studies were prospective. The studies varied in their inclusion criteria with 3/7 studies only including patients with normal neurological testing. Most retrospective studies included patients if they had a CT head scan. Neither prospective study imaged all patients but both followed the patients for a delayed diagnosis of intracranial bleeding. Risk of bias was moderate or high for the majority of studies. The random effects pooled incidence of intracranial bleeding was 5.2% (95% CI 2.8 – 8.2%), I2 96%. Conclusion: Around 1 in 20 geriatric patients who present to the emergency department after a fall have intracranial bleeding. This point estimate can be used to calculate sample size requirements for future studies on intracranial bleeding in this population.

Introduction: Admission decisions in older patients are often difficult. Our objectives were to identify clinical predictors of appropriate admission for older patients who attend the emergency department (ED). Methods: Administrative data were gathered on all Calgary ED patients >75 years old who were treated during 2017. We considered the following events indicative of appropriate admission: an index hospitalization lasting >72 hours, the need for ICU or CCU care, and 30-day death or readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association of the following potential predictors with appropriate admission: age, sex, EMS arrival, ILI symptoms, living situation (independent, homecare dependency or facility), acuity level, chief complaint, vital signs, need for IV fluid bolus ( >1Li), serum sodium, potassium, creatinine, hemoglobin, and advanced directive care level (comfort, medical, resuscitation, unspecified). Results: We studied 38866 older patients who were 55.9% female with a mean age of 84. Most (69%) lived independently, with 17% in a facility and 14% homecare dependent. Overall, 16,992 (43.7%) were admitted at their index visit and 17,340 had an outcome event, including index hospitalization >72 hours (N = 13,623, 35%), ICU care (352, 0.9%), CCU care (447, 1.2%), or 30-day death (2,241, 5.8%) or readmission (3,964 10.2%). Patients with appropriate admission events were more likely to have an advanced directive (80.7% v. 7.8%), triage hypoxia (30.5% v. 9.2%), EMS arrival (73% v. 48%), facility or homecare dependency (50% v. 15%), or to have a complaint of dyspnea (20.4% v. 8.6%), weakness (9.1% v. 3.8%) or altered mentation (8.8% v. 2.8%). Multivariable modeling showed that the strongest predictors of appropriate admission (adjusted odds ratio) were any advanced directive (OR = 30), need for IV bolus (OR = 1.67), homecare dependency (OR = 1.65), triage hypoxia (OR = 1.63), and a chief complaint of altered mentation (OR = 1.72), weakness (OR = 1.52) or dyspnea (OR = 1.25). Conclusion: The presence of an advanced care directive is strongly associated with appropriate admission in older ED patients. Other significant determinants include homecare dependency, EMS arrival, hypoxia or dyspnea, IV bolus and weakness or altered mentation. Age, sex, acuity, vital signs and laboratory findings were weak predictors.

Introduction: Geriatric patients commonly present to the emergency department (ED) after a fall. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests that ED physicians are poorly adherent to published ED-specific geriatric falls guidelines. This study applied a theoretical domains framework (TDF)-driven approach to systematically investigate barriers and enablers in the provision of guideline-based care to older patients presenting to the ED with a fall. Methods: From June to September 2017, semi-structured interviews of staff ED physicians practicing in Ontario, Canada were conducted and analyzed. An interview guide based on the TDF was used to capture 14 domains that may influence provision of guideline-based care. Interview transcripts were analyzed, and specific beliefs were generated by grouping similar responses. Relevant domains were identified based on frequencies of beliefs, existence of conflicting beliefs, and evidence of strong beliefs that would influence provision of guideline-based care. Results: Eleven interviews were conducted with practicing ED physicians. Thirty specific belief statements across 13 different TDF domains (all except Optimism) were identified as relevant. Overall, Ontario ED physicians are supportive of providing guideline-based care and believe it would lead to better outcomes for geriatric falls patients. Important barriers include knowledge, skills, time and workload constraints, and inconsistent allied health support. Conclusion: This study identified important barriers and enablers to provision of guideline-based care in geriatric ED falls patients. These results will help guide implementation of guidelines nationally and internationally, with a focus on improved knowledge dissemination, implementation of training interventions, and improvements in allied health coverage and supports.

Introduction: Although a variety of parenteral agents exist for the treatment of acute migraine, relapse after an emergency department (ED) visit is still a common occurrence. The objective of this systematic review was to update a previous review examining the effectiveness of parenteral agents for the treatment of acute migraine in the ED or equivalent acute care setting; our review focused on those studies aiming a reduction in relapse after an ED visit. Methods: A comprehensive search of 10 electronic databases and grey literature was conducted to identify comparative studies to supplement the previous systematic review. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Any discrepancies were resolved by third party adjudication. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model and heterogeneity (I2) was reported. Results: Titles and abstracts of 5039 unique studies were reviewed, of which, 51 studies were included. Sixty-four studies from the original review were included, resulting in a total of 115 included studies. Relapse was reported in 44 (38%) included studies and occurred commonly in patients receiving placebo or no interventions (median = 39%; IQR: 14%, 47%). Overall, no differences in headache relapse were found between patients receiving sumatriptan or placebo (RR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.55, 2.17; I2 = 93%; n = 8). Conversely, patients receiving neuroleptic agents experienced fewer relapses compared to placebo (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.58; I2 = 0%; n = 3); however, patients receiving neuroleptics reported an increase in adverse events (RR = 1.87; 95% CI: 1.17, 3.00; I2 = 0%; n = 3). Compared to placebo, patients receiving dexamethasone were less likely to experience a headache recurrence (RR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.95; I2 = 60%, n = 9); however, no differences were found in reported adverse events (RR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.47; I2 = 0%; n = 3). Conclusion: Relapse is a common occurrence for patients with migraine headaches. This review found patients receiving neuroleptics or dexamethasone experienced fewer headache recurrences. Conversely, triptan agents appear to have minimal effect on reducing the risk for headache recurrence following discharge from an acute care setting. Limited available data on adverse events is an important limitation to inform decision-making. Guidelines should be revised to reflect these results.

Introduction: Acute migraine headaches are common causes of presentation to the emergency department (ED). There is great variability in the efficacy of the available parenteral agents to manage pain, though triptans are among the recommended treatments. The objective of this systematic review was to update a previous review examining the effectiveness of parenteral agents for the treatment of acute migraine in the ED or equivalent acute care setting; our review examined pain management in emergency settings and assessed the effectiveness of triptan agents. Methods: A comprehensive search of 10 electronic databases and grey literature was conducted to supplement the previous systematic review. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Any discrepancies were resolved by third party adjudication. Pain scale scores were analyzed using standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a random effects model; heterogeneity (I2) was reported. Results: Titles and abstracts of 5039 unique studies were reviewed, of which, 51 studies were included. Sixty-four studies from the original review were included, resulting in a total of 115 included studies. Pain was measured within the ED or equivalent acute care setting using a variety of pain scales, most commonly the 0-10 cm or 100 mm visual analog scale. Four studies compared pain scores between patients receiving sumatriptan vs. other agents, of which, patients receiving sumatriptan reported higher pain scale scores (SMD = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.04, 1.02; I2 = 80%). In particular, patients receiving sumatriptan reported higher pain scale scores than patients receiving metoclopramide (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.04; n = 1) or ketorolac (SMD = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.56, 2.21; n = 1). Overall, studies comparing anti-inflammatory agents (i.e., ketorolac or dexketoprofen) to other agents reported improved pain scale scores among patients receiving anti-inflammatory agents (SMD = -0.38; 95% CI: -0.73, -0.03; I2 = 66%; n = 5). Conclusion: Limited evidence suggests that patients treated with metoclopramide or anti-inflammatory agents experience greater pain reduction compared to patients treated with sumatriptan. This review will conduct a network analysis of parenteral agents to examine the comparative effectiveness of parenteral agents to manage pain among patients with acute migraine. Further analysis will also consider the balance between efficacy and adverse events.

Introduction: Optimizing naloxone dosing in the context of increasing fentanyl and ultra-potent opioid (UPO) prevalence is an important consideration for emergency health care providers. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the association between initial and cumulative naloxone doses on effective reversal and adverse events in undifferentiated and fentanyl/UPO overdoses. Methods: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, DARE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, reference lists, toxicology websites, and conference proceedings from July to October 2018 and back to 1972. Our search included pertinent indexing terms for UPOs. We included interventional and observational studies reporting on naloxone administration for opioid toxicity reversal in people ≥12 years old. Additionally, we accessed non-traditional evidence sources (case reports and series) given this rapidly changing field. We conducted inclusion screens, data extraction and quality assessments in duplicate. We summarized study characteristics and where reported, analyzed number of patients with clinical response. Response was defined as not receiving further naloxone doses and remaining alive. Results: We included 174 studies (108 case reports and series, 55 observational, 9 interventional) with 26,660 subjects (median age 35.1; 74.2% male). We observed lower response among patients exposed to fentanyl/UPO versus heroin for initial naloxone doses ≤0.4mg (56.8% versus 80.2%) and > 0.4mg (27.0% versus 82.1%). Mean cumulative doses were higher for fentanyl/UPO (2.10 mg, SD 1.80 mg) versus heroin (1.48 mg, SD 1.68 mg) overdoses. In North American studies the median cumulative dose used was higher for fentanyl/UPO versus heroin overdoses. A dose-response curve for fentanyl/UPO studies showed marked variability in doses among responders, indicating heterogeneity. Adverse events reporting was inconsistent; 10% of subjects experienced withdrawal based on studies in which they were reported. Conclusion: This is the first systematic review to summarize proportion of patients with clinical response by naloxone dose provided. While variable reporting, study quality, heterogeneity, and our outcome definitions limit the conclusions we can draw, it appears that higher initial doses and in some cases, higher cumulative naloxone doses were used and may be necessary to reverse toxicity due to fentanyl/UPO compared to other opioids. High-quality prospective studies assessing effectiveness and safety are needed.

Introduction: Opioid overdoses (OODs) have become a public health emergency, yet little is known about their long-term outcomes following an OD. We determined the one-year all-cause mortality and associated risk factors in a cohort of patients treated in an urban emergency department (ED) for an OOD. Methods: We reviewed records of all patients who visited St. Paul's Hospital ED from January 2013 to August 2017 and had a discharge diagnosis of OOD or had received naloxone in the ED as per pharmacy records. Patients with a suspected OOD were identified on structured chart review. A patient's first visit for an OOD during the study period was used as the index visit, with subsequent visits excluded. The primary outcome was mortality during the year after the index visit. Mortality was assessed by linking patient electronic medical records with Vital Statistics data. Deaths that occurred in the ED on the index visit were excluded. Patients admitted to hospital following ED treatment were included in this study. We described patient characteristics, calculated mortality rates, and used Cox regression to identify risk factors. Results: A total of 2239 patients visited the ED for an OOD during the study period, with a median patient age of 37 years (IQR 29, 49). Males comprised 73% of patients, while 28% had no fixed address, and 21% received take-home naloxone at the index visit. In total, 137 patients (6.1%) died within 1 year of the index visit. Eighty-one deaths (3.6%) occurred within 6 months, including 24 deaths (1.1%) that occurred within 1 month. The highest mortality rate occurred in 2017, with 8.0% of patients entering the cohort that year dying within 1 year. Gender did not significantly impact mortality risk. A Cox regression analysis controlled for gender, housing status, and whether take-home naloxone was provided at the index visit indicated that advancing age (adjusted hazards ratio [AHR] 1.03; 95%CI: 1.01-1.04 for each year increase in age) and the index visit calendar year (AHR 1.30; 95%CI: 1.10-1.54 for each yearly increase in the study period) were significant factors for mortality within 1 year. Conclusion: The mortality rate following an opioid OD treated in the ED is high, with over 6% of patients in our study dying within 1 year. The rising mortality risk with increasing calendar year may reflect the growing harms of fentanyl-related OODs. Patients visiting the ED for an OOD should be considered high risk and offered preventative treatment and referrals prior to discharge.

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound has been reported to improve diagnosis in non-traumatic hypotensive ED patients. We compared diagnostic performance of physicians with and without PoCUS in undifferentiated hypotensive patients as part of an international prospective randomized controlled study. The primary outcome was diagnostic performance of PoCUS for cardiogenic vs. non-cardiogenic shock. Methods: SHoC-ED recruited hypotensive patients (SBP < 100 mmHg or shock index > 1) in 6 centres in Canada and South Africa. We describe previously unreported secondary outcomes relating to diagnostic accuracy. Patients were randomized to standard clinical assessment (No PoCUS) or PoCUS groups. PoCUS-trained physicians performed scans after initial assessment. Demographics, clinical details and findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses including shock category were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes. Final diagnosis was determined by independent blinded chart review. Standard statistical tests were employed. Sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate difference. Results: 273 patients were enrolled with follow-up for primary outcome completed for 270. Baseline demographics and perceived category of shock were similar between groups. 11% of patients were determined to have cardiogenic shock. PoCUS had a sensitivity of 80.0% (95% CI 54.8 to 93.0%), specificity 95.5% (90.0 to 98.1%), LR+ve 17.9 (7.34 to 43.8), LR-ve 0.21 (0.08 to 0.58), Diagnostic OR 85.6 (18.2 to 403.6) and accuracy 93.7% (88.0 to 97.2%) for cardiogenic shock. Standard assessment without PoCUS had a sensitivity of 91.7% (64.6 to 98.5%), specificity 93.8% (87.8 to 97.0%), LR+ve 14.8 (7.1 to 30.9), LR- of 0.09 (0.01 to 0.58), Diagnostic OR 166.6 (18.7 to 1481) and accuracy of 93.6% (87.8 to 97.2%). There was no significant difference in sensitivity (-11.7% (-37.8 to 18.3%)) or specificity (1.73% (-4.67 to 8.29%)). Diagnostic performance was also similar between other shock subcategories. Conclusion: As reported in other studies, PoCUS based assessment performed well diagnostically in undifferentiated hypotensive patients, especially as a rule-in test. However performance was similar to standard (non-PoCUS) assessment, which was excellent in this study.

Introduction: There is an evidence-practice gap between guidelines for diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) and emergency physician practice. Computed tomography (CT) scanning is being overused to exclude PE in Canadian emergency departments (EDs) and current guidelines do not fit well with the ED model of patient care. There is a lack of research on patient opinions on PE testing, and a poor physician understanding of patient-specific goals in the ED. We are addressing this by conducting patient interviews to identify patient-specific values and opinions on PE testing in the ED. These will be used to develop patient-centered educational tools which physicians and patients can use to discuss the decision to order a CT PE scan. The aim of this study is to identify patient expectations and priorities on PE testing in the ED. Methods: This qualitative study uses constructivist grounded theory to analyze patient values and opinions on PE testing in ED patients from two hospitals. Participants are screened by monitoring the ED patient tracker. If a patient is being tested for PE, they are approached and consented by a researcher to take part in a 30-minute semi-structured interview. Each interview is transcribed verbatim and independently analyzed by four researchers using constant comparative coding. The researchers meet weekly to compare codes and agree on common coding terms. The codes are grouped into themes, and the interview script is modified to maximize information on emerging themes. From this, major themes with associated subthemes will be derived, each representing an opportunity, barrier or value which must be addressed in our new patient education tools. We have performed 23 interviews and expect to reach theme saturation at 30 interviews. Full results will be available by the 2019 CAEP conference. Results: From the patient interviews conducted so far, we have mapped four major themes: patient satisfaction comes from addressing their primary concern (for example, their pain); patients expect individualized care; patients prefer imaging over clinical examination when testing for PE; and patients expect 100% confidence from their ED physician when given a diagnosis. Conclusion: These four domains will be used to create a new patient-centered approach to PE testing in the ED which will include physician education, patient information and organizational changes to patient processing. This study incorporates evidence-based medicine with ethical and social implications to improve patient outcomes.

Introduction: Ureteral colic is a common painful disorder. Early surgical intervention is an attractive management option but existing evidence does not clarify which patients benefit. Based on lack of evidence, current national specialty guidelines provide conflicting recommendations regarding who is a candidate for early intervention. We compared treatment failure rates in patients receiving early intervention to those in patients offered spontaneous passage to identify subgroups that benefit from early intervention. Methods: We used administrative data and structured chart review to study consecutive patients attending one of nine hospitals in two provinces with an index emergency department (ED) visit and a confirmed 2.0-9.9 mm ureteral stone. We described patient, stone and treatment variables, and used multivariable regression to identify factors associated with treatment failure, defined as the need for rescue intervention or hospitalization within 60 days. Our secondary outcome was ED revisit rate. Results: Overall, 1168 (37.9%) of 3081 eligible patients underwent early intervention. Patients with small stones <5mm experienced more treatment failures (31.5% v. 9.9%) and more ED revisits (38.5% v. 19.7%) with early intervention than with spontaneous passage. Patients with large stones ≥7.0mm experienced fewer treatment failures (34.7% v. 58.6%) and similar ED revisit rates with early intervention. Patients with intermediate-sized 5.0-6.9mm stones had fewer treatment failures with intervention (37.4% v. 55.5%), but only if stones were in the proximal or middle ureter. Conclusion: This study clarifies stone characteristics that identify patients likely to benefit from early intervention. We recommend low-risk patients with uncomplicated stones <5mm generally undergo initial trial of spontaneous passage, while high-risk patients with proximal or middle stones >5mm, or any stone >7mm, be offered early intervention.

Introduction: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a common presentation to the emergency department (ED). Early endoscopy within 24 hours has been shown to reduce re-bleeding rates and lower mortality. However, low-risk patients can often be managed through outpatient follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare the timing and appropriateness of endoscopy and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use in a tertiary care ED setting for low- and high-risk patients determined using the Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS). Methods: Retrospective chart review was conducted to examine the management of patients presenting with an UGIB in 2016 to the University of Alberta Hospital ED. TANDEM and Emergency Department Information System (EDIS) databases were used to identify patients using specific ICD-10 codes and the CEDIS presenting complaints of vomiting blood or blood in stool/melena. Patients with GBS 0-3 were categorized as low-risk and those with GBS > 3 were considered high-risk with appropriateness of and time to endoscopy, disposition of patient at 24 hours, and use of PPIs determined for each group. Results: A total of 400 patients were included. A total of 319/400 patients (80%) underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). EGD was performed within 24 hours in 37% of patients (29/78) with GBS 0 to 3 and in 77% (248/322) with GBS greater than 3. Of the remaining high-risk patients, 11% (36/322) underwent EGD after 24 hours and 12% (38/322) did not undergo EGD. The endoscopic diagnoses were peptic ulcer disease (PUD) in 41% of patients (130/319), esophagitis in 18% (56/319), and varices in 14% (45/319). PPIs (data available 375/400) were administered (mainly intravenously) to 93% (279/300) of high-risk and 79% (59/75) of low-risk patients. Data on patient disposition showed 60/322 (19%) high-risk patients were discharged from the ED within 24 hours and only 31/60 (52%) of these underwent EGD before discharge. Of 29 low-risk patients undergoing EGD within 24 hours, 9 (31%) were admitted, 17 (59%) were discharged from ED, and 3 (10%) were kept for observation in the ED greater than 24 hours. Of low-risk patients, 76% (59/78) were discharged from the ED within 24 hours. Conclusion: A majority of patients presenting with UGIB appropriately received endoscopy within 24 hours. 19% of high-risk patients were discharged from the ED. Earlier discharge for low-risk patients can be improved as only 76% of low-risk patients were discharged from the ED within 24 hours. As expected, PPI use was high in these patients.

Introduction: There is an opioid epidemic which has seen an increased mortality rate of 200% related to opioid use over the past decade. Prescription practices amongst ED physicians may be contributing to this problem. Our objective was to analyze ED physician prescription practices for patients discharged from the ED with acute fractures. Methods: We conducted a health records review of ED patients seen at two campuses of a tertiary care hospital with total annual census of 160,000 visits. We evaluated a consecutive sample of patients with acute fractures (January 1 2016–April 15 2016) seen and discharged by ED physicians. Patients admitted to hospital or discharged by consultant services were excluded. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients discharged with an opioid prescription. We collected data using a screening list, review of electronic records, and interobserver agreement for measures. We calculated simple descriptive statistics and estimated 4 months would be required to enroll 250 patients receiving opioid prescriptions. Results: We enrolled 816 patients, with 442 females (54.2%), median CTAS score of 3, and median pain score at triage of 6/10. The most common fractures were wrist/hand (35.2%) and foot excluding ankle (14.8%). An ED pain directive was used at triage for 21.2% and 281 patients (34.4%) received an opioid during ED stay, with tramadol (21.2%) being the most common. Overall, 250 patients (30.6%) were discharged with the following opioid prescriptions and median total dosages: hydromorphone (N = 114, median dosage 23mg, range 1–120mg), tramadol (N = 86, 1000mg, 200–2000mg), oxycodone (N = 33, 100mg, 10–170mg), codeine (N = 20, 600mg, 360–1200mg), and morphine (N = 9, 100mg, 25–200mg). Of patients prescribed hydromorphone, 61 (53.5%) were prescribed > 20mg. Overall, 35 patients (4.3%) had a pain related ED visit <1 month after discharge, of which 14 (40%) received an opioid prescription on initial discharge, and 12 (34.2%) received an opioid prescription upon subsequent discharge. Conclusion: Amongst patients presenting to the ED with acute fractures, the majority were not discharged home with an opioid prescription from ED physicians. Hydromorphone was the most common opioid prescribed, with large variations in total dosage. Despite only a minority of patients receiving opioid prescriptions, there were very few return to ED visits. To limit potential abuse, we recommend standardization of opioid prescribing in the ED, with attention to limiting the total dosage given.

Introduction: Increasing opioid prescribing has been linked to an epidemic of opioid misuse. Our objective was to synthesize available evidence about patient-, prescriber-, medication-, and system-level risk factors for developing opioid misuse from prescribed opioids among patients presenting with pain unrelated to cancer. Our hypothesis was that we would identify risk factors predisposing patients to developing opioid misuse. Methods: We developed a systematic search strategy and applied it to nine electronic reference databases and six clinical trial registries. We hand searched related journals and conference proceedings, the reference lists of included studies, and the top 100 hits on Google. We included studies where a medical professional exposed adults or children to an opioid through a prescription. We excluded studies with over 50% cancer patients, palliative patients, and those with illicit opioid initiation. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts, and extracted data using standardized forms. We assessed study quality using risk of bias. We synthesized effect sizes of dichotomous risk factors on opioid misuse using inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis, and the inverse variance-weighted mean difference between opioid misusers and non-misusers for continuously measured factors. We conducted an a priori defined subgroup analysis among opioid-naïve patients. Results: Among 9,629 studies, 67 met our inclusion criteria. Among those who had been prescribed outpatient opioids, the following factors were associated with the development of misuse: a prior history of illicit drug use (OR: 4.21, 95% CI: 2.31-7.65), recent benzodiazepine use (OR: 2.57, 95% CI: 1.23-5.38), any mental health diagnosis (OR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.91-3.15), any short acting (IR) opioid prescription (OR: 2.40, 95% CI: 1.15-5.02), younger age (OR: 2.19, 95%CI: 1.81-2.64), and male sex (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.10-1.36). Among studies limiting their population to opioid-naïve patients, younger age was the most significant risk factor for opioid misuse (OR: 5.42, 95% CI:1.51-19.43). Conclusion: Of the risk factors examined, non-cancer pain patients with a prior history of substance use or mental health diagnoses were at highest risk for prescription opioid misuse. Younger opioid-naïve patients were at highest risk of misuse. Clinicians should consider these risk factors when managing acute pain in the emergency department.

Introduction: Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS) is a poorly understood phenomenon with a subset of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) for symptomatic control of refractory nausea and vomiting. As legalization of marijuana commenced on October 2018, it is important to recognize the presentation of patients related to marijuana consumption. The objective of this study was to describe demographic and ED visit data of patients presenting to the ED with cannabis-related sequelae. Methods: This was a health records review of patients ≥18 years presenting to one of two tertiary care EDs (annual census 150,000 visits) with a discharge diagnosis including cannabis use with one of abdominal pain or nausea/vomiting using ICD-10 codes. Trained research personnel collected data from medical records including demographics, clinical history, results of investigations within the ED. Descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations are presented where appropriate. Results: From April 2014 to June 2016, 203 unique ED patients had a discharge diagnosis including cannabis use with abdominal pain or nausea/vomiting. Mean (SD) age was 30 (13.04) years and 120 (59.1%) were male. Patients presented to the ED independently 84 (41.4%), via EMS with 104 (51.23%) and 15 (7.39%) by police. The majority of patients were triaged as CTAS-2 in 27 (33%) and CTAS-3 in 106 (52.2%) of all cases. Of patients disclosing their method of consumption, 31 (15.3%) had used combustion methods and 30 (14.8%) had edible marijuana. Mean (SD) serum potassium was 3.71 (0.48) mmol/l. 162 (79.8%) were discharged home and 9 (4.4%) were given follow up (all psychiatric). Twenty-nine (14.3%) were admitted to hospital with 28 (13.8%) admitted to psychiatry and 1 (0.5%) admitted to medicine. Conclusion: This ED-based retrospective chart review reports a description of cannabis-related presentations to the ED. Clinicians should be aware of CHS in patients presenting to the ED, especially as Canada enters the era of legalization. Future research should focus on the impact of federal legalization of marijuana on ED utilization for CHS-related presentations.

Introduction: Emergency Department (ED) opioid prescribing has been linked to long-term use and dependence. Small packets of opioid medications are sometimes prescribed at discharge, i.e. ‘To-Go’, in an attempt to treat pain but avoid unintended consequences. The extent of this practice and its associated risks are not fully understood. This study's objective was to describe the use of ‘To-Go’ opioids in a large urban center. Methods: Multicenter linked administrative databases were used to recruit an observational cohort. The referral population was comprised of all patients discharged from a Calgary ED in 2016 (four hospitals) with an arrival pain score greater than 0. We first described this population and then performed a multivariable analysis to assess for predictors of ‘To-Go’ opioids. ‘To-Go’ opioids were either Tylenol-Codeine or Tylenol-Oxycodone. Results: A total of 88,855 patients were recruited. The majority were female (57%) and the average age was 44.5 yrs. Abdominal pain was the most frequent complaint (22.1%) followed by extremity (18.3%) and cardiac pain (8.0%). Overall, 2,736 patients (3.1%) received an opioid ‘To-Go’ with significant variation in prescribing rates across hospitals (1.8-5% Chi2 p < 0.05). Logistic regression (covariates: age, sex, CTAS, pain score, type of pain, hospital, ED opioid, length of stay) revealed that receiving an opioid (IV or PO) prior to discharge was the strongest predictor of ‘To-Go’ opioid (OR 6.4 [5.9-7.0]). Hospital (OR 1.4 [1.3-1.4]) and male sex (OR 1.2 [1.1-1.3]) also emerged as predictors, whereas age over 65 decreased the odds of ‘To-Go’ opioid (OR 0.8 [0.6-0.9]). Hospital-specific ORs ranged from 1.3-2.7. Conclusion: In comparable patient populations some hospitals are more likely than others to provide a short course of opioids at discharge. This difference is not explained by patient demographics, pain profiles, or medications prior to discharge. The reasons for this variation are unclear but it underscores the need to determine the risks of ED opioid exposures and develop clear evidence-based prescribing guidelines.

Introduction: With an increasing proportion of patients in need of end-of-life (EOL) care presenting to the emergency department (ED), many of these patients may benefit from early palliative care (PC) referral. In fact, early PC referral is one of the Choosing Wisely ED recommendations in the USA. As such, there is a potential benefit to identifying patients with advanced or end-stage illness with PC needs. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and synthesize the available evidence regarding the existence and psychometric properties of screening tools to identify patients with advanced or end-stage illness and PC needs presenting to EDs. Methods: A comprehensive search of eight electronic databases and the grey literature was conducted. Studies assessing the ability of a screening instrument to identify ED patients with advanced or end-stage illness in need of PC were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through third-party adjudication. Due to the significant heterogeneity, as well as inconsistent outcome reporting, a descriptive summary of the results was completed. Results: Once duplicates were removed, the title and abstracts of 3516 studies were screened, of which, 15 studies were included. Overall, 10 unique screening instruments were assessed across the studies. The most commonly assessed screening tool was the use of the modified surprise question (SQ), in which physicians were asked if they would be surprised if the patient died within a specified period of time. Only four of the included studies assessed the diagnostic or psychometric properties of the screening tools. One study reported that the modified SQ predicted PC consultation with 35% sensitivity, 89% specificity, and a negative predictive value of 97%. The proportion of patients identified with PC needs ranged from 12% to 73%, with studies utilizing the SQ reporting a range of 12% to 33%. Conclusion: A variety of screening tools are available to identify ED patients with advanced or end-stage illness who would benefit from a referral for PC. While the modified SQ was the most common instrument assessed and appears to be simple to implement, it is unclear if the diagnostic and psychometric properties of this tool are sufficiently robust to warrant widespread implementation.

Introduction: The quality of life of children with sickle cell disease (SCD) depends on the severity, timing and number of painful episodes (vaso-occlusive crises, VOC) and their need for medical treatment and hospitalizations. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of pediatric patients and their families during VOC. Methods: This qualitative study used semi-structured one-on-one and focus group interviews, designed in partnership with two patients and one parent, in a single center, tertiary care pediatric university-affiliated hospital. Two groups of participants were interviewed independently: (1) adolescent patients aged 12 to 18 years old hospitalised within the last 2 years for VOC, (2) parents of pediatric patients with SCD hospitalised within the last 2 years for VOC. Data was transcribed in full and analysed using NVivo12. Descriptive thematic content analysis was performed by coding themes emerging from data. After validating codes through interjudge assessment by consensus, themes from teenagers’ and parent's discourses were systematically compared for the final analysis. Results: Between June and August 2018, 8 interviews were conducted. 10 parents and 5 adolescents participated. Teenagers’ and parents’ answers mirrored each other's. Prompt pain relief was crucial, although the side effects of pain relief medications used were an added source of suffering. Recent quality improvement initiatives such as standardised order sheets were noteworthy improvements, though personalizing care to each patient's with pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods was also important to participants. Given the unpredictability and severity of VOC, their impact on both patients’ and families’ lives were substantial, as was the long term emotional burden. Parents felt guilty given the hereditary nature of the disease, they encouraged neonatal and prenatal testing, and they sought definitive treatments for both VOC and SCD. Tensions within parent-teenager relationships were described centered on developing autonomy and protecting the child to improve adherence to treatments. Conclusion: Participants emphasized the need to provide timely adequate analgesia, through both standardised quality improvement initiatives and a personalised approach to analgesia. Understanding the impact of VOC on patients’ lives and their socio-familial context is important to tailor clinical interventions.

Introduction: Given the current opioid crisis, caregivers have mounting fears regarding use of opioid medication in their children. Since caregivers are often the gatekeepers to their children's pain management, understanding their perspectives on analgesics is essential. For caregivers of children with acute injury presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED), we aimed to determine caregivers’: a) willingness to accept opioids from emergency care providers, b) reasons for refusing opioids, and c) past experiences with opioids. Methods: A novel 31-item electronic survey was offered, via tablet device, to caregivers of children aged 4-16 years who had a musculoskeletal injury <7 days old and presented to one of two Canadian PEDs between March and November 2017. Primary outcome was caregiver willingness to accept opioids for moderate pain for their children. Results: 517 caregivers completed the survey; mean age was 40.9 +/−7 years with 70.0% (362/517) being mothers. Children included 62.2% (321/516) males with an overall mean age of 10 +/−3.6 years. 49.6% of caregivers (254/512) reported willingness to accept opioids for moderate pain that persisted after non-opioid analgesia, while 37.1% (190/512) were unsure what they would do. Only 33.2% (170/512) of caregivers stated they would accept opioid analgesia upon discharge while 45.5% (233/512) were unsure about at-home use. Caregivers were primarily concerned about side effects, overdose, addiction, and masking of diagnosis. Caregiver fear of addiction (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25) and side effects (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11-1.42) increased the odds of rejecting opioids in the emergency department, while fears of addiction (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.32) and overdose (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.27) increased the odds of rejecting opioids for at-home use. Conclusion: Only half of caregivers reported that they would accept opioids for moderate pain, despite ongoing pain following non-opioid analgesics. Caregiver fears of addiction, side effects, overdose, and masking their child's diagnosis influence their behaviours. These findings are a first step in understanding caregiver decision-making and can guide healthcare providers in their conversations about acute pain treatment with families.

Introduction: Needle-related procedures are considered the most important source of pain and distress in children in hospital settings. Time constraints, heavy workload, busy and noisy environment represent barriers to the use of available interventions for pain management during needle-related procedures. Therefore, the use of a rapid, easy-to-use intervention could improve procedural pain management practices. The objective was to determine if a device combining cold and vibration (Buzzy) is non-inferior (no worse) to a topical anesthetic (Maxilene) for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures in the Emergency Department (ED). Methods: This study was a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. We enrolled children aged between 4-17 years presenting to the ED and requiring a needle-related procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to the Buzzy or Maxilene group. The primary outcome was the mean difference in pain intensity during the procedure, as measured with the CAS (0-10). Secondary outcomes were procedural distress, success of the procedure at first-attempt and satisfaction of parents. Results: A total of 352 participants were enrolled and 346 were randomized (Buzzy = 172; Maxilene = 174). Mean difference in procedural pain scores between groups was 0.64 (95%CI -0.1 to 1.3), showing that the Buzzy device was not non-inferior to Maxilene according to a non-inferiority margin of 0.70. No significant differences were observed for procedural distress (p = .370) and success of the procedure at first attempt (p = .602). Parents of both groups were very satisfied with both interventions (Buzzy = 7.8 ±2.66; Maxilene = 8.1 ±2.4), but there was no significant difference between groups (p = .236). Conclusion: Non-inferiority of the Buzzy device over a topical anesthetic was not demonstrated for pain management of children during a needle-related procedure in the ED. However, considering that topical anesthetics are underused in the ED setting and require time, the Buzzy device seems to be a promising alternative as it is a rapid, low-cost, easy-to-use and reusable intervention.

Introduction: Although oral rehydration therapy is recommended for children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) with none to some dehydration, intravenous (IV) rehydration is still commonly administered to these children in high-income countries. IV rehydration is associated with pain, anxiety, and emergency department (ED) revisits in children with AGE. A better understanding of the factors associated with IV rehydration is needed to inform knowledge translation strategies. Methods: This was a planned secondary analysis of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) randomized, controlled trials of oral probiotics in children with AGE-associated diarrhea. Eligible children were aged 3-48 months and reported > 3 watery stools in a 24-hour period. The primary outcome was administration of IV rehydration at the index ED visit. We used mixed-effects logistic regression model to explore univariable and multivariable relationships between IV rehydration and a priori risk factors. Results: From the parent study sample of 1848 participants, 1846 had data available for analysis: mean (SD) age of 19.1 ± 11.4 months, 45.4% females. 70.2% (1292/1840) vomited within 24 hours of the index ED visit and 34.1% (629/1846) received ondansetron in the ED. 13.0% (240/1846) were administered IV rehydration at the index ED visit, and 3.6% (67/1842) were hospitalized. Multivariable predictors of IV rehydration were Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS) score [compared to none: mild to moderate (OR: 8.1, CI: 5.5-11.8); severe (OR: 45.9, 95% CI: 20.1-104.7), P < 0.001], ondansetron in the ED (OR: 1.8, CI: 1.2-2.6, P = 0.003), previous healthcare visit for the same illness [compared to no prior visit: prior visit with no IV (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-2.9); prior visit with IV (OR: 10.5, 95% CI: 3.2-34.8), P < 0.001], and country [compared to Canada: US (OR: 4.1, CI: 2.3-7.4, P < 0.001]. Significantly more participants returned to the ED with symptoms of AGE within 3 days if IV fluids were administered at the index visit [30/224 (13.4%) versus 88/1453 (6.1%), P < 0.001]. Conclusion: Higher CDS scores, antiemetic use, previous healthcare visits and country were independent predictors of IV rehydration which was also associated with increased ED revisits. Knowledge translation focused on optimizing the use of antiemetics (i.e. for those with dehydration) and reducing the geographic variation in IV rehydration use may improve the ED experience and reduce ED-revisits.