The St.Emlyn’s Podcast

Welcome to the world of emergency medicine! At St. Emlyn’s, we understand the challenges and excitement that come with starting your career in this fast-paced field. Whether you’re a new doctor stepping into the emergency department (ED) for the first time or a medical student gearing up for your rotation, we’ve got you covered. This post delves into the nuances of emergency medicine, sharing valuable insights from seasoned professionals, Iain Beardsell and Simon Carley, to help you navigate your journey effectively.

Emergency medicine is distinct from other medical disciplines. Unlike the traditional approach taught in medical school, which involves extensive histories and comprehensive examinations, emergency medicine requires quick, focused thinking and decisive action. The goal is to identify and address life-threatening conditions promptly.

In the ED, time is of the essence. Patients arrive needing immediate care, and as an emergency physician, you won’t have the luxury of lengthy deliberations. Your patients want answers quickly, and this urgency shapes the way you practice. You’ll learn to focus on the presenting problem and drill down into the most critical aspects of their condition.

The thinking model in emergency medicine is primarily hyperthetico-deductive reasoning. This means you’ll form hypotheses based on initial information and then test these hypotheses through targeted questions and examinations. For instance, if a 55-year-old man presents with central crushing chest pain radiating down his left arm, your first thought should be an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

One of the fundamental differences in emergency medicine is the approach to diagnosing and treating conditions. Instead of trying to confirm what a patient has, you’ll focus on ruling out what they don’t have, especially the most life-threatening possibilities. For example, with chest pain, you’ll consider AMI, pulmonary embolism (PE), and aortic dissection as top priorities.

Interestingly, about 10% of patients presenting with symptoms like chest pain or headache have significant pathology. Your job is to identify this 10% while efficiently managing the remaining 90%. This approach ensures that you don’t miss critical diagnoses while not overburdening yourself with unnecessary details.

As you prepare for your first shift in the ED, here are some practical steps and philosophies to keep in mind:

Your primary goal is to identify if a patient needs resuscitation. Are they critically unwell? Do they require urgent interventions to save their life? This is your top priority.

After ensuring resuscitation, your next focus should be pain management. A pain-free emergency department is a goal to strive for. Administer analgesia as needed to ensure patient comfort, even before completing a full history or examination.

When a patient presents with a complaint, think about the worst-case scenarios related to their symptoms and aim to rule these out. For example, with chest pain, consider whether the patient might have an AMI, PE, or aortic dissection.

Conduct a focused history and examination to gather information pertinent to the presenting complaint. Avoid getting bogged down with irrelevant past medical history unless it directly impacts the current situation.

Simon and Iain emphasize the importance of considering four key interventions for every patient:

1. Oxygen: Determine if the patient needs oxygen or airway support.

The ED is a dynamic learning environment. Here’s how you can maximize your growth and effectiveness:

Don’t hesitate to ask questions. No question is too silly. Engaging with senior colleagues and seeking their advice will enhance your learning and patient care skills.

Emergency medicine is a field where continuous learning is crucial. Keep up with the latest practices, guidelines, and innovations. Attend workshops, conferences, and training sessions to stay updated.

Remember that emergency medicine is a team effort. Collaborate with nurses, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals. Effective communication and teamwork are essential for providing the best patient care.

After each shift, take time to reflect on your experiences. Identify what went well and areas for improvement. This self-assessment will help you grow as a clinician and enhance your skills over time.

Confidence in your abilities is vital, but it must be balanced with competence. Strive to be competent in your practice, and your confidence will naturally follow. Be aware of the balance between these two aspects to avoid the pitfalls of overconfidence.

One of the dangers in any medical field is unconscious incompetence—being unaware of what you don’t know. Stay humble, keep learning, and seek feedback from peers and seniors to continuously improve your competence.

The culture in the ED is unique. It’s a place where decisive actions and quick thinking are valued. Embrace this culture and the opportunities it presents for hands-on learning and making a real difference in patients’ lives.

In the ED, the Elvis philosophy—“a little less conversation, a little more action”—applies. Focus on doing what’s necessary for the patient rather than getting caught up in lengthy discussions. This action-oriented approach is crucial for effective emergency care.

Starting your career in emergency medicine is both exciting and challenging. At St. Emlyn’s, we believe in providing you with the tools, knowledge, and support you need to succeed. Remember the key principles: prioritize life-threatening conditions, focus on critical interventions, continuously learn and ask questions, and embrace the dynamic culture of the ED.

We love our jobs and hope that you, too, will find the same passion and fulfillment in your career. Good luck, enjoy the journey, and know that we’ll be with you every step of the way through this podcast and our wider St. Emlyn’s community.

Welcome to the world of emergency medicine. Let’s make a difference together!

Navigating the Challenges and Benefits of Targets in Emergency Medicine: A Deep Dive from St. Emlyn's

Welcome back to the St. Emlyn's blog. Today, we're tackling a topic that's both crucial and controversial in the UK: the multitude of targets faced by emergency departments (EDs). As many of you know, our emergency services have become world leaders in setting and striving to meet various targets. This post explores the impact of these targets, drawing insights from a recent St. Emlyn's podcast discussion between Iain Beardsell and Simon Carley.

The four-hour access target is perhaps the most well-known and influential benchmark in UK emergency medicine. This target mandates that 95% of patients must be admitted, transferred, or discharged within four hours of arrival at the ED. Although some argue that this system forces a "clipboard mentality," there are substantial benefits.

Before the introduction of the four-hour target, UK EDs often experienced chaotic conditions with patients waiting for days. The target has driven significant improvements by making timely patient management a priority across the entire healthcare system. It has led to increased staffing levels and has enhanced the efficiency of associated services, like radiology and laboratory testing, which are critical for patient care.

1. Improved Patient Flow: The four-hour target encourages EDs to streamline processes, reducing overcrowding and improving overall patient flow.

However, the four-hour target is not without its drawbacks. One major issue is the pressure it places on clinicians, potentially leading to rushed or suboptimal decision-making, particularly during peak times when the ED is overwhelmed. This can sometimes result in junior doctors making hasty decisions under pressure.

Beyond the four-hour target, UK EDs face a plethora of additional quality indicators, including metrics for:

• The time it takes to see a senior decision-maker

These targets aim to ensure comprehensive and timely care but also add to the administrative burden on clinicians.

Achieving a balance between meeting targets and providing high-quality clinical care requires strong clinical leadership and effective management. It's crucial that the focus remains on patient care rather than merely ticking boxes. At St. Emlyn's, we advocate for using targets to enhance clinical processes rather than allowing them to dictate every action.

In recent years, new targets linked to financial penalties have been introduced. For example, failing to complete VT risk assessments or properly signposting psychological services can result in financial consequences for hospitals. These measures, while well-intentioned, further complicate the landscape of clinical priorities and administrative tasks.

Effective clinical leadership is vital in navigating these challenges. Leaders must prioritize direct patient care while managing the increasing number of bureaucratic processes. It's essential to prevent the overburdening of clinicians with administrative tasks, ensuring they can focus on what matters most: the patients.

Recently, trauma team targets have been established, such as the requirement for a consultant to see major trauma patients within five minutes of arrival and for these patients to reach CT within 30 minutes. While these targets aim to standardize care and improve outcomes, they can be challenging to meet consistently, especially for cases that do not follow the typical major trauma profile.

For instance, elderly patients who suffer injuries but present later with complications might not meet the consultant within the stipulated five minutes, potentially resulting in penalties despite receiving appropriate care. Additionally, the 30-minute CT target can push teams to rush procedures, which might compromise safety.

The UK healthcare system has learned valuable lessons from past experiences, such as the mid-staff inquiry, emphasizing the importance of clinical judgment over rigid adherence to targets. The goal is to use targets to support and improve patient care rather than let them drive clinical decisions.

Looking forward, increasing the number of consultants and ensuring they are actively involved in patient care decisions will be critical. This shift will help balance the need to meet targets with the imperative to provide high-quality, individualized patient care.

The discussion around targets in emergency medicine is complex and multifaceted. While they bring about improvements in efficiency and care standards, they also introduce significant challenges. At St. Emlyn's, we believe that with wise and flexible application, targets can be a powerful tool to enhance clinical care.

We'd love to hear how targets impact your practice. Do they help you deliver better care, or do they create more hurdles than they're worth? Share your experiences with us, and let's continue this important conversation.

For more insights and discussions, keep following the St. Emlyn's blog. Your feedback is invaluable to us as we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of emergency medicine together.

It is a little known fact that to be successful as an emergency physician in the UK it is vital to take a three month rotation in Archery. Archery is a key skill for us all dating back to Medieval times when we introduced the longbow into warfare. This devastating tool could cause panic in opposing forces, scattering them into many wide and ineffective directions. In short they were an effective tool to cause and disruption inthe opposition ranks whilst the noble English armies of old strode forward with their visions of the future. Soldiers trained using targets to hone their skills and to focus on the aim - meeting the target.

Of course these days we do not have real bows and arrows in the emergency department, but archery remains alive and well. In the modern NHS we still train our troops in archery, or at least in the principle aim of archery - to meet the target.

With our long history of target setting and target hitting it is therefore no suprise that we are world leaders in standards/targets/indicators....., whichever term you prefer in fact and it has to be said that a target culture in the NHS has been criticised widely, even being blamed for the exodus of trainees to Southern climes, but there is arguably more to it than that.

In last weeks episode we touched on new targets around trauma care in the UK and that raised many questions and opened a debate on twitter. This week we want to take those thoughts further and ask what we, as the archiest of arch archers across the entire NHS can do with these externally set targets.

What we forgot to say in the podcast is the absolute need to work alongside a short stay admissions unit under the ED umbrella. Without that you would really struggle to deliver safe and efficient care. We both work in units with short stay admission units that allow us to deliver safe diagnostic and therapeutic interventions to our patients.

So, with some trepidation Iain and I ask whether all targets are a bad thing....

vb

S

Welcome to the St. Emlyn's podcast, where today we delve into the critical realm of trauma teams and trauma team leadership. Our focus is on optimizing efficiency and patient outcomes in the resuscitation room. Drawing from a hypothetical trauma case, we'll equip you with actionable knowledge to enhance your practice.

The UK has undergone significant reorganization in trauma services, emphasizing major trauma centres. These centres bypass local hospitals to ensure that patients with severe injuries receive specialized care. For instance, London has four major trauma centres, while Manchester has three. Along the South Coast, centres extend from Bristol to Brighton and down to Plymouth, ensuring a wide geographic spread.

Effective trauma team leadership is crucial for managing severe trauma cases. It's about making quick, informed decisions to optimize patient outcomes. One ambitious yet beneficial target is getting major trauma patients into a CT scanner within 30 minutes of arrival. Meeting this target can significantly improve patient outcomes.

Efficient trauma team dynamics are key. Clear, structured communication is critical. Use first names to foster a collaborative environment and break down hierarchical barriers. For instance, instruct the anesthetist to manage both airway and analgesia, leveraging their skills in pain management.

In high-pressure environments, concurrent activity is vital. As the trauma team leader, ensure multiple tasks are performed simultaneously. For example, while one team member inserts a chest drain, another applies a pelvic binder, and a third prepares for intravenous access. This approach minimizes delays and streamlines patient management.

Before transporting the patient to the CT scanner, ensure they are appropriately packaged. Use portable monitors and verify that all necessary equipment, such as oxygen and rescue medications, are in place. A pre-transport checklist can prevent any oversights and ensure a smooth transfer.

Trauma team leadership is not about making decisions in isolation. Engage with your team, including radiologists, surgeons, and nursing staff, to gather input and make informed decisions. For instance, if a radiologist identifies a pneumothorax via ultrasound, proceed with chest drain insertion without waiting for a chest x-ray.

Minimize unnecessary procedures to expedite patient care. Avoid routine lateral cervical spine x-rays, chest x-rays, and pelvic x-rays if ultrasonography provides sufficient information. Focus on interventions that directly impact patient outcomes and streamline the path to definitive diagnosis and treatment.

Effective communication is the backbone of trauma team leadership. Use structured handovers, clear task allocations, and constant updates to keep everyone informed. Avoid shouting; maintain a calm and controlled environment to foster teamwork and ensure the patient remains as comfortable as possible.

Trauma care is continually evolving. The approach discussed here emphasizes minimizing time in the resuscitation room and prioritizing rapid transfer to the CT scanner. This shift requires a change in mindset, viewing the resuscitation room as an extension of the pre-hospital environment and the CT scanner as the definitive diagnostic tool.

Trauma team leadership is both an art and a science. It requires quick decision-making, efficient task allocation, and seamless communication. By adopting a structured approach, minimizing unnecessary interventions, and fostering a collaborative environment, we can improve patient outcomes and meet the challenging target of getting major trauma patients to the CT scanner within 30 minutes.

Whether you're in a major trauma centre or a smaller unit, the principles of effective trauma team leadership remain the same. Implementing these strategies will enhance your practice and ultimately save lives.

Good luck with your trauma team leadership efforts. We hope you find this podcast insightful and applicable to your practice. Stay tuned for more insights and updates from the St. Emlyn's team.

Welcome back to the St. Emlyn’s podcast. I’m Iain Beardsell and joining me is Simon Carley. Today, we’re delving into the complex yet critical concepts of relative risk, absolute risk, and the number needed to treat (NNT) in the context of emergency medicine. These metrics are essential for understanding the effectiveness of treatments and making informed decisions in clinical practice.

In emergency medicine, it’s vital to comprehend how different treatments impact patient outcomes. This understanding not only helps in communicating with patients but also aids in making better clinical decisions. Two key terms frequently encountered are relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction.

Imagine we are conducting a trial on a new drug for myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. Typically, 10% of AMI patients die within a month. If our new treatment claims a 50% relative risk reduction, it sounds impressive. However, understanding what this actually means is crucial. A 50% relative risk reduction translates to reducing the death rate from 10% to 5%. While this is significant, it's essential to recognize the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction.

The NNT is a valuable metric for understanding how many patients need to receive a particular treatment to prevent one additional adverse outcome. It’s derived from the absolute risk reduction. For instance, if a treatment reduces mortality from 10% to 5%, the absolute risk reduction is 5%. To calculate the NNT, divide 100 by the absolute risk reduction percentage. In this case, 100 divided by 5 equals an NNT of 20. This means we need to treat 20 patients to save one life.

Let’s consider some real-world examples. Tranexamic acid in trauma has an NNT of around 50, meaning we need to treat 50 patients to save one life. For aspirin in treating myocardial infarction, the NNT is also around 50. These figures highlight the effectiveness of these treatments in clinical practice.

Understanding NNT is crucial, but it’s equally important to consider the number needed to harm (NNH). This metric indicates how many patients need to receive a treatment before one adverse effect occurs. For example, in trials involving starch solutions for sepsis, the NNH was found to be around 10-16. This means for every 10 to 16 patients treated, one additional death occurred. Balancing the benefits and harms is essential for making informed clinical decisions.

In stroke thrombolysis, the NNT is around 8, meaning one in eight patients benefits from the treatment. However, the NNH is about 16, indicating one in 16 patients might experience a harmful outcome, such as intracerebral hemorrhage. Communicating these risks and benefits to patients is crucial for informed consent and shared decision-making.

Using natural frequencies, such as “one in 100 people” or “one in 50 people,” helps in explaining risks and benefits in a more understandable way. For instance, saying “one in 100 people in your neighborhood” or “one person in a packed football stadium” can make the statistics more relatable.

A key takeaway is that not every missed diagnosis leads to adverse outcomes. Often, treatments may have minimal benefit, and in some cases, they could cause harm. For example, the rush to administer clopidogrel in acute myocardial infarction might not always be necessary, given its relatively high NNT.

Understanding and applying these concepts can change how we approach patient care. It allows us to prioritize interventions that provide the most significant benefit while minimizing potential harm. It also highlights the importance of taking time to ensure the right diagnosis and treatment, rather than rushing into potentially harmful decisions.

A fun and thought-provoking concept introduced in our discussion is the Number Needed to Educate (NNE). How many blogs or articles do you need to read before it changes your clinical practice? This metric emphasizes the importance of continuous learning and staying updated with the latest evidence-based practices.

In emergency medicine, understanding relative risk, absolute risk, and NNT is vital for making informed treatment decisions. These metrics help in balancing the benefits and harms of treatments, leading to better patient outcomes. By effectively communicating these risks and benefits to patients, we can ensure shared decision-making and improve overall patient care.

Read more at St Emlyns and on the accompanying blogpost

Welcome back to the St. Emlyn’s podcast. I’m Iain Beardsell and joining me is Simon Carley. Today, we’re delving into the complex yet critical concepts of relative risk, absolute risk, and the number needed to treat (NNT) in the context of emergency medicine. These metrics are essential for understanding the effectiveness of treatments and making informed decisions in clinical practice.

In emergency medicine, it’s vital to comprehend how different treatments impact patient outcomes. This understanding not only helps in communicating with patients but also aids in making better clinical decisions. Two key terms frequently encountered are relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction.

Imagine we are conducting a trial on a new drug for myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. Typically, 10% of AMI patients die within a month. If our new treatment claims a 50% relative risk reduction, it sounds impressive. However, understanding what this actually means is crucial. A 50% relative risk reduction translates to reducing the death rate from 10% to 5%. While this is significant, it's essential to recognize the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction.

The NNT is a valuable metric for understanding how many patients need to receive a particular treatment to prevent one additional adverse outcome. It’s derived from the absolute risk reduction. For instance, if a treatment reduces mortality from 10% to 5%, the absolute risk reduction is 5%. To calculate the NNT, divide 100 by the absolute risk reduction percentage. In this case, 100 divided by 5 equals an NNT of 20. This means we need to treat 20 patients to save one life.

Let’s consider some real-world examples. Tranexamic acid in trauma has an NNT of around 50, meaning we need to treat 50 patients to save one life. For aspirin in treating myocardial infarction, the NNT is also around 50. These figures highlight the effectiveness of these treatments in clinical practice.

Understanding NNT is crucial, but it’s equally important to consider the number needed to harm (NNH). This metric indicates how many patients need to receive a treatment before one adverse effect occurs. For example, in trials involving starch solutions for sepsis, the NNH was found to be around 10-16. This means for every 10 to 16 patients treated, one additional death occurred. Balancing the benefits and harms is essential for making informed clinical decisions.

In stroke thrombolysis, the NNT is around 8, meaning one in eight patients benefits from the treatment. However, the NNH is about 16, indicating one in 16 patients might experience a harmful outcome, such as intracerebral hemorrhage. Communicating these risks and benefits to patients is crucial for informed consent and shared decision-making.

Using natural frequencies, such as “one in 100 people” or “one in 50 people,” helps in explaining risks and benefits in a more understandable way. For instance, saying “one in 100 people in your neighborhood” or “one person in a packed football stadium” can make the statistics more relatable.

A key takeaway is that not every missed diagnosis leads to adverse outcomes. Often, treatments may have minimal benefit, and in some cases, they could cause harm. For example, the rush to administer clopidogrel in acute myocardial infarction might not always be necessary, given its relatively high NNT.

Understanding and applying these concepts can change how we approach patient care. It allows us to prioritize interventions that provide the most significant benefit while minimizing potential harm. It also highlights the importance of taking time to ensure the right diagnosis and treatment, rather than rushing into potentially harmful decisions.

A fun and thought-provoking concept introduced in our discussion is the Number Needed to Educate (NNE). How many blogs or articles do you need to read before it changes your clinical practice? This metric emphasizes the importance of continuous learning and staying updated with the latest evidence-based practices.

In emergency medicine, understanding relative risk, absolute risk, and NNT is vital for making informed treatment decisions. These metrics help in balancing the benefits and harms of treatments, leading to better patient outcomes. By effectively communicating these risks and benefits to patients, we can ensure shared decision-making and improve overall patient care.

Read more at St Emlyns and on the accompanying blogpost

In the ever-evolving landscape of medicine, the timing of adopting new treatments and technologies is a critical decision for clinicians. Simon Carley, in a discussion with Scott from St. Emlyn's podcast, delves into the complexities of being an early or late adopter, exploring the associated risks and benefits. This conversation highlights the fine line between innovation and patient safety, and the careful considerations required for responsible clinical practice.

Both early and late adoption come with inherent dangers. Early adopters, eager to implement new innovations, may face unforeseen consequences. A historical example is the use of flecainide in the 1980s, initially believed to reduce ventricular disruptions in post-MI patients. However, it was later found to potentially cause more harm than benefit, underscoring the unpredictability of medical advances. On the other hand, late adopters risk failing to provide patients with the latest and most effective treatments, potentially resulting in suboptimal care.

Carley emphasizes the importance of a balanced approach, avoiding the pitfalls of both extremes. He discusses the concept of "dogmalacis," the enthusiasm for challenging established medical practices with new evidence. Both he and Scott agree that while it is essential to embrace new findings, clinicians must do so with caution and a thorough understanding of the current evidence base.

Determining the optimal timing for adopting new practices—referred to as the "Goldilocks moment"—is complex and often only clear in hindsight. Carley notes that senior clinicians, in particular, must exercise careful judgment, understanding the strength of the evidence supporting current practices before making changes. This prudence is crucial to ensure that new practices are adopted based on solid evidence rather than mere enthusiasm.

The discussion includes a specific example: the Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) trial, which challenged previous beliefs about the benefits of hypothermia in post-cardiac arrest care. The trial suggested that fever avoidance was more critical than aggressive cooling, sparking significant debate. This case illustrates how new evidence can disrupt established practices and provoke emotional responses among practitioners.

Carley and Scott also discuss the need for rigorous evidence, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to support the adoption of new technologies and treatments. They highlight the glidescope trial, which demonstrated potential harm from the device in a randomized setting. The scarcity of such trials in evaluating new medical technologies points to a gap in evidence-based practice, stressing the importance of high-quality research to guide clinical decisions.

Carley shares personal reflections on the challenges of balancing innovation with caution. While acknowledging the necessity of early adopters for medical progress, he stresses the need for careful consideration and expertise. Not every clinician or situation is suited for early adoption; it requires a deep understanding of the underlying science and a cautious approach to patient care.

He draws parallels between professional and personal experiences, noting his own tendency toward late adoption in certain areas, such as his decision to marry. This anecdote serves as a metaphor for the broader discussion, highlighting that timing in adoption is crucial and often a personal, context-dependent decision.

The conversation culminates in a shared commitment to continuous improvement in medical practice. Both Carley and Scott emphasize the importance of doing the best with current knowledge and being ready to change when better evidence becomes available. They resonate with Maya Angelou's quote: "Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better." This principle captures the essence of their discussion, advocating for a flexible and reflective approach to clinical practice.

Navigating the challenges of early and late adoption in medicine requires a careful balance between innovation and caution. Clinicians must be willing to embrace new evidence and change practices while ensuring that these changes are grounded in solid, high-quality research. The dialogue between Simon Carley and Scott highlights the complexities and responsibilities involved in this process, underscoring the need for continuous learning and adaptability in medical practice. Through thoughtful consideration and a commitment to evidence-based care, clinicians can optimize patient outcomes and advance the field of medicine.