300,000+ clinical trials. Find the right one.

58 active trials for Emergencies

Social Navigation for Adolescents in ED

Social determinants of health affect patients throughout the life course. They may be particularly relevant for pediatric emergency department (ED) patients. Computerized screening for social and behavioral determinants of health has been deemed effective and acceptable. This pilot study will characterize the cumulative burden of health related social problems experienced by patients and families in a pediatric ED. It will specifically examine those patients with a subset of 9 high-risk chief complaints, patients with obesity, patients with poor asthma control, and patients with a high number of non-urgent visits, who may be at particularly high risk for health related social problems. Our analysis will compare these subsets of patients with the general ED population, hypothesizing that these groups will have a higher number of health related social problems than the general ED population. Parent and adolescent participants will be approached during ED visits and administered a computerized screening tool. For patients aged 0-13, a survey administered to parents will test for thirteen distinct health related social problems. Two surveys will be administered to adolescent-parent dyads. The adolescent survey will test for thirteen health related social problems, seven of which overlap with those on the parent survey. The average total number of health related social problems in patient groups hypothesized to be at high risk will be compared to the average total number of HRSPs in the general ED population. For adolescent patients, an intervention group will receive social navigation consisting of rapid referrals to community resources based on survey responses by a community health liaison. Their ED recidivism, community resource use and number of unmet social needs at 12-month follow up will be compared with that of a control group that receives screening and written resources only.

Start: August 2017
GOODBYE HARTMANN TRIAL: 100 YEARS OF HARTMANN'S PROCEDURE

Hartmann's procedure was described for the first time in 1921 as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection for the treatment of upper rectal tumours. Although Hartmann's procedure fell out of favour for rectal cancer after the introduction of restorative procedures, it remained the most common procedure in emergency setting for many years. Nowadays Hartmann's procedure is a useful procedure in selected cases e.g. severely ill patients with a high risk of anastomotic failure. However, restoring intestinal continuity for Hartmann patients is often associated with high morbidity, and about 70% will live with a permanent colostomy. Hartmann procedure' is a rapid and simple surgical technique intended to decrease perioperative morbidity and mortality. This technique is often performed by young surgeons Indeed, end colostomy may be necessary in situations where restoration of continuity is risky, either because of unfavorable local conditions or because a more definitive resection must be aborted due to hemodynamic instability. In the last decade the Hartmann's procedure has been revalued in many studies. In diverticular disease the results of DIVA arm of the LADIES trial showed that more patients in the primary anastomosis group were stoma free compared with patients in the Hartmann's procedure group. Other studies have observed no differences in major postoperative complications or postoperative mortality between patients undergoing primary anastomosis versus Hartmann's procedure. Hartmann's procedure reversals were associated with a higher risk of serious postoperative complications than were stoma reversals after primary anastomosis with ileostomy. Despite the growing evidence in favour of primary anastomosis and its inclusion as a valid treatment option for perforated diverticulitis or perforated sigmoid colon in recent clinical practice guidelines, some surgeons have been hesitant to undertake anastomosis in the setting of purulent or faecal contamination and continue to choose Hartmann's procedure to eliminate concerns about anastomotic leakage.

Start: March 2021
Eye-ECG Approach to Emergencies : Diagnostic Performance of the HINTS Test

Vertigo integrated with acute vestibular syndrome (AVS) is a frequent reason for emergency visits. The French and international literature estimates between 2 to 4% of vertigo prevalence among reasons for coming to emergencies. International classifications define AVS as vertigo or acute dizziness (less than one month) and persistent, gait instability, nausea or vomiting, nystagmus or an intolerance to head movements. In emergency departments, the clinical approach of vertiginous patients is difficult because the "vertigo" term is sometimes used in by patients, or because they use the terms "uneasiness", "vertigo", or "dizziness" without distinction. These terms sometimes include various sensations of "sleeping head", "blurred vision", "instability", "pitch" etc. A first difficulty is therefore to clarify these terms and organize syndrome expressed by the patient. A rigorous interrogation is therefore essential and can be time-consuming. Another difficulty is to carry out an exhaustive clinical examination including the assessment of the general condition and hydration, an ENT examination and a neurological examination. However, at the end of these steps, the orientation central or peripheral etiology is not simple. In the last consensus conference of the Barany Society (2014) the classification of VAS into three types was not sufficient to distinguish "benign" vertigo from "risky" dizziness (related to a central cause).

Start: October 2019
Non-medical Practitioner Workforce in the Urgent and Emergency Care System Skill-mix in England

This study will explore the result of different skill-mix in ED/UTCs in England, to make recommendations about the best balance. Patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives have helped design the study. There will be an independent PPI panel who can feed in their views and experiences to all parts of the study. The panel will be run by an experienced patient and public involvement expert, who is a member of the core study team. The study will be split into four phases over two-and-a-half years. Phase One will find out in detail what the staffing models are in EDs/UTCs. The investigators will look at published research evidence and at NHS public documents, and will interview regional and national senior NHS clinicians, managers, commissioners and lay representatives. Then, information about staff which is already collected regularly across England will be analysed for patterns. What non-medical practitioners do and how independently they work in two different ED/UTCs will also be examined. The panel of patient and public involvement representatives and a panel of non-medical practitioners will help interpret these findings. The study will develop a system for classifying 'skill-mix' in each organisation and a way to measure how much support and supervision non-medical practitioners need. Phase Two will look at figures regularly collected from all NHS Trusts in England between 2017 and 2021, to assess whether different skill mixes lead to different patient outcomes. The number of patients who return again to the ED within a week is the primary outcome. Phase Three will involve looking in detail in six ED/UTCs. The investigators will collect in depth local data to add to the national data we looked at in Phase Two. This will include looking closely at staff records and patients' clinical records to illustrate more detail about skill-mix in the organisations and the outcomes for patients. The study plans to gauge how independently the types of practitioners assess and treat patients and to also survey and interview patients so that their experience can be understood, alongside the views of staff who will also be interviewed. Phase Four will pull all of the results together. The panels of patient and public involvement representatives and non-medical practitioners will help with this synthesis. The study aims to make recommendations on skill-mix and levels of independence that will deliver the best outcomes for patients, for staff and for the NHS.

Start: March 2021
Machine Learning Assisted Differentiation of Low Acuity Patients at Dispatch

BACKGROUND: At Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) centers, Resource Constrained Situations (RCS) where there are more callers requiring an ambulance than there are available ambulances are common. At the EMD centers in Uppsala and Västmanland, patients experiencing these situations are typically assigned a low-priority response, are often elderly, and have non-specific symptoms. Machine learning techniques offer a promising but largely untested approach to assessing risks among these patients. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether the provision of machine learning-based risk scores improves the ability of dispatchers to identify patients at high risk for deterioration in RCS. DESIGN: Multi-centre, parallel-grouped, randomized, analyst-blinded trial. POPULATION: Adult patients contacting the national emergency line (112), assessed by a dispatch nurse in Uppsala or Västmanland as requiring a low-priority ambulance response, and experiencing an RCS. OUTCOMES: Primary: 1. Proportion of RCS where the first available ambulance was dispatched to the patient with the highest National Early Warning Score (NEWS) score Secondary: Difference in composite risk score consisting of ambulance interventions, emergent transport, hospital admission, intensive care, and mortality between patients receiving immediate vs. delayed ambulance response during RCS. Difference in NEWS between patients receiving immediate vs. delayed ambulance response during RCS. INTERVENTION: A machine learning model will estimate the risk associated with each patient involved in the RCS, and propose a patient to receive the available ambulance. In the intervention arm only, the assessment will be displayed in a user interface integrated into the dispatching system. TRIAL SIZE: 1500 RCS each consisting of multiple patients randomized 1:1 to control and intervention arms

Start: February 2021