The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine

Date: February 19th, 2021 This is an SGEM Xtra episode. I had the honour of presenting at the Lehigh Valley Health Network Grand Rounds on February 4th, 2021. The title of the talk "Dogmalysis: Five Medical Myths in Emergency Medicine". The presentation is available to listen to on iTunes and GooglePlay and all the slides can be downloaded using this LINK.   Five Medical Myths in Emergency Medicine Myth #1: The use of non-selective NSAIDs will cause a nonunion in long bone fractures Myth #2: Topical anesthetics will cause blindness if used in simple corneal abrasions for less than 48 hours Myth #3: Mild paediatric gastroenteritis is best treated with expensive oral electrolyte solutions Myth #4: Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been proven to saves lives and results in good neurologic function in patients with isolated traumatic brain injuries (TBI) Myth #5: Epinephrine in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) results in better patient-oriented outcomes (POOs) Each of the five myths is presented with some background information and the PICO (population, intervention/exposure, comparison and outcome). Key results are provided with a number of the study limitations (dog leash) identified. There is an SGEM bottom line and a link to the original SGEM episode to provide more results and critical appraisal. There is also a link to the original article for people to read the primary literature for themselves. Myth #1: The use of non-selective NSAIDs will cause a nonunion in long bone fractures When bones break, they usually heal with either surgical or non-surgical management. Sometimes the healing process can take longer than usual (delayed union), does not heal (non-union) or in poor alignment (malunion). Non-union is defined as “a failure of the fracture-healing process” and occurs in up to 1 in 10 fractures. Several risk factors have been associated with increased risk of delayed or non-union: issues about the fracture (open/closed, displacement, location, etc) tobacco use, older age, severe anemia, alcohol intake, diabetes, low vitamin D levels, hypothyroidism, poor nutrition, infection, open fracture and certain medications (ex. steroids).  One class of medication that has been implicated in negatively impacting bone healing is NSAIDs. Non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. There have been multiple studies investigating this issue with mixed results. The final cohort consisted of 339,864 patients identified in over 15 years. Less than 1% were diagnosed with a nonunion (2,996/339,864). The mean age was in the 50’s and around 60% were female. The most common fractures were radius, neck of the femur and humerus. Key Result: Patients who filled prescriptions for selective COX-2 inhibitors and opioids but not non-selective NSAIDs were associated with an increased risk of nonunion. SGEM Bottom Line: There is no high-quality evidence to support the claim that non-selective NSAIDS cause an increased risk of nonunion. SGEM#317: Dese bones gonna heal again, with or without a non-selective NSAID Reference: George et al. Risk of Nonunion with Nonselective NSAIDs, COX-2 Inhibitors, and Opioids. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Myth #2: Topical anesthetics will cause blindness if used in simple corneal abrasions for less than 48 hours Even small corneal abrasions can cause significant pain because the cornea is highly innervated. The first documented use of topical ophthalmologic anesthetics was in 1818. A cocaine derivative was employed to effectively block nerve conduction in the superficial cornea and conjunctiva (Rosenwasser). A number of proposed dangers have limited the use of topical anesthetic agents for the treatment of corneal abrasion associated pain. These dangers include delayed healing secondary to mitosis inhibition and decreased corneal sensation. The latter issue is of concern because of the potential for the abrasion to progress to an ulcer without t...

Date: February 12th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Dennis Ren is a paediatric emergency medicine fellow at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC. Reference: Mintegi S et al. Clinical Prediction Rule for Distinguishing Bacterial from Aseptic Meningitis. Pediatrics 2020 Case: A 4-year-old immunized girl presents to the emergency department (ED) with a fever and rhinorrhea for the past four days. Her parents report that she has been complaining of a headache and seems more tired and sleepy in the past day. On exam, she is febrile to 38.5 ºC, appears tired, with meningismus on examination but answers questions appropriately. She does not have any petechiae or purpura on skin exam. You explain that you must obtain some blood for laboratory work and perform a lumbar puncture (LP) because you are concerned that she has meningitis. Her nervous parents agree to the LP. Her cerebrospinal fluid appears clear and preliminary cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) results show a pleocytosis with 16 white blood cells per µL without any red blood cells. Her parents ask you whether or not she will have to stay in the hospital or receive antibiotics. Background: Vaccines cause adults. Supporting this position is that since the introduction of conjugate vaccines the incidence of life-threatening bacterial meningitis has decreased. The first conjugate vaccine introduced was the haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine. This vaccine has a reported efficacy of 98% (Makwana and Riordan 2007). The success of conjugate vaccines is that most cases of pediatric meningitis are now aseptic (viral cause). It is important to distinguish between bacterial vs aseptic meningitis. This is because bacterial meningitis is associated with serious morbidity and mortality and requires prompt antibiotic treatment; aseptic meningitis is self-limited and requires only supportive care. Patients with suspected bacterial meningitis require hospital admission with empiric antibiotics pending culture results (Sáez-Llorens and McCracken 2003). There is no single variable that can help discriminate between bacterial vs. aseptic meningitis.  Combinations of variables have been tried in the past as part of clinical scoring systems such as the Bacterial Meningitis Score (BMS) to identify children with CSF pleocytosis at low risk for bacterial meningitis (Nigrovic et al 2002). However, BMS did not take into account C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels that have shown promise in risk stratifying febrile children at risk for bacterial infection (Van den Bruel et al 2011). Additionally, BMS has missed a few cases of bacterial meningitis. Specifically, 2 out of 1714 patients categorized as very low risk for bacterial meningitis had bacterial meningitis (sensitivity 98.3%, NPV 99.9%). Both patients missed were younger than 2 months old (Nigrovic et al 2007). The study we are reviewing today aimed to develop and validate a more accurate scoring system called the Meningitis Score for Emergencies (MSE) to distinguish between bacterial vs. aseptic meningitis in children 29 days to 14 years old with CSF pleocytosis based on four objective lab criteria. Clinical Question:  Can a clinical decision tool using laboratory data help distinguish between bacterial from aseptic meningitis in children 29 days to 14 years old with cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis? Pleocytosis- CSF WBC ≥10 cells per µL. Corrected for presence of CSF RBCS (1:500 leukocytes to erythrocytes in peripheral blood) and CSF protein (every 1000-cell increase on CSF RBCs per mm3, CSF protein increased by 1.1 mg/dL) Bacterial meningitis defined as patient with either identification of bacterial pathogen in CSF culture and/or Neisseria meningitides or Streptococcus pneumoniae on polymerase chain reaction and either positive blood culture or blood PCR result for N meningitides or S pneumoniae Aseptic meningitis defined as CSF pleocytosis and negative CSF and blood bacterial cul...

Date: January 20th, 2021 Guest Skeptics: Dr. Thorben Doll and Dr. Johannes Pott. They are both fourth year resident doctors in anesthesiology, intensive care and emergency care in St. Bernward Hospital in Hildesheim, Germany. Thorben and Johannes have a knowledge translation project called Pin-Up-Docs. It is a German emergency medicine and intensive care podcast. Their mission is to share  knowledge with paramedics, nurses, medical student and also young doctors as they take their first steps in the field of emergency medicine.  Each month they post new content and focus two main topics, the medical therapy of the month as well as tricks for dealing with complex emergencies. All of their shared information is based on the latest medical studies and data. Additionally, they host selected guests for special episodes, and publish blogs dedicated to more advanced medical questions or topics. Reference: Ruberto et al. Intravenous Haloperidol Versus Ondansetron for Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome (HaVOC): A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Annals of EM 2020. Case: A 32-year-old male patient presents to your emergency department (ED) with severe nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. He reports the symptoms have been continuous for 4 or 5 hours. Over-the-counter medications like acetaminophen (paracetamol) and ibuprofen have not helped. His flatmate (roommate) says he only gets relief by taking really long, hot showers. On examination, his vital signs are normal, and he is afebrile. The abdomen exam shows no peritoneal sign and normal bowel sounds are heard. Laboratory values are unremarkable. An ultrasound does not show any free fluids or any signs of an Ileus, appendicitis or gallbladder disease. His pain and nausea are difficult to control with standard medications. You admit him to hospital and the next day he undergoes gastroscopy which is unremarkable. In the afternoon the patient is seen by a nurse when he is smoking “weed” (cannabis) in the garden of the hospital. He admits to being a heavy cannabis user and his symptoms do seem to get worse when smoking weed. You suspect he has cannabis hyperemesis syndrome and discharge him home with the recommendation to stop smoking as much weed. Background: Chronic marijuana use was recognized by Allen el al in 2004 to cause cyclical vomiting in patients from South Australia. Roche and Foster quickly reported in 2005 that this was not an isolated problem to the Adelaide Hills of South Australia. The medical condition became known as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. We covered this on SGEM#46: Don’t Pass the Dutchie   Cannabis stimulates two receptors: CB1 and CB2. CB1 is also expressed in the GI-system and reduces motility and relaxes the esophageal sphincter tonus. If you conduct chronical cannabis abuse, it seems that the anti-nausea effect of cannabis vanishes and there is a continuous hyperstimulation of CB1. That’s why you have abdominal pain and nausea with continuous vomiting. There are some criteria proposed for the diagnosis of cannabinoid hyperemesis. An essential feature is long term cannabis use (often daily). There are five major features for the diagnosis and five supportive features for the diagnosis. These are listed in the table.  Clinical Question: Can haloperidol effectively treat patients with cannabis hyperemesis syndrome? Reference: Ruberto et al. Intravenous Haloperidol Versus Ondansetron for Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome (HaVOC): A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Annals of EM 2020. Population: Adult patients 18 years of age and older presenting to the ED with a working diagnosis of hyperemesis cause by cannabis who had at least two hours of ongoing, witnessed emesis or retching. Patients needed to report at least three episodes of emesis in a cyclic pattern separated by greater than one month during the preceding two years, and near-daily to daily use of cannabis by inhalation for at least six months.

Date: January 22nd, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Steve Joseph. Steve completed his Sport Medicine fellowship training with the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic in 2017.  He served with the Canadian Forces as a Medical Officer and Flight Surgeon. Steve is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Western University (London, Ontario) working at the Fowler Clinic and the Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre. Reference: George et al. Risk of Nonunion with Nonselective NSAIDs, COX-2 Inhibitors, and Opioids. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Case: A healthy 55-year-old woman was out for a walk and had a FOOSH (fall on outstretched hand) of her dominant arm. The X-ray demonstrates a fracture of the distal radius that is in an acceptable position and does not require a reduction. You immobilize her in a below elbow splint which provides significant pain relief and refer her to the local orthopedic fracture clinic. Upon discharge she asks what she should take for pain because she read somewhere that anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen can prevent bone healing. She currently takes thyroid replacement therapy and has no known drug allergies. Background: There are conflicting studies about fracture healing and the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) in humans. It remains a controversial topic in the orthopaedic specialty. When bones break, they usually heal with either surgical or non-surgical management. Sometimes the healing process can take longer than usual (delayed union), does not heal (non-union) or in poor alignment (malunion). Non-union is defined as "a failure of the fracture-healing process” and occurs in up to 1 in 10 fractures. Several risk factors have been associated with increased risk of delayed or non-union. These factors include: Use of tobacco products, older age, severe anemia, alcohol intake, diabetes, low vitamin D levels, hypothyroidism, poor nutrition, infection, open fracture and certain medications (ex. steroids). The top risk factors for non-union according to a study by Santolini et al were open method of fracture reduction, open fracture, presence of post-surgical fracture gap, smoking, infection, wedge or comminuted types of fracture, high degree of initial fracture displacement, lack of adequate mechanical stability provided by the implant used, fracture location in the poor zone of vascularity of the affected bone, and a fractured tibia [1]. One class of medication that has been implicated in negatively impacting bone healing is NSAIDs. Non-selective NSAIDs block cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and 2 while selective NSAIDs only inhibit COX-2. There have been multiple studies investigating this issue with mixed results. Clinical Question: Is there increased risk for fracture non-union with certain classes of NSAIDs? Reference: George et al. Risk of Nonunion with Nonselective NSAIDs, COX-2 Inhibitors, and Opioids. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Population: Adults (18 years and older) inpatient or outpatients with a diagnosis of certain long bone fractures (neck of femur/tibia/fibula/tibia and fibula/radius/ulna/humerus/clavicle) based on ICD-9 codes. Excluded: Patients less than 18 years of age, multiple fractures, metastatic disease, history of malunion fracture in the year prior or within 90 days Exposure: Filled prescription for a non-selective NSAIDs, selective COX-2 inhibitor and/or opioid within 30 days of the fracture Comparison: Not filling a prescription for a non-selective NSAIDs, selective COX-2 inhibitor and/or opioid within 30 days of the fracture Outcomes: Primary Outcome: Diagnosis of non-union within the 91 to 365 days post fracture. This was based on two definitions. The primary definition used ICD-9 code for nonunion with a procedure to treat nonunion within 30 days of the nonunion diagnosis. The secondary definition was an inpatient or outpatient diagnosis of nonunion.

Date: January 20th, 2021 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Lauren Westafer an Assistant Professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical School – Baystate. She is the cofounder of FOAMcast and a pulmonary embolism and implementation science researcher. Dr. Westafer serves as the Social Media Editor and  research methodology editor for Annals of Emergency Medicine and as an Associate Editor for the NEJM Journal Watch Emergency Medicine. Reference: Pines et al. Emergency Physician and Advanced Practice Provider Diagnostic Testing and Admission Decisions in Chest Pain and Abdominal Pain. AEM January 2021 Case: A 50-year-old male presents to the Emergency Department (ED) with left lower quadrant abdominal pain. The patient is seen by an advanced practice provider (APP). He wants to know if being seen by an APP alters his chance of diagnostic testing or hospital admission. Background: We covered the use of advanced practice providers (APPs) on the SGEM#308. That SGEMHOP episode asked how the productivity of APPs compare to emergency physicians and what is its impact on ED operations? The key result from that study of 13 million ED visits across 94 states was that physicians were more productive than PAs and NPs. The SGEM bottom line was that increasing APP coverage has minimal effect on ED flow and safety outcomes based on the data. Over the past two decades, the use of APPs has increased. APPs have a significantly truncated medical training (about 2 years of training) and practice experience compared with the traditional 4 years of medical school and 3-4 years of residency for emergency physicians. There has been a concern about post-graduate training of NPs and PAs in the ED. A joint statement on the issue was published in 2020 by AAEM/RSA, ACEP, ACOEP/RSO, CORD, EMRA, and SAEM/RAMS. The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) has a position statement on what they refer to as non-physician practitioners that was recently updated. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) also has a number of documents discussing APPs in the ED. The difference in training between and emergency medicine physician and APPs is well recognized. A concern is that some APPs may compensate for this training gap by increased testing. Clinical Question: Is ED evaluation by an APP associated with higher test utilization and hospitalization compared with evaluation by a physician? Reference: Pines et al. Emergency Physician and Advanced Practice Provider Diagnostic Testing and Admission Decisions in Chest Pain and Abdominal Pain. AEM January 2021 Population: All ED patients with a chief complaint of chest pain or abdominal pain triaged as an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) 2,3, or 4 who were seen independently by either an APP or emergency physician Excluded: Patients who left without treatment or against medical advice, those who were dead on arrival or died in the ED. They also excluded those with a triage level ESI 1 or 5, as these are less common, as well as those with a final diagnosis of injury or poisoning – as in those cases the diagnosis would generally be apparent. Intervention: Evaluated by an APP Comparison: Evaluated a physicial Outcome: Primary Outcomes: Laboratory tests, ECGs, imaging studies as well as hospital admissions (including transfer to other hospitals and observation admissions) Secondary Outcomes: Testing based on evidence-based practice Dr. Jesse Pines This is an SGEMHOP episode which means we have the lead author on the show. Jesse Pines MD is the National Director for Clinical Innovation at US Acute Care Solutions and a Professor of Emergency Medicine at Drexel University. In this role, he focuses on developing and implementing new care models including telemedicine, alternative payment models, and also leads the USACS opioid programs. Authors’ Conclusions: “We demonstrate that the care delivered in the ED b...

Date: January 5th, 2021 Reference: Shipman et al. Short-Term Topical Tetracaine Is Highly Efficacious for the Treatment of Pain Caused by Corneal Abrasions: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Annals of EM 2020 Dr. Glaucomflecken Guest Skeptic: Dr. Will Flanary is an ophthalmologist, writer, and comedian who moonlights in his free time as “Dr. Glaucomflecken” on Twitter and TikTok. Effortlessly blending humor with education, Dr. Glaucomflecken has spent the last five years informing audiences on a wide range of topics, like navigating the confusing world of over-the-counter eyedrops, the horrifying consequences of sleeping in contact lenses, and his recent experiences as a patient in the medical system. Case: A 32-year-old healthy man presents with left eye pain. He was giving his 9-month-old a hug and got poked in the eye with a sharp little fingernail.  His visual acuity is 20/20 bilaterally and he doesn’t wear corrective lenses or contact lenses. He tried some over-the-counter red eye drops that did not seem to work. In the emergency department (ED), tetracaine drops are applied prior to slit lamp examination and the pain is completely resolved. On examination, you see a vertical corneal abrasion with no evidence of ulceration and no foreign body. You prescribe antibiotic drop and prepare to discharge him home when he asks, “can I get some of those numbing drops to use at home”? Background: Even small corneal abrasions can cause significant pain because the cornea is highly innervated. The first documented use of topical ophthalmologic anesthetics was in 1818. A cocaine derivative was employed to effectively block nerve conduction in the superficial cornea and conjunctiva (Rosenwasser). A number of proposed dangers have limited the use of topical anesthetic agents for the treatment of corneal abrasion associated pain. These dangers include delayed healing secondary to mitosis inhibition and decreased corneal sensation. The latter issue is of concern because of the potential for the abrasion to progress to an ulcer without the patient noticing. Additionally, these agents may have direct toxicity to corneal epithelium with prolonged use, leading to increased corneal thickness, opacification, stromal infiltration, and epithelial defects. The fear of these complications has led to the pervasive teaching that topical anesthetics should never be used for outpatient management of corneal abrasions. This is reflected in the condemnation of their use in major Emergency Medicine textbooks, including Rosen’s and Tintinalli’s. Some of the evidence used to support the claim of local anesthetics causing corneal harm comes from case reports, animal models or local anesthetic injected directly into the anterior chamber of the eye for cataract surgery. More information on the where the no topical anesthetic use on corneal abrasions come from can be found on a REBEL EM blog post. We covered and randomized control trial by Waldman et al on topical tetracaine for simple corneal abrasions on SGEM#83. The bottom line from that episode was that tetracaine appears safe for uncomplicated corneal abrasions and provides more effective pain relief than saline eye drops. We also did a critical appraisal of a systematic review by Swaminathan et al looking at topical anesthetics for these types eye injuries on SGEM#145. The SGEM bottom line from that review was that the best evidence we currently have demonstrates that dilute topical anesthetic drops of either proparacaine or tetracaine are safe for use in ED patients with simple corneal abrasions to provide analgesia. The studies are small, but the data contained in them is far superior to the case series published 50 years ago which led to the dogma that using them is dangerous. Clinical Question: What is the efficacy of topical tetracaine in the treatment of simple corneal abrasions? Reference: Shipman et al.

Date: January 5th, 2021 Reference: Grunau et al. Association of Intra-arrest Transport vs Continued On-Scene Resuscitation With Survival to Hospital Discharge Among Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. JAMA 2020 Guest Skeptic: Mike Carter is a former paramedic and current PA practicing in pulmonary and critical care as well as an adjunct professor of emergency medical services at Tacoma Community College. Case: During a busy emergency department (ED) shift the paramedic phone rings.  On the other end of the line is one of your local crews who have responded to a 54-year-old male with a witnessed cardiac arrest.  CPR is currently in progress with a single shock having been delivered.  The crew is asking if they should transport the patient with resuscitation ongoing? Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is something we have covered extensively on the SGEM over the years. This has included things like therapeutic hypothermia (SGEM#54, SGEM#82, SGEM#183 and SGEM#275), supraglottic devices (SGEM#247), crowd sourcing CPR (SGEM#143 and SGEM#306), and epinephrine (SGEM#238). One aspect we have not looked at is the “load and go” vs. “stay and play” approach for OHCA. Different countries have different approaches to this problem. There is the European model that is physician led and provides more care in the field while the North American model tends to scoop and run. However, there is a fair bit of heterogeneity between EMS systems even in the US. In patients with OHCA, some EMS agencies transport almost all patients regardless of ROSC, while others rarely transport if ROSC is not achieved. It is unclear from the existing literature which practice is superior to the other in providing patient-oriented benefit to among adult patients in refractory arrest who have suffered an OHCA. Clinical Question: What is the association of intra-arrest transport compare to continued on-scene resuscitation in regards to survival to hospital discharge in adult patients with an OHCA? Reference: Grunau et al. Association of Intra-arrest Transport vs Continued On-Scene Resuscitation With Survival to Hospital Discharge Among Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. JAMA 2020 Population: Adults 18 years and older with non-traumatic OHCA between 2011 and 2015treated by 192 EMS agencies in the USA. EMS. OHCA was defined as persons found apneic and without a pulse who underwent either external defibrillation (bystanders or EMS) or chest compressions. Exclusions: Age less than 18 years, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order being discovered, transport prior to cardiac arrest, missing data to classify as intra-arrest or to classify the primary outcome, missing variables required for propensity score analysis Intervention: Intra-arrest transport prior to any episode of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) defined as palpable pulse for any duration Comparison: Continued on-scene resuscitation Outcome: Primary Outcome: Survival to hospital discharge Secondary Outcomes: Survival with favorable neurologic outcome defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of less than 3 mRS is categorized to 7 different levels, with 0 being no disability and 6 being death. A 3 is defined as moderate disability requiring some help, but able to walk without assistance Authors’ Conclusions: “Among patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intra-arrest transport to hospital compared with continued on-scene resuscitation was associated with lower probability of survival to hospital discharge. Study findings are limited by potential confounding due to observational design.” Quality Checklist for Observational Study: Did the study address a clearly focused issue? Yes Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question? Yes Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? Yes Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias? Unsure

Date: January 7th, 2021 Happy New Years to all the SGEMers. I know 2020 has been a bit of a dumpster fire. We have all faced challenges During the COVID19 global pandemic. I tried not to contribute to the large volume of information coming out on Sars-Cov2. There were only four episodes that directly addressed COVID19: SGEM Xtra: Mask4All Debate SGEM#229: Learning to Test for COVID19 SGEM Xtra: CAEP National Grand Rounds - COVID19 Treatments SGEM#309: That’s All Joe Asks of You – Wear a Mask There have been many other FOAMed resources (REBEL EM, First10EM, EM Cases, St. Emlyn's, and others) that have done a great job covering the pandemic. This is an SGEM Xtra episode to announce a few exciting new things for 2021. SGEM Continuing Medical Education Credits The BIG news is that the SGEM will now be offering Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits for all SGEM episodes. Click on this LINK to find out more. The Skeptics' Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM) is part of the Free Open Access to Meducation movement (FOAMed). The SGEM tries to cut the knowledge translation window down from over ten years to less than one year with the power of social media. The ultimate goal is for patients to get the best care, based on the best evidence. The FOAMed philosophy is that the information should be available to anyone, anytime, anywhere at no cost. This is similar to the philosophy of emergency medicine. It is the light in the house of medicine that is always on for anyone, at anytime, for anything. The SGEM has been free since it started in 2012 and will always be free open access. Many of you have asked about getting CME credits for listening to the SGEM podcast and reading the SGEM blog. We know physicians (MD and DO), Nurse Practitioners (NP) and Physician Assistants (PA) have to collect so many CME credit hours for their respective professional organizations. This can be more challenging with the cancelation of in-person conferences and meetings. The SGEM Hot Off the Press (SGEMHOP) episodes which are published once a month do offer CME credits. However, you can only claim these credits if you are a member of the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM). This new initiative will allow anyone to claim CME credits for all of the SGEM episodes. Getting CME credits for the weekly SGEM episodes is something I have been wanting to do for years. The barriers to getting CME credits for the SGEM before now was that it takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money to get accreditation. The cancellation of in-person conferences due to COVID19 has been the push I needed to finally get this service added to the SGEM. This project has been made possible through a partnership with a Legend of Emergency Medicine, Dr. Richard Bukata, and his Center for Medical Education (CCME) company.  CCME has been providing providing medical education in the form of audio programs and conferences since 1977. They have the infrastructure to provide this type of service. They also have an arrangement to get the CME credits at a very reasonable price. Sign up by January 31st, 2021: There can be only one... The SGEM CME program offers up to 26 credits (1 credit hour per SGEM episode) over 6 months for only $195. If you sign up before January 31st, 2021 we will also give you 26 credits for free. This will be the previous six months of SGEM content that has already been approved for CME credits.  Basically it is a 50% off promotion to kick start the SGEM CME program. Signing up for your education credits is easy. This is because "there can be only one" subscription option. You can earn up to 26 credit hours in six months. The price is $195 ($7.50/credit hour) for the six months. Again, those that sign up by January 31st, 2021 will receive a bonus 26 CME credits for free. That makes it only $3.75 for every credit hour of SGEM content!. It is as easy as 1-2-3 to start earning your CME credit tod...

Date: January 4th, 2021 This is an SGEM Xtra episode. I had the honour of presenting at the McGill University Emergency Medicine Academic Grand rounds. They titled the talk "Evidence-Based Medicine Master Class". The presentation is available to watch on YouTube, listen to on iTunes and all the slides can be downloaded (McGill 2020 Part 1 and McGill 2020 Part 2). Five Objectives: Look at the burden of proof and talk about what is science Discuss EBM and give a five step process of critical appraisal Talk about biases and logical fallacies Do a check list for randomized control trials Record a live episode of the SGEM 1) Who has the Burden of Proof and What is Science? Those making the claim have the burden of proof. It is called a burden because it hard - not because it is easy. We start with the null hypothesis (no superiority). Evidence is presented to convince us to reject the null and accept there is superiority to their claim. If the evidence is convincing we should reject the null. If the evidence is not convincing we need to accept the null hypothesis. It is a logical fallacy to shift the burden of proof onto those who say they do not accept the claim. They do not have to prove something wrong but rather not be convinced that the claim is valid/“true” and this is an important distinction in epistemology. What is science? It is the most reliable method for exploring the natural world. There are a number of qualities of science: Iterative, falsifiable, self-correcting and proportional. What science isn’t is “certain”. We can have confidence around a point estimate of an observed effect size and our confidence should be in part proportional to the strength of the evidence. Science also does not make “truth” claims. Scientists do make mistakes, are flawed and susceptible to cognitive biases. Physicians took on the image of a scientist by co-opting the white coat. Traditionally, scientists wore beige and physicians wore black to signify the somber nature of their work (like the clergy). Then came along the germ theory of disease and other scientific knowledge. It was the Flexner Report in 1910 that fundamentally changed medical education and improved standards. You could get a medical degree in only one year before the Flexner Report. The white coat was now a symbol of scientific rigour separating physicians from “snake oil salesman”. Many medical schools still have white coat ceremonies. However, only 1 in 8 physicians still report wearing a white lab coat today (Globe and Mail). Science is usually iterative. Sometimes science takes giants leaps forward, but usually it takes baby steps. You probably have heard the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? In Greek mythology, the blind giant Orion carried his servant Cedalion on his shoulders to act as the giant's eyes. The more familiar expression is attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” It has been suggested that Newton may have been throwing shade at Robert Hooke. Hooke was the first head of the Royal Society in England. Hooke was described as being a small man and not very attractive. The rivalry between Newton and Hooke is well documented. The comments about seeing farther because of being on the shoulders of giants was thought to be a dig at Hooke's short stature. However, this seems to be gossip and has not been proven. Science is also falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable it is outside the realm/dominion of science. This philosophy of science was put forth by Karl Popper in 1934. A great example of falsifiability was the claim that all swans are white. All it takes is one black swan to falsify the claim. There are some philosophers that refute Popper's claim about falsifiability.  Science is self-correcting. Because science is iterative and falsifiable it is also self correcting. Science gets updated.

Date: December 18th, 2020 Reference: Hulme et al. Mortality among patients with frequent emergency department use for alcohol-related reasons in Ontario: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ 2020 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Hasan Sheikh is an emergency and addictions physician in Toronto and a lecturer at the University of Toronto. He holds a Masters in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Hasan was on an SGEM Xtra last year discussing the Canadian Association of Emergency Physician's (CAEP) position statement on Dental care in Canada. "The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians believes that every Canadian should have affordable, timely, and equitable access to dental care." CAEP has put out other position statements. The most recent is on sick notes for minor illness. For a list of other positions statements from CAEP click on this LINK. Case: A 45-year-old male with no fixed address is found by a bystander with decreased level of consciousness (LOC) on the street. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is called, and the patient is brought to the emergency department (ED). An empty bottle of vodka is found on the patient, and the decreased LOC is suspected to be due to alcohol intoxication. It is the patient’s fifth visit to the ED in the last two weeks with a similar presentation. The patient is observed over many hours, their LOC improves, and they are discharged after demonstrating that they can ambulate safely. Background: A leading driver of morbidity and mortality worldwide is alcohol (1). Alcohol consumption is attributed to approximately 5% of all global deaths. This works out to an estimated 3 million deaths due to alcohol (2). Alcohol was the single greatest risk factor for ill health worldwide among people aged 15–49 years according to the 2016 Global Burden of Disease Study (3). There are more hospital admissions in Canada for alcohol-attributable conditions than for myocardial infarction (4). There is a cost associated with alcohol related harms. In Canada, that number is around $14.6 billion a year with $3.3 billion in health care costs (5). Alcohol related ED visits has also increased more than four times greater than the overall rate of ED visits (6). This trend of increasing alcohol related ED visits is not unique to Canada. It has also been reported in England, Australia and the US (7-9). Clinical Question: What is the one-year overall mortality rate for adults with frequent visits to the ED for alcohol related reasons? Reference: Hulme et al. Mortality among patients with frequent emergency department use for alcohol-related reasons in Ontario: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ 2020 Population: Adults aged 16-105 years of age who made frequent ED visits for alcohol related reasons (two or more ED visits in a year). Excluded: Data inconsistencies, not Ontario residents, Age < 16 or > 105 or death at discharge Exposure: Patients with ED visits for alcohol-related mental and behavioural disorders, using the ICD-10-CA code of F10. This includes simple intoxication and withdrawal Comparison: Comparisons were made between groups of frequent ED users for alcohol-related reasons, including those that visited the ED twice in a year, 3-4 times in a year, and greater than four times in a year Outcome: Primary Outcome: One-year mortality, adjusted for age, sex, income, rural residence, and presence of co-morbidities Secondary Outcomes: Mental and behavioural disorders, diseases of the circulatory system, diseases of the digestive system, and external causes of morbidity and mortality (e.g., accidents, including accidental poisoning, accidental injuries, injuries, intentional self-harm, assault) with frequency >5%. Cause of death using alcohol-attributable ICD-10-CA codes as well as ICD-10-CA codes for death by suicide. Authors’ Conclusions: “We observed a high mortality rate among relatively young,