Griffey, Richard T.

Variability and persistent gaps in reporting have been consistently observed across studies evaluating adverse events in healthcare, dating back to the early days of the patient safety movement. Incomplete descriptions—particularly missing details regarding study design, conduct, methodologies and applied definitions—impede interpretation, hinder critical appraisal and limit reproducibility. These deficiencies not only obstruct a shared understanding of findings but also diminish the overall impact such studies may have on patient safety initiatives and policy development. To address these challenges and enhance the quality of reporting, we developed the SESAME (Standard Elements in Studies of Adverse Events and Medical Error) reporting guideline. SESAME is a 44-item checklist designed to support comprehensive and standardised reporting in studies evaluating potential patient harm. The guideline was developed over a 2-year period by an international, multidisciplinary panel through a consensus-driven process aligned with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research Network standards.

The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network indexes over 600 reporting guidelines designed to improve the reproducibility of manuscripts across medical fields and study designs. Although several such reporting guidelines touch on adverse events that may occur in the context of a study, there is a large body of research whose primary focus is on adverse events, near-misses and medical errors that do not currently have a dedicated reporting guideline to help set reporting standards and facilitate comparisons across studies. As part of the process prescribed by EQUATOR for developing such a reporting guideline, we performed a needs assessment, evaluating whether existing standards address key features of a proposed reporting guideline in development, entitled Standard Elements in Studies of Adverse Events and Medical Error (SESAME). We evaluated 12 EQUATOR reporting guidelines for the presence of eight key features of SESAME. Five of the 12 failed to include any of these key features. None of the remaining seven incorporated more than four of the eight SESAME key components, confirming the need for a dedicated reporting guideline for studies of adverse events and medical errors.

AbstractThis second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic “low‐risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department.” The multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low‐risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid‐minimizing strategy for pain control.EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe GRACE‐2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low‐risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient‐intervention‐comparison‐outcome‐time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low‐risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences.

AbstractObjectiveComputed tomography (CT) imaging is frequently obtained for recurrent abdominal pain after a prior emergency department (ED) evaluation. We evaluate the utility of repeat CT imaging following an indeterminate index CT in low‐risk abdominal pain adult ED patients.MethodsAn electronic search was designed for the patient‐intervention‐control‐outcome‐timing (PICOT) question: (P) adult patients with low‐risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated atraumatic abdominal pain presenting to the ED after an index‐negative CT within 12 months; (I) repeat CT versus (C) no repeat CT; for (O) abdominal surgery or other invasive procedure, mortality, identification of potentially life‐threatening diagnosis, and hospital and intensive care unit admission rates; and return ED visit (T), all within 30 days. Four reviewers independently selected evidence for inclusion and then synthesized the results around the most prevalent themes of repeat CT timing, diagnostic yield, ionizing radiation exposure, and predictors of repetitive imaging.ResultsAlthough 637 articles and abstracts were identified, no direct evidence was found. Thirteen documents were synthesized as indirect evidence. None of the indirect evidence defined a low‐risk subset of abdominal pain nor did investigators describe whether reimaging occurred for complaints similar to the initial ED evaluation. Included studies did not describe the index CT findings and some reported explanatory findings noted on the original CT for which repeat CTs might have been indicated. The time frame for a repeat CT ranged from hours to 1 year. The frequency of repeat CTs (2%–47%) varied across studies as did the yield of imaging to alter downstream clinical decision making (range = 5%–67%).ConclusionDue to the absence of direct evidence our scoping review is unable to provide high‐quality evidence‐based recommendations upon which to confidently base an imaging practice guideline. There is no evidence to support or refute performing a CT for low‐risk recurrent abdominal pain.

AbstractAlthough studies suggest that patients with limited health literacy and/or low numeracy skills may stand to gain the most from shared decision making (SDM), the impact of these conditions on the effective implementation of SDM in the emergency department (ED) is not well understood. In this article from the proceedings of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department we discuss knowledge gaps identified and propose consensus‐driven research priorities to help guide future work to improve SDM for this patient population in the ED.