Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The long-standing and ongoing controversy regarding administration of analgesia to patients with acute abdominal pain prior to final diagnosis has not yet been resolved, despite considerable research. Consequently, wide variations in clinical practice exist.

Objectives: To determine the motives, attitudes and practices of emergency physicians, internists and surgeons in Israeli emergency departments regarding the administration of analgesia before diagnosis in patients with acute abdominal pain.

Methods: Questionnaires were completed by 122 physicians in 21 EDs[1] throughout Israel and the replies were analyzed.

Results: Most EDs did not have a clear policy on analgesia for undifferentiated abdominal pain, according to 65% of the responders. More internists (75%) than surgeons (54%) (P = 0.02) and more emergency physicians (81%) than all other physicians (60%) (P = 0.05) held this opinion. Most respondents (64%) supported administration of analgesia pre-diagnostically. Support for analgesia was significantly stronger among internists (75%) compared to surgeons (52%) (P = 0.03). Despite this wide support, most respondents (68%) indicated that analgesia was rarely or never given pre‑diagnostically and, when it was, more surgeons (58%) than other physicians made that decision. Most internists (73%) and all surgeons reported that patients receive analgesia only after being examined by surgeons. Time allocated to the ED (part‑ or full‑time) significantly (P = 0.02) influenced decision-making, with 51% of part-time physicians vs. 25% of full-time opposing prompt administration of analgesia. Opinions on who should decide were divided according to medical specialty, with surgeons and internists almost opposed, as well as by physician age and percent of his/her time spent working in the ED. More surgeons than internists (P = 0.0005) reported that analgesia sometimes interfered with making a diagnosis. Most physicians (90%) stated that opiates impede diagnosis, to some extent. However, 58% of them supported the administration of opiates, more or less frequently. Intramuscular diclofenac was the most preferred analgesic, followed by intravenous morphine and pethidine; individual preferences extended beyond the list of actually administered drugs.

Conclusions: There is no consensus on the administration of analgesia for undiagnosed acute abdominal pain in EDs in Israel. Physicians’ attitudes are influenced by training, experience, and percent of personal time allocated to work in the ED.

The treatment of acute pain and anxiety in children undergoing therapeutic and diagnostic procedures in the emergency department has improved dramatically in recent years. The availability of non-invasive monitoring devices and the use of short-acting sedative and analgesic medications enable physicians to conduct safe and effective sedation and analgesia treatment. In today's practice of pediatric emergency medicine, sedation and analgesia has been considered as the standard of care for procedural pain. In most pediatric emergency departments throughout North America, "procedural sedation and analgesia" treatment is being performed by non-anesthesiologists (qualified emergency physicians and nurses). In 2003, the Israel Ministry of Health published formal guidelines for pediatric sedation by non-anesthesiologists; this important document recognizes for the first time the need for pediatric sedation and analgesia in the operating room. We describe the basic principles of procedural sedation and analgesia in children and urge physicians working in pediatric emergency rooms in Israel to expand their knowledge and be more involved in the treatment of pediatric procedural pain.

Background: Understanding discharge instructions is crucial to optimal healing but may be compromised in the hectic environment of the emergency department.

Objectives: To determine parents’ understanding of ED[1] discharge instructions and factors that may affect it.

Methods: A convenience sample of parents of children discharged home from the ED of an urban tertiary care pediatric facility (n=287) and a suburban level II general hospital (n=195) completed a 13-item questionnaire covering demographics, level of anxiety, and quality of physician’s explanation. Parents also described their child’s diagnosis and treatment instructions and indicated preferred auxiliary methods of delivery of information. Data were analyzed using the BMPD statistical package.

Results: Full understanding was found in 72% and 78% of the parents at the respective centers for the diagnosis, and in 82% and 87% for the treatment instructions (P  = NS between centers). There was no statistical correlation between level of understanding and parental age, gender, education, level of anxiety before or after the ED visit, or time of day. The most contributory factor to lack of understanding was staff use of medical terminology. Parents suggested further explanations by a special discharge nurse and written information as auxiliary methods.

Conclusions: Overall, parental understanding of ED discharge instructions is good. However, there remains a considerable number (about 20%) who fail to fully comprehend the diagnosis or treatment directives. This subset might benefit from the use of lay terminology by the staff, institution of a special discharge nurse, or use of diagnosis-specific information sheets.

Background: Although the preferred management of a patient presenting with an acute myocardial infarction is in a coronary care unit, data based on discharge diagnoses in Israel indicate that many of these patients are treated outside such units.

Objectives: To compare the demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment and mortality of AMI[1] patients treated inside and outside a CCU[2].

Methods: We compiled a registry of all patients admitted to three general hospitals in Haifa, Israel during January, March, May, July, September and November 1996.

Results: The non-CCU admission rate was 22%. CCU patients were younger (61.6 vs. 65.5 years), less likely to report a past AMI (18% vs. 34%), and arrived earlier at the emergency room. Non-CCU patients were more likely to present with severe heart failure (30 vs. 11%). Non-CCU patients received less aspirin (81 vs. 95%) and beta-blockers (62 vs. 80%). Upon discharge, these patients were less frequently prescribed beta-blockers and cardiac rehabilitation programs. CCU-treated patients had lower unadjusted mortality rates at both 30 days (odds ratio=0.35) and in the long term (hazards ratio=0.57). These ratios were attenuated after controlling for gender, age, type of AMI, and degree of heart failure (OR[3]=0.91 and HR[4]=0.78, respectively).

Conclusions: A relatively high proportion of AMI patients were treated outside a CCU, with older and sicker patients being denied admission to a CCU. The process of evidence-based care by cardiologists was preferable to that of internists both during the hospital stay and at discharge. In Israel a significant proportion of all AMI admissions are initially treated outside a CCU. Emphasis on increasing awareness in internal medicine departments to evidence-based care of AMI is indicated.

Background: The emergency department is one of the hospital’s busiest facilities and is frequently described as a bottleneck. Management by constraint is a managerial methodology that helps to focus on the most critical issues by identifying such bottlenecks. Based on this theory, the benefit of adding medical staff may depend on whether or not physician availability is the bottleneck in the system.

Objective: To formulate a dynamic statistical model to forecast the need for allocating additional medical staff to improve the efficacy of work in the emergency department, taking into account patient volume.

Methods: The daily number of non-trauma admissions to the general ED[1] was assessed for the period 1 January 1992 to 1 December 1995 using the hospital computerized database. The marginal benefit to shortening patient length of stay in the ED by adding a physician during the evening shift was examined for different patient volumes. Data were analyzed with the SAS software package using a Gross Linear Model.

Results: The addition of a physician to the ED staff from noon to midnight significantly shortened patient LOS[2]: an average decrease of 6.61 minutes for 80–119 admissions (P<0.001). However, for less than 80 or more than 120 admissions, adding a physician did not have a significant effect on LOS in the ED.

Conclusions: The dynamic model formulated in this study shows that patient volume determines the effectiveness of investing manpower in the ED. Identifying bottleneck critical factors, as suggested by the theory of constraints, may be useful for planning and coordinating emergency services that operate under stressful and unpredictable conditions. Consideration of patient volume may also provide ED managers with a logical basis for staffing and resource allocation.

Background: Patients’ consent to being part of medical education is often taken for granted, both in primary and secondary care. Formal consent procedures are not used routinely during teaching and patients are not always aware of teaching activities.

Objective: To investigate patients’ attitudes and expectations on issues of consent regarding participation in teaching in general practice, and the influence of a student’s presence on the consultation.

Methods: The study took place in 46 teaching practices during the sixth year clinical internship in family medicine. Patients completed questionnaires at the end of 10 consecutive eligible consultations. The questionnaire contained data on the willingness to participate in teaching, the preferred consent procedure and the effects of the student’s presence. The doctors were asked to estimate the sociodemographic level in their clinic area.

Results: A total of 375 questionnaires were returned; the response rate was not affected by the clinic’s sociodemographic level. Overall, 67% of the patients had come into contact with students in the past; 3.2% of the participants objected to the presence of a student during the consultation; 15% would insist on advance notification of the presence of a student, and another 13.9% would request it; 4% stated that the presence of students had a detrimental influence on the physical examination and history; and 33.6% would refuse to be examined by a student without the doctor’s presence.

Conclusion: Most patients agreed to have a student present during the consultation; some would like prior notification; a minority refused the student’s presence. A large minority would refuse to be examined without the tutor’s presence. Our findings need to be taken into account when planning clinical clerkships.

Background: Transfer to an emergency room and hospitalization of nursing home residents is a growing problem that is poorly defined and reported.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness of a pilot project involving hospitalization of nursing home residents directly to an acute-care geriatric department.

Methods: We retrospectively compared the hospitalization in an acute-care geriatric unit of 126 nursing home residents admitted directly to the unit and 80 residents admitted through the emergency room. The variables measured included length of stay, discharge disposition, mortality, cause of hospitalization, chronic medical condition, cognitive state, functional status at admission, and change of functional status during the hospital stay. Follow-up data were obtained from medical records during the 2 year study.

Results: No significant differences between the groups were found for length of stay, mortality, discharge disposition and most characteristics of the hospital stay. The only significant difference was in patients’ mean age, as emergency room patients were significantly older (86 vs. 82.9 years). The most common condition among nursing home patients admitted via the emergency room was febrile disease (36.9%) ,while functional decline was the most common in those coming directly from the nursing home (32.5%). The prevalence of functional dependence and dementia were similar in both groups. Functional status did not change throughout the hospital stay in most patients.

Conclusions: Treatment of selected nursing home residents admitted directly from the nursing home to an acute- care geriatric unit is feasible, medically effective, results in the safe discharge of almost all such patients and provides an alternative to transfer to an emergency room. This study suggests that quality gains and cost-effective measures may be achieved by such a project, although a randomized controlled trial is necessary to support this hypothesis.