METHODS: We analysed the total visits and discharge rates during periods of using the nebulizer and current pMDI-VMMS methods. The acceptance of pMDI-VMMS by patients and assistant medical officers (AMOs) were assessed by questionnaire.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We analysed 3184 ED visits and responses from 103 patients and 32 AMOs. The direct discharge rate was similar for both nebulizer (n = 2162, 92.5%) and pMDI-VMMS method (n = 768, 90.7%) (p-value = 0.120). Twenty-eight patients (27.2%) favoured the pMDI-VMMS over the nebulizer, whereas 36 patients (35.0%) had no preference for either method. Sixty-four patients (62.1%) felt that the current pMDI-VMMS method was better or at least as effective in relieving their symptoms as a nebulizer. The current method was favoured over the nebulizer by twenty-seven AMOs (84.4%). Twenty-eight (87.5%) AMOs suggested that the current method was more effective than the nebulizer.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The bronchodilator delivered via pMDI-VMMS appeared to be comparable to nebulizer in treating mild to moderate asthma and COPD exacerbations in the outpatient ED. Most patients and AMOs accepted the use of pMDI-VMMS in the outpatient ED during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The Venturi mask modified spacer can be a cheap and effective alternative to the commercial spacer in a resource-limited situation.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a universal sample of 307 health professionals comprising of nurses, medical assistants, medical residents, medical officers and physicians across medical and casualty departments in a Malaysian public hospital. The self-administered questionnaire consisted of items on socio-demographics, WhatsApp usage characteristics and the type of communication events during clinical practice.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents (68.4%) perceived WhatsApp as beneficial during clinical practice. In multivariate analysis, perceived benefits was significantly higher amongst the clinical management group (aOR=2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.6, p=0.001), those using WhatsApp for >12months (aOR=1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.0, p=0.047), those receiving response ≤15min to a new communication (aOR=1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2, p=0.017), and frequent information giving events (aOR=2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.8, p=0.016).
CONCLUSION: Perceived benefits of WhatsApp use in clinical practice was significantly associated with usage characteristics and type of communication events. This study lays the foundation for quality improvement innovations in patient management delivered through m-Health technology.
METHOD: Categorisation was a surgical judgment call after thorough clinical assessment. There were 4 levels of urgency with their respective TTT; Red (2 hours), Yellow (8 hours), Green (24 hours), Blue (72 hours). Caesarean cases were excluded in colour coding due to pre - existing classification. The data for mean TTT was collected 4 weeks before the implementation (Stage 1), and another 4 weeks after implementation (Stage II). As there was a violation in the assumption for parametric test, Mann Whitney U test was used to compare the means between these two groups. Using logarithmic (Ln) transformation for TTT, Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted for multivariate analysis to adjust the effect of various departments. The mean TTT for each colour coding classification was also calculated.
RESULTS: The mean TTT was reduced from 13 hours 48 min to 10 hours, although more cases were completed in Stage II (428 vs 481 cases). Based on Mann-Whitney U test, the difference in TTT for Stage I (Median=6.0, /IQR=18.9) and Stage II (Median=4.2, IQR=11.5) was significantly different (p=0.023). The result remained significant (p=0.039) even after controlled for various department in the analysis. The mean/median TTT after colour coding was Red- 2h 24min/1h, Yellow- 8h 26min/3h 45 min, Green- 15h 8min/8h 15min, and Blue- 13h 46min/13h 5min.
CONCLUSION: Colour coding classification in emergency Operation (OT) was effective in reducing TTT of patients for non-caesarean section cases.
AIM: To identify the effect of triage training on the skills and accuracy of triage decisions for adult trauma patients.
METHOD: A randomized controlled trial design was conducted in ten emergency department of public hospitals. A total of 143 registered nurses and medical officer assistants who performed triage roles were recruited for the control group (n = 74) and the intervention group (n = 69). The skill and accuracy of triage decisions were measured two weeks and four weeks after the intervention group were exposed to the intervention.
RESULTS: There was a significant effect on the skill of triage decision-making between the control and the intervention group p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed retrospective data of chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM from 1st June 2020 till 31st January 2021 based on the patient's history, ECG findings, risk factors, age and troponin level. The patients were stratified as low risk (MHS and HEAR score of 0-3), intermediate risk (MHS and HEAR score of 4-6), and high risk (MHS of 7-10 and HEAR score of 7-8). The association of the MHS and HEAR score with MACE at 6 weeks' time was evaluated using simple logistic regression.
RESULTS: This study included 147 patients in the MHS analysis and 71 patients in HEAR score analysis. The incident rate of MACE in low, intermediate and high risk was 0%,16.3%, and 34.7%, in the MHS group, and 0%, 3.22%, and 6.66% in HEAR score group. The mean difference between MACE and non-MACE in MHS and HEAR score groups was -2.29 (CI: -3.13,1.44, p<0.001) and -2.51(CI: -5.23, 0.21, p=0.070), respectively. There was no significant association between the incidence rate of MACE with modified HEART score (MHS) and HEAR score groups (p>0.95).
CONCLUSION: HEAR score is not feasible to be used as a risk stratification tool for chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM in comparison to MHS. Further studies are required to validate the results.
METHODS: Patients with an admission diagnosis of suspected or confirmed infection and fulfilling at least two criteria for severe inflammatory response syndrome were included in this study. Patients' characteristics, vital signs, and laboratory values were used to identify prognostic factors for mortality. A scoring system was derived and validated. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality rate.
RESULTS: A total of 440 patients were included in the study. The 28-day hospital mortality rate was 32.4 and 25.2% for the derivation (293 patients) and validation (147 patients) sets, respectively. Factors associated with a higher mortality were immune-suppressed state (odds ratio 4.7; 95% confidence interval 2.0-11.4), systolic blood pressure on arrival less than 90 mmHg (3.8; 1.7-8.3), body temperature less than 36.0°C (4.1; 1.3-12.9), oxygen saturation less than 90% (2.3; 1.1-4.8), hematocrit less than 0.38 (3.1; 1.6-5.9), blood pH less than 7.35 (2.0; 1.04-3.9), lactate level more than 2.4 mmol/l (2.27; 1.2-4.2), and pneumonia as the source of infection (2.7; 1.5-5.0). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81 (0.75-0.86) in the derivation and 0.81 (0.73-0.90) in the validation set. The SPEED (sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department) score performed better (P=0.02) than the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve of 0.81 (0.76-0.85) as compared with 0.74 (0.70-0.79).
CONCLUSION: The SPEED score predicts 28-day mortality in septic patients. It is simple and its predictive value is comparable to that of other scoring systems.
Methods: A total of 110 severe TBI patients, aged 18-60, who underwent emergency brain surgery were randomised into Group T (TCI) (n = 55) and Group S (sevoflurane) (n = 55). Anaesthesia was maintained in Group T with propofol target plasma concentration of 3-6 μg/mL and in Group S with minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane 1.0-1.5. Both groups received TCI remifentanil 2-8 ng/mL for analgesia. After the surgery, patients were managed in the intensive care unit and were followed up until discharge for the outcome parameters.
Results: Demographic characteristics were comparable in both groups. Differences in Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score at discharge were not significant between Group T and Group S (P = 0.25): the percentages of mortality (GOS 1) [27.3% versus 16.4%], vegetative and severe disability (GOS 2-3) [29.1% versus 41.8%] and good outcome (GOS 4-5) [43.6% versus 41.8%] were comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences in other outcome parameters.
Conclusion: TCI propofol and sevoflurane anaesthesia were comparable in the outcomes of TBI patients after emergency surgery.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of s.c. tramadol vs. i.v. tramadol in patients with moderate pain due to extremity injury in the ED.
DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial included adult patients presented to an academic, tertiary hospital ED with moderate pain (pain score of 4-6 on the visual analog scale) due to extremity injury. Intervention patients stratified to pain score were randomized to receive 50 mg of i.v. or s.c. tramadol.
OUTCOMES MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measure was the difference in the pain score reduction at 30 min after tramadol administration between the two groups. The noninferiority null hypothesis was that the therapeutic difference in terms of pain score reduction of more than 0.8 exists between the two treatment groups at the endpoint.
MAIN RESULTS: In total 232 patients were randomized to i.v. ( n = 115) or s.c. ( n = 117). Although 225 were analyzed in the per-protocol population (i.v. = 113; s.c. = 112). The baseline median pain score was 6 (IQR, 5-6). Median pain score reduction at 30 min after administration was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the IV group vs. 2 (IQR, 1-2) in the s.c. group with a median difference of 0 (IQR, 0-0), which was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.8. Adverse events in the i.v. group were higher compared to the s.c. group (33.6% vs. 8.9%, P ≤ 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The s.c. tramadol is noninferior to i.v. tramadol in the treatment of moderate pain from extremity injuries.
METHODOLOGY: This was a cross-sectional observational study done from November 2017 until December 2017 at ED Hospital Sultan Abdul Halim (HSAH), a 650-bedded tertiary hospital in the state of Kedah. All patients that were triaged to red zone, age 18 years and above, and involved in intra-hospital transfer to critical coronary unit, intensive care unit and wards were included. All cases were documented in proforma by the accompanying staff.
RESULTS: Among the 170 critically ill patients, only 29 patients (17.1%) experienced adverse events during intra-hospital transfer. The adverse events seen were hypotension (12.4%), desaturation (3.5%) and dislodged peripheral line (2.4%). Cardiorespiratory related diagnosis was the commonest presentation. Intra-hospital transfer during morning shift and evening shift has 79.5% (b=-1.59, OR=0.21, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.69, p=0.011) and 75.6% ((b=-1.41, OR=0.24, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.73, p=0.012) lesser odds of experiencing adverse events compare to night shift. Patients with vasopressor/inotropes had 9 times higher odds of experiencing adverse events during transportation, compared to patients with no vasopressor/inotropes (b=2.27, OR=9.70, 95% CI: 3.39, 27.72, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Critical care patients who are involved in intrahospital transfer were at risk of adverse events such as hypotension, desaturation and dislodge peripheral line. Risk identification and maintaining level of care is important to minimize the adverse events during transfer. Patients had higher rates of adverse events if they were transferred during night shifts and on inotropic/vasopressor support.