People often present to an emergency room, or urgent care setting with a foreign body lodged in an orifice. When the patient presents they will have a sense of urgency, and feel that it needs to “come out now”. This may or may not be the case. In order of most to least common, non-traumatic foreign bodies can become lodged in the throat, ears, nose, vagina, rectum and urethra. Patients may be adult or pediatric. Kids will often stick beads or buttons in their ears or nose, and will swallow just about anything. Adults may have an insect in their ear, esophageal food impaction, or engage in foreign body insertions during sexual practices. In this blog we will talk about HEENT/Esophageal foreign bodies.
Medical Training
Fluid Administration
Utilizing the 4 D’s to exercise fluid stewardship
“Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.” -Paracelsus, date unknown
For patients in septic shock or those that are dehydrated, administration of fluid is top priority to restore adequate intravascular volume, increasing cardiac output, augment oxygen delivery, and improving tissue oxygenation.
Monocular Painless Vision Loss
Eye complaints, particularly vision complaints, can seem daunting to a provider in an urgent care or emergency department setting. The eye is a complex structure. The anatomy and the neurology behind vision is intricate. Often, you may be practicing in an environment without the ability to consult an ophthalmologist. An understanding of urgent and emergent eye and visual problems is crucial. This post will deal with painless vision loss.
Decoding MIPS in Emergency Medicine – Radiology Edition
In our last edition, we discussed some ways of altering practice models or properly documenting patient care so that we stay within the current MIPS guidelines while continuing to provide the highest quality care. In this edition, we will discuss some of the MIPS guidelines as they pertain to Radiographic studies that are commonly ordered in ER/Urgent Care settings. As always, appropriate documentation as to why, or why not, a test was ordered is crucial not only for MIPS, but from a legal standpoint as well. So, let’s get into it!
Graduated, passed boards, got a job… now what?
“Don’t Hurt Anyone”
My first job as a nurse practitioner was ideal. I knew all the physicians. I knew all the nurses. I knew all the administrators. Yet, I was scared beyond belief. First and for most I did not want to hurt my patients. Second, I wanted the staff that I worked with to accept me as a competent nurse practitioner. I remember clearly two conversations from those first few days; “John, don’t hurt anyone” and two, “John, one of the most important things is know what you don’t know”.
Sensitivity, Specificity, Predictive Values, Pre/Post-test Probability, and Likelihood Ratios explained
The purpose of this post is to explain the concept of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios.
Screening Tests
Screening tests (surveillance tests) are tools use to assess the likelihood that a patient may have a certain disease. They are not definitive, but if positive, will heighten suspicion that would warrant use of a gold standard diagnostic test to rule in or rule out a certain diagnosis. The goal of screening tests is to reduce the morbidity and mortality in a population group (Maxim, Niebo, & Utell, 2014). Examples of screening tests include routine EKGs, PSA, PAP smears, and mammograms. For example, a male with an elevated PSA may have prostate cancer, BPH, or prostatitis. Positive results of screening tests need to be compared to the established gold standard test that is regarded as definitive. In this case, a prostate biopsy is considered a definitive test, as it will reveal the etiology of the elevated PSA. Screening tests are less invasive and less costly, whereas the gold standard test may be more invasive, expensive, or too late (discovered during an autopsy). Ideally, gold standard tests, such as coronary angiography, breast biopsy, or colposcopy should have 100% sensitivity and specificity. However, in reality, this may not be the case, as it may be the best test given the clinical picture at the time (Maxim, Niebo, & Utell, 2014).
