Post-Roe emergency medicine: Policy, clinical, training, and individual implications for emergency clinicians

In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, removing almost 50 years of precedent and enabling the imposition of a wide range of state-level restrictions on abortion access. Historical data from the United States and internationally demonstrate that the removal of safe abortion options will increase complications and the health risks to pregnant patients. Because the emergency department is a critical access point for reproductive health care, emergency clinicians must be prepared for the policy, clinical, educational, and legal implications of this change. The goal of this paper, therefore, is to describe the impact of the reversal of Roe v. Wade on health equity and reproductive justice, the provision of emergency care education and training, and the specific legal and reproductive consequences for emergency clinicians. Finally, we conclude with specific recommended policy and advocacy responses for emergency medicine clinicians.

Interprofessional Trauma Team Training: Leveraging Each Specialties' Expertise to Teach Procedural-Based Skills

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to utilize interprofessional trauma team training to teach procedural-based skills, teamwork, and assess the impact on the procedural comfort and interprofessional collaboration.

DESIGN

Interdisciplinary skills sessions were created to focus on chest tube placement and advanced ultrasound techniques. Chest tube sessions were taught by senior general surgery (GS) residents and faculty. Ultrasound sessions were taught by emergency medicine (EM) fellows and faculty. Mock trauma simulations for EM and GS residents and EM nurses, were developed to also focus on improving interprofessional trauma-bay collaboration. Sessions were held throughout the year for 2 consecutive academic years. After completing skills sessions and trauma scenarios, participants were surveyed on skill comfort, session utility, and willingness to collaborate with the other specialty. Likert scale responses were analyzed by specialty cohort and in aggregate. Free-text feedback responses were analyzed for common themes.

SETTING

Large, tertiary, urban academic medical center PARTICIPANTS: Forty seven EM residents and 32 GS residents completed instructional chest tube and ultrasound simulations, respectively. Twenty two EM residents, 24 GS residents, and 29 EM nurses participated in interprofessional trauma simulations.

RESULTS

For chest tube placement: 71% of EM residents reported feeling uncomfortable with the procedure prior to the session, with 100% reporting improved confidence afterwards. Seventy percent stated the model was realistic. One hundred percent thought it improved their procedural skills. All participants thought it was worthwhile, should be offered again in future years, and planned to incorporate what they learned in their future practice. For the ultrasound sessions: 61% of GS residents felt uncomfortable with the Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma prior to the simulation. Ninety four percent reported the improved skill and confidence, and felt the model was realistic. All participants felt sessions were worthwhile, should be offered again, and planned to incorporate what they learned in their future practice. For trauma simulations: 97% of participants felt scenarios were realistic and clinically relevant and planned to incorporate lessons learned in their future clinical practice. All participants thought participation was worthwhile. Ninety seven percent thought it improved their confidence with trauma clinical management and 56% reported it improved their skills. Many participants reported they appreciated learning from the other specialty's perspective, with greater than 95% of all participants reporting improved comfort and willingness to collaborate across disciplines when caring for future trauma patients. All participants requested the simulation sessions continue in future academic years.

CONCLUSION

Interprofessional trauma simulation sessions can harness the unique skill sets of different disciplines to teach procedural-based skills and improve interprofessional collaboration within the trauma bay.

Simulation versus reality: what can interprofessional simulation teach us about team dynamics in the trauma bay?

Purpose

Surgical consultation and the joint management of trauma patients is a common scenario in the emergency department. The goal of this study was to utilize interprofessional trauma team training to understand the role of simulation and its impact on the overall culture of trauma-related care.

Methods

Interdisciplinary trauma simulation scenarios were completed by 12 groups of emergency medicine residents, general surgery residents, and emergency medicine nurses across two academic years. Following each simulation, a debriefing session was held to reflect on the scenario, focusing on team interactions. Debriefing sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed, deidentified, and independently, inductively coded by two members of the research team. Using the constant comparative method, a codebook was developed and refined until interrater reliability was confirmed with a kappa of > 0.9. Codes were organized into higher level themes.

Results

There were 72 participants, including 23 general surgery residents, 19 emergency medicine residents, and 30 emergency medicine nurses. 214 primary codes were collapsed into 29 coding categories, with 6 emerging themes. Pre-trauma bay impact describes how interactions prior to the trauma scenario can impact how team members communicate, trust one another, and ultimately care for the patient. Role and team identity explores the importance of one knowing their individual role in the trauma bay and how it impacts overall team identity. Resource allocation describes the balance of having appropriate resources to efficiently care for patients while not negatively impacting crowd control or role identity. Impact of the simulation experience highlights the impact of the lower stakes simulation scenario on learning and reflection as well as concerns with simulation fidelity. Trauma leader traits and actions outlines inherent traits and learned actions of trauma leaders that impact how the trauma scenario unfolds. Interprofessional team performance describes the overall performance of the trauma team, including but not limited to the type of communication used, teamwork behaviors, and transition of care of the patient.

Conclusions

Interdisciplinary trauma simulations and structured debriefing sessions provide insights into team dynamics and interprofessional relationships. Simulations and debriefing sessions can promote understanding, respect, and familiarity of team members' roles; recognition of key characteristics of high functioning leaders and teams; and discovery of conflict mitigating strategies for future interdisciplinary team improvement. Simulation sessions allow implementation of quality improvement measures and communication and leadership strategy practice in a safe, collaborative learning environment. The lessons learned from these sessions can encourage participants to reexamine how they interact and function as a team within the real-life trauma bay.

The Surprise Question Can Be Used to Identify Heart Failure Patients in the Emergency Department Who Would Benefit From Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Heart failure (HF) is associated with symptom exacerbations and risk of mortality after an emergency department (ED) visit. Although emergency physicians (EPs) treat symptoms of HF, often the opportunity to connect with palliative care is missed. The "surprise question" (SQ) "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?" is a simple tool to identify patients at risk for 12-month mortality.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of the SQ when used by EPs to assess patients with HF.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study in which clinicians applied the SQ to patients presenting to the ED with symptoms of HF. Chart review and review of death records were completed. The primary outcome was accuracy of the surprise question to predict 12-month mortality. A univariate analysis for potential predictors of 12-month mortality was performed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 199 patients were identified, and complete data were available for 97% of observations (n = 193). The one-year mortality was 29%. EPs reported that "they would not be surprised" if the patient died within the next 12 months in 53% of cases. 42.7% of these patients died within 12 months compared to 13.3% in the "would be surprised" group. There was a strong association with death in the "not surprised" group (odds ratio 4.85, 95% CI 2.34-9.98, P < 0.0001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the SQ were 78.6%, 56.9%, 42.7%, and 86.7%, respectively, with c-statistic = 0.68.

CONCLUSION

The SQ screening tool can assist ED providers in identifying HF patients that would benefit from early palliative care involvement.