7 UWO Emerg Research Abstracts Accepted for ICEM & CAEP 2008!

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]Congratulations to [B]Dr. Marcia Edmonds, Dr. Rob Sedran, Dr. Karl Theakston, Dr. Terry Skoretz, Dr. Daniel Grushka [/B]and[B] Shelley McLeod [/B]on the acceptance of their research abstracts to the annual CAEP conference which will be held in Ottawa from June 7th-11th 2008. :D[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman][B]Drs. Edmonds, Sedran, Theakston, Justin Yan (UWO medical student)[/B] and [B]Ms. McLeod[/B] will be presenting 4 abstracts detailing the findings from their research study entitled “The Utility of Renal Ultrasound in Predicting Urologic Intervention for Emergency Department Patients with Suspected Renal Colic.” [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]A retrospective chart review was completed for all adult patients who had an ED-ordered US for suspected renal colic over a one-year period. Imaging results were categorized as normal, suggestive, stone seen or non-renal disease. The charts of all patients were reviewed to determine if they required any urologic intervention within 90 days after their initial ED visit. Of the 857 renal US ordered during the study period, 373 (43.5%) were classified as normal, 182 (21.2%) were classified as suggestive, 241 (28.2%) were classified as stone seen and 61 (7.1%) were classified as non-renal disease. Of the 857 renal US, 160 (18.7) patients had a CT scan and 29 patients (3.4%) required urologic intervention.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]The group did further investigation and discovered that 49 (13%) of the patients who had a normal US underwent additional imaging identifying 6 (1.6%) stones, only two (< 1%) of which required urologic intervention with lithotripsy. However, 52 (28.6%) of the patients who had a suggestive US underwent additional imaging where 21 (11.5%) stones were identified. All but one of these stones was less than 7mm (mean 4.8mm; SD 1.7mm) and 13 (7.1%) of these patients required urologic intervention.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]The group concluded that a normal renal US predicted a low likelihood for urologic intervention within 90 days for adult ED patients with suspected renal colic, however there was a significant rate of urologic intervention for patients with renal US suggestive of urolithiasis. Future prospective research is needed to better define the role of US in the ED management of renal colic.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]On behalf on the group, [B]Dr. Marcia Edmonds[/B] will also be giving an oral presentation at the 2008 International Conference for Emergency Medicine (ICEM) in San Francisco in April. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]________________________________________________________________________[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]Congratulations to [B]Dr. Daniel Grushka[/B] (CCFP-EM resident), [B]Shelley McLeod[/B] and [B]Dr. Marcia Edmonds[/B] on the acceptance of their abstract entitled, “Imaging Modalities for the Assessment of Acute Appendicitis in the Emergency Department”. Daniel has received funding to attend CAEP 2008 and present at the conference on behalf of the UWO Department of Family Medicine. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]The group conducted a retrospective medical record review (n=250) of all ED patients diagnosed with of appendicitis in the last year. The study objectives were to review the utilization of imaging modalities, factors associated with choice of imaging and the negative appendectomy rate at our institution. They observed that there was a high rate of imaging overall with 51.2% of patients receiving a CT prior to appendectomy. Furthermore, the authors concluded that although the rate of misdiagnosis was lower in those who received imaging, the most appropriate use of these diagnostic tests warrants further study due to costs, time in the emergency department and concerns regarding the lifetime cumulative radiation exposure attributed to CT.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]________________________________________________________________________[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]Congratulations to [B]Dr. Terry Skoretz, Jennifer Tang (UWO medical student)[/B] and [B]Shelley McLeod[/B] on the acceptance of their abstract entitled, “The Impact of Emergency Department Targeted Ultrasound on Management of Patients with Early Pregnancy Complaints.” The objective of this study was to describe the impact of Emergency Department Targeted Ultrasound (EDTU) on patient outcomes and ED length of stay (LOS). A sample of 123 (n=60 EDTU, n=63 non-EDTU) adult female patients (age > 17 years) less than 20 weeks gestational age with presentation of pelvic/abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, syncope or shock were included in this prospective, cohort study.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#000000]The investigators found that ED LOS was significantly reduced (p<0.05) when [COLOR=black]EDTU [/COLOR](3.7 hrs) [COLOR=black]was used to manage patients with early pregnancy complaints [/COLOR]compared to the non-EDTU group (4.5 hrs)[/COLOR][COLOR=black]. A trend to lower rates in obstetrical follow-up, formal radiologic ultrasound, and return to ED was noted, but a significant difference was not detected between the EDTU and non-EDTU groups. The authors concluded that EDTU is a valuable clinical tool that may impact patient outcome and improve patient flow in the ED. [/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]