View clinical trials related to Emergencies.
Filter by:In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the emergency reception services had to be radically reorganized. In this tense environment, professionals must face ethical dilemmas, make referral decisions and prioritize patients. Due to the limited number of visits to many hospitals, interactions with relatives and families of patients are mainly conducted by phone. These limitations will continue as long as the context of uncertainty over the course of the pandemic persists. Limitation or discontinuation of treatment (LDT) announcements were therefore also impacted and the exceptional situation related to COVID-19 reinforces the difficulties encountered by professionals in usual time (place of announcement, inappropriate lack of time, etc.). Thus, LDTs are most often done over the phone without the families being able to go to the hospital. Because of this, these announcements can be more traumatic. Investigators have already highlighted in a recent study the lack of communication between caregivers and families in the context of LDT announcements and the context of COVID 19 exacerbated these aspects given the limitations of visits. The investigators therefore propose to study the experiences of families who are notified of a decision to limit or stop treatment by phone in the emergency room during the COVID-19 crisis.
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.
Up to today, inadequate evidences and knowledge exist about the best prehospital management of hypotensive trauma patients and its clinical consequence on the in-hospital recovery and mortality. Also new emerging therapies such as prehospital blood transfusion and REBOA (resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) are lacking strong evidences in, eventually, reducing hospital mortality and improving outcomes. Moreover, prehospital emergency medicine is throughout Italy an heterogeneous system that has no unique standard operating procedures and, even among HEMS (helicopter emergency medical service), management and therapies on complex trauma patients may vary upon local policies. With this study we aim to enroll hypotensive trauma patients and study factors of prehospital rescue that can be associated with in-hospital mortality and recovery, eventually even with hospital outcome. For each patients data as demographic, kind of trauma (mechanism, injury scores), therapies and maneuvers will be recorded and then analyzed in comparison with in-hospital data such as need for transfusion, ABG parameters, length of stay (in-ward and ICU), need of therapies like invasive ventilation and renal replacement therapy, recovery and outcome
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
As part of the Coronavirus Infectious Disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic, the hospital care system is facing a major strain. Patients with SARS-Cov2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ) infection can worsen very quickly, possibly presenting, within hours, severe respiratory failure requiring urgent specialized care. Therefore, it is essential to develop emergency assessment tools to assess relevant criteria to decide which patients must be kept under hospital monitoring and which patients can be treated on outpatient care. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of STST in the decision to hospitalize patients consulting emergency department for a SARS-Cov2 infection. The investigators wish to show that the addition of this test to the usual hospitalization criteria reduces the proportion of patients hospitalized 48 hours after their first visit to the emergency department.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of clorazepate in addition to the usual medication for treating migraine attack in the emergency room
The main objective of the research is to evaluate the prognostic performance of qSOFA, NEWS and MEDS scores in patients over 65 years of age presenting to the emergency department with a diagnosis of infection made by the emergency physician in charge. The main judgment criterion is intra-hospital mortality. Secondary criteria for judgement are admission to intensive care or intensive care (continuous monitoring unit), length of hospital stay, length of stay in the emergency room, length of time before antibiotic therapy is administered. A comparison of score performance will be carried out between the population aged over 65 years old and the rest of the population.
Open-label safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity study in three dose escalation groups
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID -19) is the largest public health crisis in over a century. There is an urgent need for high-quality population-level data to understand modifiable risks for disease severity, transmissibility, and to develop evidence-based prevention (i.e. vaccination), treatment and resource allocation strategies. The Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) created a population-based registry of suspected and confirmed consecutive cases of COVID-19. The purpose of this registry is to derive and validate clinical decision rules, evaluate diagnostic tests and vaccine effectiveness, and complete cohort, case-control and observational studies to inform the pandemic response.
Geriatric presentations to emergency services comprise a significant percentage of all emergency service presentations in Europe and it has been reported that 3-23% of all emergency service presentations from various regions of the countries. There are specific management practices for patients who are 65 years and older at emergency services. On the other hand several risk-scoring systems have been developed to define the severity class of the patient during their initial evaluation at emergency services.Only a few studies in the literature have evaluated risk-scoring systems for the geriatric patient group.Several studies have reported that risk-scoring systems, such as Identification of Seniors at Risk and Triage Risk Screening Tool, which are specifically developed for geriatric patients over 65 years who present to emergency services, are not sufficiently effective for evaluating patients in more severe conditions. Previously the TEDGeS (Turkish Emergency Departments Geriatric Scoring Study) pilot study was carried out and published by some of the investigators of this project.This pilot study enrolled all geriatric patients (age ≥ 65 years) and carried out in 13 centers from different cities of Turkey. This pilot study showed that geriatric patients not only constitute significant proportion of emergency department presentations but also these patients need more hospitalization. The predictive powers of the Modified Early Warning Score, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score and The Vital PAC Early Warning Score for hospitalization and mortality in geriatric patients those presented to emergency department are significantly high and might be concerned in the emergency department triage of these patients. Within the light of these pilot study results, the investigators have decided to execute this prospective, multinational, multicentric study with the main objective to determine the epidemiological and age related characteristics of geriatric patients presenting to the emergency department across Europe and evaluate early warning scoring systems systems regarding hospitalization, ICU admission and in-hospital mortality for geriatric patients.