|
Recently we’ve run a few simulations where the participants cannot speak out loud and must focus on nonverbal communications, based on the EM3 plan. The original intention of the simulation is to hone skills that are helpful when our verbal communications are hampered by red PPE.
What did we think?
In debrief we discussed: The role of quiet: Silence in resus has its advantages. Distractions were minimal. It forced the closing of loops where people confirmed tasks had been received. And the team leader at the head of the bed in the amber zone was receptive to communications coming towards them. Reflect on any noisy patient encounters you have had and their effect on your stress, communication or decision-making. Perhaps noise was unavoidable in that situation, or perhaps it was greater than necessary. Part of the mitigation of this is systematic - how we design hospitals, monitors, room shapes, materials, doors, use of space and so on. But part we can influence, or at least be aware of when it is starting to impair processes so it can be highlighted. Two sides of the communication coin: Every time we receive verbal communication from a colleague it comes packaged with non-verbal cues e.g. posture, facial expression, eye contact or lack of, potentially written word and so on. These adjust the message received and can alter it drastically. They can reinforce what we are saying, or if incongruent they can confuse or completely change the message. So it is critical that our verbal and non-verbal sides are in-keeping with each other. When we wear red PPE we are reducing clarity of voice, availability of facial expressions, eye contact and more, and therefore putting ourselves at higher risk of being misunderstood. Clearly any hearing impairment of involved staff or patients is going to make this more challenging. As a baseline the understanding of a message is weighted towards the non-verbal cues, so now these are even more critical. Think about a time you have had a misunderstanding at work and which factors contributed to it. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding over email where we are stripped down to simply written word only, or on the phone with spoken word only. Perhaps HALT factors were involved and affected how the message was communicated. Perhaps there was confusion over who was to act on a spoken instruction because of a lack of direction or non-verbal back-up. Personally I can think of recent examples of all of these, they happen commonly. What can we do about these situations? We can ensure we specifically think about the power our non-verbal communication has.
These are just a couple of examples, have a think about specifics in your role. Awareness of others: It was pointed out during this sim that there is a risk of losing awareness of what others are doing within the team and focussing solely on your own task if there is no verbal communication. This highlights the fact that the ideal is to have both clear verbal and nonverbal aspects, including team mini-summaries to ensure everyone is on the same page and sharing the same mental model. To do: Think about a recent misunderstanding or a communication challenge and reflect on how you would change what happened next time [ ] NursingTimes article on nonverbal communication [ ] If you took part in the sim, you can use this blog as a starter to reflect on your own experience of it [ ] Blog by: James Keitley - ED sim fellow - on behalf of the ED sim team. --------------- For clinical decisions please refer directly to primary sources. This blog may not be updated. All images copyright- and attribution-free in the public domain or taken by the author.
0 Comments
Continuing the gastro theme, here we worked through a case of decompensated liver disease. Thank you to Ash for being our sim patient and really committing to the cause! This week we also had a session of EMBites by Struan - look out for emails about upcoming sessions. They're short sharp reviews of key ED areas.
The simulated case: A woman presented with abdominal pain and jaundice, having on a previous admission had several litres of ascitic fluid drained. What happened? The patient had tachycardia and slightly low oxygen saturations. The risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) was recognised, so after an ascitic tap the patient was given IV antibiotics. Their results also showed acute kidney injury so they were given IV human albumin solution (HAS) as per the liver bundle. The CIWA protocol was started to plan for alcohol withdrawal and Pabrinex was given. What did we think? In debrief we discussed: Causes of decompensation: Have a think about what can trigger decompensation of liver disease. The liver bundle guide found on the G drive (search “decompensated”) can remind you of the common ones: alcohol, infection including SBP, and gastrointestinal bleeding. There is also constipation, portal vein thrombosis or development of hepatocellular cancer. Then think about what can cause the liver cirrhosis in the first place. Alcohol is an obvious one, but what else? The last few patients I have seen with decompensated liver disease have had non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD). It’s possible to imagine and worth bearing in mind they might experience frustration at being questioned on alcohol at all steps of the healthcare system. There’s also the hepatitis viruses, primary biliary cholangitis, autoimmune hepatitis, Wilson’s disease and others. The patient in this case had jaundice and abdominal pain as their presenting complaints with a background of alcohol misuse. To prevent us narrowing the diagnostic frame too early, what might the wider differential diagnoses be? It could be pancreatitis, or alcohol-related pAF leading to mesenteric ischaemia. The abdominal pain with oxygen requirement could represent pneumonia, or acute coronary syndrome. The participants in the simulation obtained an ECG, chest x-ray, and blood tests that included a serum lipase. The admission mortality for decompensated liver disease is high at around 10-20%, and once decompensated, the risk of death within one year might be up to 80%. Bearing this in mind, it has also been reported that historically the care of these patients has not been optimal. The 2013 NCEPOD report on alcohol-related liver disease suggested that for the cases they investigated not enough was done to help people cut down on harmful alcohol use, fluid management was suboptimal, as was treatment of associated sepsis. So these patients can be really sick and need their symptoms and signs appreciated early. Don’t be afraid to raise concerns about them in a busy department. And don’t be afraid in the case of alcohol-related disease to ask them if they want to reduce their alcohol use - even if they have been coming in and out this might be the time they want to access help but haven’t brought it up. Brief interventions in the emergency department can help. And then there’s the alcohol liaison team on Salus or on a phone/bleep in working hours (I’ve put the numbers on the Induction app). Ash reminded us that these patients can often be in majors and risk ‘flying under the radar’. She reminded us of the importance of fully assessing the patient using the nursing assessment ‘as a tool to help us and not just a tick box’ and asking:
Use of human albumin:
The liver bundle advises use of human albumin solution (HAS) in two situations: 1.5g/kg if SBP has been diagnosed and either bilirubin is above 68 or creatinine above 88, or 1g/kg if the patient has stage 2-3 AKI (i.e. creatinine over double baseline). Patients with liver disease tend to be deficient in albumin and so have low oncotic pressure inside the blood vessels. This leads to vessels being “leaky” and losing fluid out into the peritoneal cavity (ascites) and other spaces. Therefore, giving them albumin solution is intended to increase oncotic pressure, keeping fluid within the blood vessels. In Derriford, 20% HAS comes in vials of 100mL, so 20g albumin per vial. This should be prescribed as separate entries on the fluid chart for each vial, with as many as takes you to the correct g/kg required. So a 90kg patient with stage 3 AKI (needing 1g/kg) requires 90g HAS, or 450mL of 20% solution. Ascitic tap: All patients with ascites presenting with decompensated liver disease require an ascitic tap. As per the BASL/BSG guidelines this does not need to wait for clotting blood results and can proceed regardless. It is worth noting here that even if INR is prolonged, patients with cirrhosis are at risk of blood clots and should have prophylactic enoxaparin unless actively bleeding or platelets <50. If it’s a procedure you would like to learn, seek out someone in the department or in the medical team who can teach it. For the test requesting, there’s an order set on ICM, under hepatology, that has the required tests that will print out the right stickers. In addition to this I’ve been taught to select blood cultures on top that you enter “ascitic fluid” in the comments of. So this produces 2 white top sterile universal containers, 1 lavender blood tube, and the blood cultures bottles. 1 white top and the blood cultures to microbiology, and 1 white top and 1 lavender tube to the biochemistry lab. It is needed to ring the microbiology technician on-call to alert them to the samples. An example guide to interpretation of results can be found here on GeekyMedics. Other features: Although this patient did not have these features, GI bleeding and hepatic encephalopathy are also important considerations. GI bleeding has been covered in a previous blog, and can also be reviewed on the liver bundle and GI bleeding protocols. Encephalopathy may present difficulties with providing care and with noticing pain/abnormal physiology. A precipitant cause should be looked for. Ensure lactulose (20-30mL QDS) is prescribed and consider other causes of delirium. To do: St Emlyn’s blog on treating decompensated liver disease in the ED [ ] This is the publicly available BASL/BSG liver bundle, but note there are differences in our local protocol especially in the AKI section. Our own can be found on the G:/ drive, search for “decompensated” [ ] If you took part in the sim or watched on the livestream, you can use this blog as a starter to reflect on your own experience of it [ ] Blog by: James Keitley - ED sim fellow - on behalf of the ED sim team. --------------- For clinical decisions please refer directly to primary sources. This blog may not be updated. All images copyright- and attribution-free in the public domain or taken by the author. Gastroenterology is the theme for March, so for this simulation we started off with an upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB). There’s a large spectrum with this presentation - this simulated patient was on the severe side. Thanks to Sally Pearson and Laura Jacobs for facilitating.
The simulated case: A pre-alert was received for a man in his 50s who has been vomiting blood. He has had a recent binge of alcohol. Pre-hospitally he was identified as having a rapid pulse and low blood pressure. He had been cannulated and a 250mL bolus of fluid given. What happened? Before the patient’s arrival the team discussed roles and potential need for blood transfusion. The patient had blood taken and a second cannula inserted. After assessment the major haemorrhage protocol was initiated and blood transfusions initiated. The UGIB protocol was consulted and as this was a suspected variceal bleed the patient was given terlipressin and prophylactic antibiotics. What did we think? In debrief we discussed: Major haemorrhage protocol (MHP): We discussed that sometimes it’s appropriate to activate the MHP before the patient arrives based on what we know from the ATMIST. The MHP can be activated [edit 12/03/21: Sally has advised me that it is not through 2222, instead you must ring the blood bank directly] with a patient identifiable number. This is a resource-intensive process - really a specific person needs to raise the call and await callback from the blood bank, whilst another specific person is available to go and collect the blood products. Tell the EPIC. Remember we can also give O negative (or O positive in this case as male) blood which is stored within ED. Otherwise, blood can be crossmatched using the paper request forms that blood group samples are sent in. Remember to take the scanner to the patient and scan their wrist band to ensure no mislabelling occurs. There are logistical specifics that can be helpful here:
Electrolytes:
Low calcium is a problem in acute haemorrhage as it can further interfere with normal clotting. It can be triggered after giving the patient blood transfusions because of the use of citrate to impair clotting whilst the blood is being stored. Therefore calcium should also be administered. Since potassium is mainly intracellular, there is a risk that in stored blood some potassium moves outside of the cells, and especially in the case of any breakdown of the cells. Therefore massive transfusion comes with a risk of hyperkalaemia. If the patient also has a lactic acidosis from poor perfusion as a result of haemorrhage, then we know this can also increase serum potassium by pushing it out of cells into the blood in exchange for hydrogen ions. Further, hyperkalaemia can cause bradycardia - our patient is already having difficulty perfusing their organs so bradycardia here logically may add additional strain. Organising endoscopy: In-hours: inform medical registrar, endoscopist and gastroenterology registrar Out-of-hours: inform medical registrar and surgical registrar Liver and alcohol considerations: Clearly this patient will also need the liver bundle - see the guideline on the G drive - and the help of the alcohol liaison team. The UGIB guideline gives the dose of terlipressin to use if the bleed is suspected to be variceal. To do: Poiseuille’s law of flow applicable to IV cannulae [ ] Have you read the hospital massive transfusion policy? [ ] Two great guidelines to look at here: the UGIB one on EDIS, and the decompensated cirrhosis one on the G drive [ ] If you took part in the sim or watched on the livestream, you can use this blog as a starter to reflect on your own experience of it [ ] Blog by: James Keitley - ED sim fellow - on behalf of the ED sim team. --------------- For clinical decisions please refer directly to primary sources. This blog may not be updated. All images copyright- and attribution-free in the public domain or taken by the author. February is endocrine-themed, and I’ve tried to pick out cases that I have had difficulties with or reflected upon. We see patients with hyponatraemia all the time, but not so often are they severely deficient or symptomatic.
The simulated case: A woman in her 60s presenting after a minor fall in her shower, reported to be acting strangely by her family. She has come through START and initial investigations have shown a sodium level of 113. She has been moved to resus. What happened? The ACP looked at her previous blood tests and her recent GP consultation record, which showed her sodium had been normal 4 months ago and that she had consulted about a long-term cough but had been lost to follow-up. After examination there was no suspicion of traumatic injuries from the fall. She had formal bloods taken, an ECG (sinus tachycardia), and a second cannula. Additional blood tests like bone profile, magnesium, osmolality calculation were added on, and a urine sample was planned to test osmolality and urinary electrolytes. A chest x-ray showed a large unilateral pleural effusion. As per the guideline a plan was made to give 150mL of 2.7% sodium chloride IV. What did we think? In debrief we discussed: Immediate management considerations: Severe hyponatraemia puts the patient at risk of seizures, coma and arrest. In this simulation they had the symptom of confusion. The guideline (see the ‘to do’ section for its location) recommends 150mL of 2.7% hypertonic saline over 20 minutes followed by a sodium check, aiming for 5mmol/L increase over 1 hour. Overall we’re aiming for no more than 10mmol/L increase in the first 24 hours to reduce risks of demyelination. It was difficult to find the hypertonic saline at the time of the sim - this will be looked into. Although we may not see the results in ED, it’s helpful to have paired serum and urine osmolalities, urinary electrolytes and TFTs as well as the standard bloods. After initial management the subsequent steps will rely on this information. A random cortisol is less helpful than a 9am one, but may be helpful if Addisonian crisis is suspected as the cause. Note if starting fluid restriction this should be at about 500mL less than the patient’s usual intake, but otherwise interestingly the restriction amount can actually be estimated using the urinary electrolyte results - have a look at the guideline. Causes of hyponatraemia: It’s worth considering potential causes of pseudohyponatraemia: having high triglycerides, high serum protein levels or taking blood during an infusion can falsely alter the reported sodium level. Otherwise, for hyponatraemia, as per the guideline the causes can be organised by whether they cause a hypovolaemic, euvolaemic or hypervolaemic state. So it's really critical to consider the patient's fluid status.
You can then consider some of the causes:
Fluid overload state: all the “failures” - cardiac failure, renal failure/nephrotic syndrome. Euvolaemia: low intake of salt, SIADH, hypothyroidism, medications, surgery. Dehydrated: vomiting, diarrhoea, Addison’s, nephritis, salt wasting syndrome. In terms of SIADH which caused this patient’s hyponatraemia, there are further causes to consider. The patient has potentially had a head injury which can cause low sodium, but they have also had a cough and abnormal chest x-ray. This could represent pneumonia which can cause hyponatraemia. However their history of several months cough and weight-loss on a background of COPD and smoking, with pleural effusion on x-ray, may represent a small cell lung cancer producing ectopic ADH. The part of the guideline for asymptomatic or chronic hyponatraemia takes you through the different investigation depending on fluid status and urine osmolality. Mechanism of hyponatraemia: I’ve always found it tricky to think through why in SIADH patients can be euvolaemic with hyponatraemia and why this isn’t corrected. I found this video resource great for working through it. In essence, the excess ADH increases aquaporin expression in the nephron, more water is reabsorbed through these and blood volume increases. But then, in response to the increased fluid volume in the body, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis is downregulated, there is reduced aldosterone action, overall causing loss of sodium WITH water. Eventually there is some adaptation and the kidneys become less sensitive to ADH. Overall the net effect is euvolaemia but with loss of sodium. Decision whether to request a CT head: It was decided that the patient would benefit from a CT head scan, but this was judged to be currently lower priority than the other management steps. In this case it would have been normal. To do: Have a watch of this video explaining SIADH [ ] Ensure you know where to find hypertonic saline in ED [ ] Refresh yourself on the acute hyponatraemia guideline, go into the G: drive, clinical guidelines, then click to search for hyponatraemia [ ] If you took part in the sim or watched on the livestream, you can use this blog as a starter to reflect on your own experience of it [ ] Thank you to Laura for being our simulated patient today. Blog by: James Keitley - ED sim fellow - on behalf of the ED sim team. --------------- For clinical decisions please refer directly to primary sources. This blog may not be updated. All images copyright- and attribution-free in the public domain or taken by the author. February is endocrine-themed, and I’ve tried to pick out cases from recent weeks that I have had difficulties with or reflected upon when planning the simulations. Each week I’ve tried to improve the quality of live-streaming, with the aim that we can increase the reach of teaching whilst keeping the numbers of people physically present to a safe amount. Please get in touch if you have ideas about how we can best utilise this.
The simulated case: A man in his 40s with a long history of type 1 diabetes, presenting with vomiting. This is the 3rd time in 6 months he’s needed to come to ED with vomiting. He has been continuing his long-acting insulin but has been unable to keep food or water down for 48 hours. Has otherwise had good control of diabetes and did not require admissions prior to 6 months ago. He’s been told he can take domperidone before meals, but to limit its use. What happened? The patient came through START, had bloods including a normal VBG, and moved to majors. He had a nursing assessment and was noted to be tachycardic at ~105. The clinician took a brief history, examined him, and together with a senior doctor prescribed IV fluids and ondansetron. The plan was to assess response to this and if not able to eat or drink a substantial amount he would require admission, plus consultation with the diabetes specialist nursing team.
What did we think? In debrief we discussed: Causes and consequences of vomiting with diabetes: A primary concern is diabetic ketoacidosis (see our previous blog on paediatric DKA) which can both be a cause or a consequence of vomiting. If we have a patient with DKA but no obvious infection to trigger it, it can potentially be the point where investigation stops… but it shouldn’t be. Keep your differential wide for potential DKA-triggers, and this includes gastroparesis. Diabetic gastroparesis is a result of chronic damage to the nerves that control the movement of food along the bowel. The movement of food slows down and causes nausea and vomiting. In this case the patient’s blood gas/sugar/ketones were normal and we were not concerned about DKA presently. But without any fluid or food input they remain at risk. Consider the wide differential you have for any patient with vomiting and abdominal pain and work through this here as well. Choice of antiemetic: We talked about how we choose antiemetics in the emergency department. Anecdotally ondansetron is widely used as a first line choice. It is licensed in the UK for post-operative vomiting, and chemotherapy-related vomiting, but is clearly used off-label commonly. How do we decide which to use? Different causes of vomiting act through different pathways and involve different neurotransmitters. Have a read of this blog as a start. The vomiting in this patient’s case is likely visceral from feedback from the bowel, so likely to involve serotonin and dopamine. Ondansetron acts through serotonin predominantly, so may be a good option. A sim participant pointed out we often use prochlorperazine in vertigo. Here the nausea is of a vestibular source, and histamine plays a greater role. Prochlorperazine has a wide range of effects, on dopamine, serotonin and histamine. Cyclizine is a histamine inhibitor so may also be sensible here, although the actual mechanism by which cyclizine reduces nausea and vomiting is not known. As an example of comparative cost, the BNF lists IV ondansetron as generally on the £29.97 or £59.95 price tariff, IV cyclizine is on the £18.75 tariff, and IV prochlorperazine on the £5.23 tariff. What about the dopaminergic aspect though? Haloperidol is an antipsychotic that is licenced for nausea and vomiting postoperatively and in palliative care. It has been investigated as a potential agent to treat gastroparesis-related vomiting in the HUGS trial. It was a retrospective non-blinded study of 52 patients who had gastroparesis confirmed by motility testing, with patients compared to their previous visit to ED. They were given 5mg of IM haloperidol, and statistically significant reductions in need for admission and need for analgesia were observed. Whilst the potential side effects of haloperidol should of course be noted, no significant problems were encountered in the study population. Discharge vs admission: It can feel more difficult to admit someone that has normal blood results in this situation. The consultant pointed out that the patient’s knowledge of sick day rules and their management of blood sugar would be important here. Can they eat a significant amount of food and keep water down? If not it is likely they are coming into the hospital. Referring to diabetes specialist nursing team: The sim participants emphasised that we can refer to the diabetes specialist team from within ED. The hospital daily email from 29/10/20 states “please refer patients ASAP if diabetes input is required”, so if it’s obvious it will be needed, we can go to SALUS and refer early. At time of writing today’s daily email stresses “the diabetes doctors and nursing team are giving advice to referrals via typing on the outcome section of the SALUS data form or on the CPL section of See-EHR. Please refer to these areas for the outcome of remote reviews.” Importance of history and info from prior visits: Helpful information for a patient like this can be gathered from information about their previous visits to ED, or previous discharge summaries. Have they previously been discharged directly? What helped? Have they previously been referred to ITU? Do they have close support from the secondary care diabetes team? Additionally, feedback from participants noted it would be helpful to have additional information about the blood gases here: The blood gas was important here as it told us the patient’s pH was normal, their blood sugar was normal, and there were no obvious problems with their electrolytes. If the patient was entering diabetic ketoacidosis we would expect the pH to be below normal, and the blood sugar to be high. To do: Have a read of the simple explanation of gastroparesis on the NHS website here. It also has an area of dietary tips we can refer patients to try [ ] Read about the HUGS trial for haloperidol in gastroparesis here, or a summary by Salim Rezaie here [ ] Blog on the differing mechanisms of nausea and how we target these - here [ ] If you took part in the sim or watched on the livestream, you can use this blog as a starter to reflect on your own experience of it [ ] Blog by: James Keitley - ED sim fellow, reviewed by Dr Chris Humphries - senior clinical fellow --------------- For clinical decisions please refer directly to primary sources. This blog may not be updated. All images copyright- and attribution-free in the public domain or taken by the author. For January we’ll look at patients with mental health or substance-related presentations. This was a patient presenting with overdose, being cared for in the ambulatory area of the department. This was the first live-streamed session. I hope shortly we will be able to do this with the majority of simulations so that the wider team can benefit.
The simulated case: A man in his 20s presenting after an overdose of mirtazapine and propranolol, tachycardic with some muscle ache but with normal blood pressure. What happened? The healthcare assistant recorded observations and recorded the patient’s history. The importance of safeguarding children was explained and the details of the patient’s children were recorded. TOXBASE was consulted for management guidelines. It was decided to move the patient to majors due to the tachycardia, with a view to move to CDU once medically fit for liaison psychiatry consultation. What did we think? In debrief we discussed: Safeguarding: We talked about how we explain to patients the need for information about children in their care. This can clearly be an emotive topic and one in which intentions can be misunderstood. The group consensus was for a focus on the identification and provision of support as an outcome. Remember that adults who present who do not have children may still care for parents or other vulnerable adults - ask about this. Ask about vulnerability factors: do they feel safe at home? Do they have a support network? Have a look at the SCARF acronym in the “to-do” section below. The specifics of these medications: We talked about some of the specific risks with propranolol (e.g. hypotension - potential to be prolonged especially if sustained release) and mirtazapine (serotonin syndrome) and importance of ECG (QTc), bloods (e.g. CK) and a good examination. Bedside manner: We sometimes see people repeatedly attend with overdose. So it’s really important that we do maintain empathy and don’t burn out. Men with EUPD may be more likely to experience aggression and attend via police custody so it’s important to maintain the same appreciation that they need our help and support. Referring to PLNs: Have a look at the recent referral guidance sent out by email 14/01/21: “In brief the main message is refer early - from START or immediately behind START. Referrals can be made by medical or nursing staff after initial assessment… Mental health assessment can be made in parallel with medical treatment and referral for such assessment should not be delayed”. Cannulation: Consider the likelihood of the cannula being used before putting one in “just in case”. One review has suggested a median of 32.4% cannulas inserted in ED are not subsequently used, and clearly there are well documented risks of them. To do: Have a read of the email on referrals from 14-01-21. It also contains links to the RCEM mental health toolkit [ ] Think about using “SCARF” to cover vulnerability factors with the patient, and ask about them directly: feeling Safe at home? Are there others with Control? Abuse? Relationships? Family/friends? [ ] If you took part in the sim or watched on the livestream, you can use this blog as a starter to reflect on your own experience of it [ ] Blog by: James Keitley ED sim fellow --------------- For clinical decisions please refer directly to the guidance. This blog may not be updated. All images copyright- and attribution-free in the public domain or taken by the author. For January we’ll look at patients with mental health or substance-related presentations. In this sim a man with alcohol withdrawal presented following a presumed seizure. We'll repeat this sim next week.
The simulated case:
A man in his 40s brought into ED after a presumed unwitnessed seizure having cut down on alcohol during COVID19 lockdown. He moved through START into majors but following another seizure he moved into resus. This self-terminated. What happened? Joint nurse and doctor assessment to establish history and examine the patient. Blood tests, Pabrinex and withdrawal treatment were started. It was decided that the patient needed to be admitted given that he had multiple seizures. What did we think? In debrief we discussed: Role of vitamin replacement: This patient received IV Pabrinex. In alcohol misuse thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency is more likely, and Pabrinex is used to rapidly replace this vitamin in order to prevent or treat Wernicke’s encephalopathy. Without treatment Wernicke’s can be life-threatening. We talked about the same people may well have nutritional deficiencies that mean they are at risk of refeeding syndrome whilst in hospital. Alcohol liaison: Alcohol liaison specialists are available 08:30-17:00 Monday to Friday. You can find the number in the ‘daily email’ 30/11/20, and I have also added them to the Induction app under “alcohol liaison”. Remember not to presume they are already in contact with services, or presume based on previous presentations that they don’t want to be. The relevant organisations for us are: Plymouth patients - Harbour Cornwall patients - Addaction Devon patients - RISE recovery Raising the alarm: During COVID19 we’ve welcomed many new members of staff to the emergency department. We talked about differences between ED and areas of the hospital that staff have previously worked in, in terms of reasons to pull emergency buzzers. A seizure is a perfectly good reason to pull an emergency buzzer, as is any scenario where you need a greater number of people to be present immediately. To do: If you see a patient like this in-hours, speak to the alcohol liaison team and find out what additional help can be put in place for them [ ] If you took part in the sim, you can use this blog as a starter to reflect on your own experience of it [ ] Blog by: James Keitley ED sim fellow --------------- For clinical decisions please refer directly to the guidance. This blog may not be updated. All images copyright- and attribution-free in the public domain or taken by the author. Continuing the surgical theme today we simulated a young patient with a perforated appendix. Next week's SimFridays is cancelled for Christmas. Hope everyone is able to relax and spend some time with family or friends - even if that might now be in virtual form. Next month the plan is for a mental health theme - if anyone has ideas of how best to approach simulation in this month please get in touch.
The simulated case: A 19 year old woman presented with abdominal pain during the night, and due to ED pressures she had been waiting to be assessed in majors at the time of morning handover. What happened? The ED team assessment in majors found her to be tachycardic and tachypnoeic, with uncontrolled pain. She had an A-E assessment followed by management of pain, fluid resuscitation and antibiotics - then the potential causes of this presentation were considered. What did we think? In debrief we discussed: Imaging: We talked about the considerations of using CT in this patient group. Generally, ultrasonography is preferred in young women due to the higher incidence of gynaecological cause and the radiation involved in CT. However, as discussed in the simulation, the timing of the imaging must also be considered - if there is going to be a long delay for USS then the preference might shift to CT. If there is a high suspicion of appendicitis with shock, then immediate appendicectomy may be performed however if there is diagnostic uncertainty then there is value in imaging, and the evidence suggests this does not cause additional delay in general. (ASGBI commissioning guide 2014, see p12-13).
Gynaecological vs general surgical causes:
This patient was shocked and had an empty bladder scan, therefore a urine pregnancy test had not been possible. We talked about while there is diagnostic uncertainty it may be reasonable to involve both teams. β-HCG can be added-on to blood already taken. Simultaneous treatments: In this case there were competing demands on our colleagues time and resources. There were paracetamol, antibiotics, fluid, and analgesia to give - and only one cannula - and there was also discussion to be had with ED seniors, radiology (+/- scan requesting), and the surgical team. Managing these priorities was a key part of the thinking in this scenario. What would be your strategy in this circumstance be? Overnight delays: We talked about how after the initial front-door assessment there can be delays in being seen definitively, and patients have the potential to worsen during this time. The expected benefit from having a greater number of nursing colleagues is a repeated theme from SimFridays feedback, and today this was also discussed as something that would benefit patients like these. Other feedback included having patients like this allocated to the more visible bays, or if in the corridor then under the care of an assigned nurse. In this simulated case the patient went on to have a CT abdomen which showed acute appendicitis with perforation, and they went to theatre. To do: The next time you have multiple tasks to complete, take a moment to think through your thought processes. You might instinctively know which tasks take highest priority - analyse why you know this to be the case, what would change your mind, when is this not the case etc [ ] If you took part in the sim, you can use this blog as a starter to reflect on your own experience of it [ ] Blog by: James Keitley ED sim fellow --------------- For clinical decisions please refer directly to the guidance. This blog may not be updated. All images copyright- and attribution-free in the public domain or taken by the author. I have been reflecting on my workplace experiences over the last few months and how I think I am responding to our pressured and uncertain world and how that relates to my relationships with colleagues and what I observe in those beside me. From time to time I have noticed that my response to feedback will be defensive, and I suspect that others respond in a similar way. Whilst understandable it has consequences in my clinical practice, how the care is delivered by the team and how that is received by the patient. At first there may be blame and criticism leading to datix report and complaints. This leads to conflict, defensiveness and eventually to individual disengagement. I know this because I have experienced this and have disengaged from time to time; it is my way of coping, and I am conscious that others might be doing that too. I personally start to lose the sense of joy and the importance of the work that we do, the difference we make in such an important moment in a patient’s life.  We need to embrace a compassionate and grown up approach to sustain a high performing team. It’s important to create psychological safety and trust; to ask ourselves what would it be like if we could share difference and see it as enrichment of our clinical practice, counterviews are appreciated for what they are as different; and if there is concern about the safety and quality of that approach it is highlighted generously with the motivation to help and educate. From our own and colleagues’ experiences, it can be quite disheartening to face any kind of criticism from peers or managers. There is some kind of fear that one is being blamed for mistakes, which tends to happen more often in a high risk, pressured situation when our calmness and generosity is more in need. We are lucky to have a No Blame Policy at UHP but still why do we always feel guilty when we have taken action in the best interests of a patient at the time, then later, it is proven not to have been the right thing to do? Perhaps we need to adopt alternative ways to approach these incidents. Use them as a case study at meetings or handovers to avoid similar issues again… Human to human communication may reflect a much better outcome and resolve any misunderstandings amongst colleagues. No-one should be made to feel that they are being punished for having genuinely tried to act in the best interests of their patient, but there may be some learning that comes from this. I recently read this concept somewhere and perhaps if we can all use similar thoughts, we can have a better understanding and be supportive, caring and compassionate towards each other. This is not any different to us wanting to treat our patients the way we would like to be treated, only this time we are thinking about looking after us, after each other. By this we will clap for ourselves as we will be heroes for each other. Each time you have to challenge someone please remember the following: 1)This person has beliefs, perspectives, and opinions, just like me. 2)This person has hopes, anxieties, and vulnerabilities, just like me. 3)This person has friends, family, and perhaps children who love them, just like me. 4)This person wants to feel respected, appreciated, and competent, just like me. 5)This person wishes for peace, joy, and happiness, just like me. We are living in a very unprecedented and challenging world. Let’s care, be kind and be fair. We are the best team but we can now move towards perfection by “being the change we want to see in the Team”. AuthorWritten by Shadna Lallchand, ENP, Derriford ED December 2020 Today we looked at how we investigate older people with traumatic injury. The TARN report on major injury in older people (2017) showed differences in how these patients are looked after compared to younger trauma patients. A high number of injuries occur from falls from standing height in the home, and major injuries can be difficult to identify. In related news, over the next couple of months we will simulate some trauma calls to run through processes and identify any potential system errors when caring for trauma patients in the emergency department.
The simulated case: A 90 year old female who had been found on the floor of her lounge by carers. She has been unable to describe the day’s events but has pain in her hip.
What did we think? In debrief we discussed: Imaging: We talked about the chest examination involving a firm palpation around the sides and back of the chest if possible, to ensure we don’t miss injury around the sides of the patient. In this patient, with definite head and hip injuries on opposite sides of the body, with low saturations and pain around the side of the chest there are indications for a CT trauma scan to look for underlying injury. In other cases it may be entirely appropriate to have a CT head and a hip x-ray. Each case should be considered and discussed with someone experienced in seeing such patients.
We hear older patients say they have recurrent urinary infections - and this may of course still be the case - but consider whether there is something else that is being misdiagnosed based on positive urine dip/culture. Start afresh. This is only about leukocytes/nitrites and infection, so if you’re using the urine dip for another purpose this doesn't apply! Physiological considerations: We talked about how particularly in older people it needs to be considered whether their past medical history, frailty or medication history might be affecting the clinical picture and lead to error. For instance are they taking a medication to control heart rate that affects a tachycardic response to bleeding? By definition frailty is a reduced ability to keep homeostasis after insult, so normal observations may not be reassuring, and may represent a lack of response to injury where there should be a response. To do: RCEM learning on silver trauma [ ] Have a look at the GP guidance on UTI in those over 65 years of age [ ] If you took part in the sim, you can use this blog as a starter to reflect on your own experience of it [ ] Blog by: James Keitley ED sim fellow --------------- For clinical decisions please refer directly to the guidance. This blog may not be updated. All images not cited are copyright- and attribution-free in the public domain or taken by the author. |
|