Objectives

Computed tomography (CT), the reference standard for diagnosis of intraabdominal injury (IAI), carries risk including ionizing radiation. CT-sparing clinical decision rules for children have relied heavily on physical examination, but they did not include focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST), which has emerged into widespread use during the past decade. We sought to determine the independent associations of physical examination, laboratory studies, and FAST with identification of IAI in children and to compare the test characteristics of these diagnostic variables. We hypothesized that FAST may add incremental utility to a physical examination alone to more accurately identify children who could forgo CT scan.

Methods

We reviewed a large trauma database of all children with blunt torso trauma presenting to a freestanding pediatric emergency department during a 20-month period. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of FAST, physical examination, and selected laboratory data with IAI in children, and we compared the test characteristics of these variables.

Results

Among 354 children, 50 (14%) had IAI. Positive FAST (odds ratio [OR] = 14.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.5 to 30.8) and positive physical examination (OR = 15.2, 95% CI = 7.7 to 31.7) were identified as independent predictors for IAI. Physical examination and FAST each had sensitivities of 74% (95% CI = 60% to 85%). Combining FAST and physical examination as FAST-enhanced physical examination (exFAST) improved sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) over either test alone (sensitivity = 88%, 95% CI = 76% to 96%) and NPV of 97.3% (95% CI = 94.5% to 98.7%).

Conclusions

In children, FAST and physical examinations each predicted the identification of IAI. However, the combination of the two (exFAST) had greater sensitivity and NPV than either physical examination or FAST alone. This supports the use of exFAST in refining clinical predication rules in children with blunt torso trauma.

Objective

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of emergency physician-performed point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for the diagnosis of small-bowel obstruction (SBO) compared to computed tomography (CT).

Methods

We performed a prospective, multicenter, observational study examining a convenience sample of adult patients with potential SBO presenting to the emergency department (ED) between July 2014 and May 2017. Each POCUS was interpreted at the bedside by the performing emergency physician and retrospectively by an expert reviewer. Test characteristics were calculated for POCUS, blinded expert interpretation, and specific POCUS parameters.

Results

A total of 217 subjects were included in the primary analysis with an overall SBO prevalence of 42.9%. For the diagnosis of SBO, POCUS demonstrated an overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80 to 0.94), 0.54 (95% CI = 0.45 to 0.63), 1.92 (95% CI = 1.56 to 2.35), and 0.22 (95% CI = 0.12 to 0.39), respectively. Expert review yielded a similar sensitivity (0.89 [95% CI = 0.81 to 0.95]) with a significantly higher specificity (0.82 [95% CI = 0.74 to 0.88]). The more sensitive sonographic parameters for both POC sonographers and expert reviewers were small-bowel dilation ≥ 25 mm (0.87 [95% CI = 0.79 to 0.93], 0.87 [95% CI = 0.79 to 0.93]) and abnormal peristalsis (0.82 [95% CI = 0.72 to 0.89], 0.85 [95% CI = 0.76 to 0.87]). The more specific parameters for both groups were transition point (0.82 [95% CI = 0.74 to 0.89], 0.98 [95% CI = 0.94 to 1.00]), intraperitoneal free fluid (0.82 [95% CI = 0.74 to 0.89], 0.93 [95% CI = 0.87 to 0.97]), and bowel wall edema (0.76 [95% CI = 0.67 to 0.83], 0.93 [95% CI = 0.87 to 0.97]).

Conclusion

POCUS is moderately sensitive for SBO, although less specific, when performed by a diverse group of emergency physicians across multiple EDs. Interpretation of acquired POCUS images is significantly more accurate when performed by physicians with prior emergency ultrasound fellowship training and familiarity with the sonographic appearance of SBO.

Decision aids are evidenced-based tools designed to increase patient understanding of medical options and possible outcomes, facilitate conversation between patients and clinicians, and improve patient engagement. Decision aids have been used for shared decision making (SDM) interventions outside of the ED setting for more than a decade. Their use in the ED has only recently begun to be studied. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference SDM in practice work group regarding "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-Relevant, Patient-Centered Research Agenda." The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda for the development and testing of SDM interventions for use in emergency care that was most important to patients, clinicians, caregivers, and other key stakeholders. Using the nominal group technique, the consensus working group proposed prioritized research questions in six key domains: 1) content (i.e., clinical scenario or decision area), 2) level of evidence available, 3) tool design strategies, 4) risk communication, 5) stakeholders, and 6) outcomes.

This second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic "low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department." The multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The GRACE-2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient-intervention-comparison-outcome-time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences.