RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Female participants are underrepresented in randomised control trials conducted in urgent care settings. Although sex and gender are frequently reported within demographic data, it is less common for primary outcomes to be disaggregated by sex or gender. The aim of this review is to report sex and gender of participants in the primary papers published on research listed on the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Trauma and Emergency Care (TEC) portfolio and how these data are presented. METHODS: This is a systematic review of the published outputs of interventional trials conducted in UK EDs. Interventional trials were eligible to be included in the review if they were registered on the NIHR TEC research portfolio from January 2010, if the primary paper was published before 31 December 2023 and if the research was delivered primarily in the ED. Trials were identified through the NIHR open data platform and the primary papers were identified through specific searches using MedLine, EMBASE and PubMed. The primary objective of the review is to quantify the proportion of sex-disaggregated or gender-disaggregated primary outcomes in clinical trials within UK emergency medicine. RESULTS: The initial search revealed 169 registered research projects on the NIHR TEC portfolio during the study period, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 76 719 participants were included, of which 31 374 (40%) were female. Only one trial (CRYOSTAT-2) reported a sex-disaggregated analysis of the effect of the intervention on either primary or secondary outcomes, and no sex-based difference in treatment effect was detected. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer females than males were included in TEC trials from 2010 to 2023. One trial reported the primary outcome stratified by sex. There is significant scope to increase the scientific value of TEC trials to females by funders.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Supporting people to quit smoking is one of the most powerful interventions to improve health. The Emergency Department (ED) represents a potentially valuable opportunity to deliver a smoking cessation intervention if it is sufficiently resourced. The objective of this trial was to determine whether an opportunistic ED-based smoking cessation intervention can help people to quit smoking. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled superiority trial conducted between January and August 2022, adults who smoked daily and attended one of six UK EDs were randomised to intervention (brief advice, e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services) or control (written information on stop smoking services). The primary outcome was biochemically validated abstinence at 6 months. RESULTS: An intention-to-treat analysis included 972 of 1443 people screened for inclusion (484 in the intervention group, 488 in the control group). Of 975 participants randomised, 3 were subsequently excluded, 17 withdrew and 287 were lost to follow-up. The 6-month biochemically-verified abstinence rate was 7.2% in the intervention group and 4.1% in the control group (relative risk 1.76; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.01; p=0.038). Self-reported 7-day abstinence at 6 months was 23.3% in the intervention group and 12.9% in the control group (relative risk 1.80; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.38; p<0.001). No serious adverse events related to taking part in the trial were reported. CONCLUSIONS: An opportunistic smoking cessation intervention comprising brief advice, an e-cigarette starter kit and referral to stop smoking services is effective for sustained smoking abstinence with few reported adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04854616.

RESUMEN

Mild traumatic brain injury is a common presentation to the emergency department, with current management often focusing on determining whether a patient requires a CT head scan and/or neurosurgical intervention. There is a growing appreciation that approximately 20%-40% of patients, including those with a negative (normal) CT, will develop ongoing symptoms for months to years, often termed post-concussion syndrome. Owing to the requirement for improved diagnostic and prognostic mechanisms, there has been increasing evidence concerning the utility of both imaging and blood biomarkers.Blood biomarkers offer the potential to better risk stratify patients for requirement of neuroimaging than current clinical decisions rules. However, improved assessment of the clinical utility is required prior to wide adoption. MRI, using clinical sequences and advanced quantitative methods, can detect lesions not visible on CT in up to 30% of patients that may explain, at least in part, some of the ongoing problems. The ability of an acute biomarker (be it imaging, blood or other) to highlight those patients at greater risk of ongoing deficits would allow for greater personalisation of follow-up care and resource allocation.We discuss here both the current evidence and the future potential clinical usage of blood biomarkers and advanced MRI to improve diagnostic pathways and outcome prediction following mild traumatic brain injury.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The large volume of patients, rapid staff turnover and high work pressure mean that the usability of all systems within the ED is important. The transition to electronic health records (EHRs) has brought many benefits to emergency care but imposes a significant burden on staff to enter data. Poor usability has a direct consequence and opportunity cost in staff time and resources that could otherwise be employed in patient care. This research measures the usability of EHR systems in UK EDs using a validated assessment tool. METHODS: This was a survey completed by members and fellows of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine conducted during summer 2019. The primary outcome was the System Usability Scale Score, which ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Scores were compared with an internationally recognised measure of acceptable usability of 68. Results were analysed by EHR system, country, healthcare organisation and physician grade. Only EHR systems with at least 20 responses were analysed. RESULTS: There were 1663 responses from a total population of 8794 (19%) representing 192 healthcare organisations (mainly UK NHS), and 25 EHR systems. Fifteen EHR systems had at least 20 responses and were included in the analysis. No EHR system achieved a median usability score that met the industry standard of acceptable usability.The median usability score was 53 (IQR 35-68). Individual EHR systems' scores ranged from 35 (IQR 26-53) to 65 (IQR 44-80). CONCLUSION: In this survey, no UK ED EHR system met the internationally validated standard of acceptable usability for information technology.

Asunto(s)