The AfJEM blog
Every quarter, the African Journal of Emergency Medicine, in partnership with several other regional emergency medicine journals, publishes abstracts from each respective journal. Abstracts are not necessarily linked to open access papers, but where green access is available it is linked to. Click 'Read More' to read further.
Limited Ability of Three Health Literacy Screening Items to Identify Adult English- And Spanish-Speaking Emergency Department Patients With Lower Health Literacy
Merchant RC, eta al. Ann Emerg Med. 2020 Jun;75(6):691-703
Brief, easily administered, and valid health literacy assessment tools are needed to optimize health care delivery in the emergency medicine setting. Three health literacy screening items have been proposed to assess health literacy in outpatient settings. We investigated their ability to identify English- and Spanish-speaking adult emergency department (ED) patients with lower health literacy.
Participants were Spanish- or English-speaking adult patients randomly selected from 4 geographically spread, US, urban, safety-net EDs. Participants completed the 3 health literacy screening items, as well as the Short Assessment of Health Literacy-Spanish and English (SAHL-S&E). Test performance characteristics, including receiver operating characteristics area under the curve, of the 3 health literacy screening items were estimated, as compared with the SAHL-S&E.
According to the SAHL-S&E, 36% of the 1,165 English speakers and 35% of the 1,605 Spanish speakers had lower health literacy. Areas under the curve for each health literacy screening item individually were: needing others to help read materials (English 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.62; Spanish 0.58, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.61), problems learning because of difficulty reading (English 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66; Spanish 0.59, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.62), and confidence with completing forms (English 0.62, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.65; Spanish 0.60, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.63). Areas under the curve for the 3 screening items combined were: English 0.66 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.70) and Spanish 0.62 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.64).
The 3 health literacy screening items performed poorly in identifying adult ED patients with lower health literacy. Higher-validity screening measures are needed to better serve the health care needs of this vulnerable population in the ED setting.
Reproduced with permission
Twitter Metrics Complement Traditional Conference Evaluations to Evaluate Knowledge Translation at a National Emergency Medicine Conference
Yiu S, et al. CJEM. 2020 May;22(3):379-385
Conferences are designed for knowledge translation, but traditional conference evaluations are inadequate. We lack studies that explore alternative metrics to traditional evaluation metrics. We sought to determine how traditional evaluation metrics and Twitter metrics performed using data from a conference of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP).
This study used a retrospective design to compare social media posts and tradition evaluations related to an annual specialty conference. A post ("tweet") on the social media platform Twitter was included if it associated with a session. We differentiated original and discussion tweets from retweets. We weighted the numbers of tweets and retweets to comprise a novel Twitter Discussion Index. We extracted the speaker score from the conference evaluation. We performed descriptive statistics and correlation analyses.
Of a total of 3,804 tweets, 2,218 (58.3%) were session-specific. Forty-eight percent (48%) of all sessions received tweets (mean = 11.7 tweets; 95% CI of 0 to 57.5; range, 0-401), with a median Twitter Discussion Index score of 8 (interquartile range, 0 to 27). In the 111 standard presentations, 85 had traditional evaluation metrics and 71 received tweets (p > 0.05), while 57 received both. Twenty (20 of 71; 28%) moderated posters and 44% (40 of 92) posters or oral abstracts received tweets without traditional evaluation metrics. We found no significant correlation between Twitter Discussion Index and traditional evaluation metrics (R = 0.087).
We found no correlation between traditional evaluation metrics and Twitter metrics. However, in many sessions with and without traditional evaluation metrics, audience created real-time tweets to disseminate knowledge. Future conference organizers could use Twitter metrics as a complement to traditional evaluation metrics to evaluate knowledge translation and dissemination.
Reproduced with permission
Predicting bacteremia in patients attended for infections in an emergency department: the 5MPB-Toledo model
Julián-Jiménez A, et al. Emergencias. 2020;32:81-9
To develop a simple risk score to predict bacteremia in patients in our hospital emergency department for infection.
Retrospective observational cohort study of all blood cultures ordered in the emergency department for adults (aged 18 or older) from July 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019. We gathered data on 38 independent variables (demographic, comorbidity, functional status, and laboratory findings) that might predict bacteremia. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were applied to the data and a risk scale was developed.
A total of 2181 blood samples were cultured. True cases of bacteremia were confirmed in 262 (12%). The remaining 1919 cultures (88%) were negative. No growth was observed in 1755 (80.5%) of the negative cultures, and 164 (7.5%) were judged to be contaminated. The 5MPB-Toledo model identified 5 predictors of bacteremia: temperature higher than 38.3°C (1 point), a Charlson comorbidity index of 3 or more (1 point), respiratory frequency of at least 22 breaths/min (1 point), leukocyte count greater than 12 000/mm3 (1 point), and procalcitonin concentration of 0.51 ng/mL or higher (4 points). Low risk for bacteremia was indicated by a score of 0 to 2 points, intermediate risk by 3 to 5 points, and high risk by 6 to 8 points. Bacteremia in these 3 risk groups was predicted for 1.1%, 10.5%, and 77%, respectively. The model’s area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.946 (95% CI, 0.922–0.969).
The 5MPB-Toledo score could be useful for predicting bacteremia in patients attended in hospital emergency departments for infection.
Reproduced with permission
Prognostic Accuracy of the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA)-lactate Criteria for Mortality in Adults With Suspected Bacterial Infection in the Emergency Department of a Hospital With Limited Resources
Sinto R, et al. Emerg Med J. 2020 Jun;37(6):363-369
Routine use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to prognosticate patients with sepsis is challenged by the requirement to perform numerous laboratory tests. The prognostic accuracy of the quick SOFA (qSOFA) without or with lactate criteria has not been prospectively investigated in low and middle income countries. We assessed the performance of simplified prognosis criteria using qSOFA-lactate criteria in the emergency department of a hospital with limited resources, in comparison with SOFA prognosis criteria and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) screening criteria.
This prospective cohort study was conducted between March and December 2017 in adult patients with suspected bacterial infection visiting the emergency department of the Indonesian National Referral Hospital. Variables from sepsis prognosis and screening criteria and venous lactate concentration at enrolment were recorded. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge or death. Prognostic accuracy was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of each criterion in the prediction of in-hospital mortality.
Of 3026 patients screened, 1213 met the inclusion criteria. The AUROC of qSOFA-lactate criteria was 0.74 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.77). The AUROC of qSOFA-lactate was not statistically significantly different to the SOFA score (AUROC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78; p=0.462). The qSOFA-lactate was significantly higher than qSOFA (AUROC 0.70, 95% CI0.67 to 0.74; p=0.006) and SIRS criteria (0.57, 95% CI0.54 to 0.60; p<0.001).
The prognostic accuracy of the qSOFA-lactate criteria is as good as the SOFA score in the emergency department of a hospital with limited resources. The performance of the qSOFA criteria is significantly lower than the qSOFA-lactate criteria and SOFA score.This abstract has been translated and adapted from the original English-language content. Translated content is provided on an "as is" basis. Translation accuracy or reliability is not guaranteed or implied. BMJ is not responsible for any errors and omissions arising from translation to the fullest extent permitted by law, BMJ shall not incur any liability, including without limitation, liability for damages, arising from the translated text.
Reproduced with permission