Christensen, April

Objectives Early in the pandemic, institutional leadership recognised the importance of providing staff with practical, clinically based communication resources. This paper describes the process of cultivating and disseminating rapid communication resources across a multisite institution to assist others who may need to rapidly respond to communication challenges in the future. Methods In April 2020, the Mayo Healthcare Incident Command System charged the Center for Palliative Medicine with developing and disseminating clinical communication resources within several weeks. The Education Chair for the Center for Palliative Medicine created a COVID-19 communication task force composed of clinician-educators with expertise in serious illness communication from all three academic Mayo Clinic sites. The task force elected to focus on providing accessible, just-in-time online content curated from existing resources and adapted to situational needs. Results The task force developed one-page resources with example language on 16 topic areas. Topics included exploring patient values, discussing time-limited trials and making recommendations. The COVID-19 communication website was launched on 28 May, 6 weeks after the institutional request. Conclusions Key takeaway lessons were the need for: (1) alignment with institutional need and priority, (2) rapid team formation with communication education experts across a variety of institutional geographic settings, (3) quick consensus on topic and content delivery to be practically helpful to clinicians, (4) collaboration with outside groups to use and adapt already available resources when possible and (5) early and iterative involvement with information specialists to help facilitate institutional dissemination.

AbstractBackgroundHistory and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of physical examination findings.MethodsThis study involved a patient–intervention–control–outcome (PICO) question: (P) adult ED patients with vertigo/dizziness; (I) presence/absence of specific physical examination findings; and (O) central (ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, others) versus peripheral etiology. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was assessed.ResultsFrom 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 43 met the inclusion criteria: general neurologic examination—five studies, 869 patients, pooled sensitivity 46.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.3%–61.9%, moderate certainty) and specificity 92.8% (95% CI 75.7%–98.1%, low certainty); limb weakness/hemiparesis—four studies, 893 patients, sensitivity 11.4% (95% CI 5.1%–23.6%, high) and specificity 98.5% (95% CI 97.1%–99.2%, high); truncal/gait ataxia—10 studies, 1810 patients (increasing severity of truncal ataxia had an increasing sensitivity for central etiology, sensitivity 69.7% [43.3%–87.9%, low] and specificity 83.7% [95% CI 52.1%–96.0%, low]); dysmetria signs—four studies, 1135 patients, sensitivity 24.6% (95% CI 15.6%–36.5%, high) and specificity 97.8% (94.4%–99.2%, high); head impulse test (HIT)—17 studies, 1366 patients, sensitivity 76.8% (64.4%–85.8%, low) and specificity 89.1% (95% CI 75.8%–95.6%, moderate); spontaneous nystagmus—six studies, 621 patients, sensitivity 52.3% (29.8%–74.0%, moderate) and specificity 42.0% (95% CI 15.5%–74.1%, moderate); nystagmus type—16 studies, 1366 patients (bidirectional, vertical, direction changing, or pure torsional nystagmus are consistent with a central cause of vertigo, sensitivity 50.7% [95% CI 41.1%–60.2%, moderate] and specificity 98.5% [95% CI 91.7%–99.7%, moderate]); test of skew—15 studies, 1150 patients (skew deviation is abnormal and consistent with central etiology, sensitivity was 23.7% [95% CI 15%–35.4%, moderate] and specificity 97.6% [95% CI 96%–98.6%, moderate]); HINTS (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew)—14 studies, 1781 patients, sensitivity 92.9% (95% CI 79.1%–97.9%, high) and specificity 83.4% (95% CI 69.6%–91.7%, moderate); and HINTS+ (HINTS with hearing component)—five studies, 342 patients, sensitivity 99.0% (95% CI 73.6%–100%, high) and specificity 84.8% (95% CI 70.1%–93.0%, high).ConclusionsMost neurologic examination findings have low sensitivity and high specificity for a central cause in patients with acute vertigo or dizziness. In acute vestibular syndrome (monophasic, continuous, persistent dizziness), HINTS and HINTS+ have high sensitivity when performed by trained clinicians.

AbstractBackgroundPatients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute vertigo or dizziness represent a diagnostic challenge. Neuroimaging has variable indications and yield. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of neuroimaging for patients presenting with acute vertigo or dizziness.MethodsAn electronic search was designed following patient–intervention–control–outcome (PICO) question—(P) adult patients with acute vertigo or dizziness presenting to the ED; (I) neuroimaging including computed tomography (CT), CT angiography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and ultrasound (US); (C) MRI/clinical criterion standard; and (O) central causes (stroke, hemorrhage, tumor, others) versus peripheral causes of symptoms. Articles were assessed in duplicate. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence in pooled estimates.ResultsWe included studies that reported diagnostic test accuracy. From 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 12 were included: noncontrast CT scan—six studies, 771 patients, pooled sensitivity 28.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4%–48.5%, moderate certainty) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 93.4%–99.8%, moderate certainty); MRI—five studies, 943 patients, sensitivity 79.8% (95% CI 71.4%–86.2%, high certainty) and specificity 98.8% (95% CI 96.2%–100%, high certainty); CTA—one study, 153 patients, sensitivity 14.3% (95% CI 1.8%–42.8%) and specificity 97.7% (95% CI 93.8%–99.6%), CT had higher sensitivity than CTA (21.4% and 14.3%) for central etiology; MRA—one study, 24 patients, sensitivity 60.0% (95% CI 26.2%–87.8%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 66.1%–99.8%); US—three studies, 258 patients, sensitivity ranged from 30% to 53.6%, specificity from 94.9% to 100%.ConclusionsNoncontrast CT has very low sensitivity and MRI will miss approximately one in five patients with stroke if imaging is obtained early after symptom onset. The evidence does not support neuroimaging as the only tool for ruling out stroke and other central causes in patients with acute dizziness or vertigo presenting to the ED.