Acute Abdominal Pain Assessment in the Emergency Department: The Experience of a Greek University Hospital

Clinical indications for plain abdominal radiographs: A survey study among radiographers

Background

Abdominal pain is a common complaint in the Emergency Department. Radiographers' knowledge and practices regarding clinical indications for performing abdominal examinations are crucial in the results radiographs produced.

Aim

To determine the knowledge and practices of radiographers regarding the clinical indications for performing radiographic examinations of the abdomen.

Setting

Four public hospitals in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted, using a convenience, all-inclusive sample of n = 85 radiographers. A hard copy self-administered questionnaire was distributed between February and June 2020. Descriptive (mean and standard deviations) and inferential (chi² test) statistics were generated using IBM® SPSS® version 26.0 software package.

Results

Knowledge of clinical indications had a mean of 59.41. All four demographics (age, years of experience, attended a short course and attended pattern recognition course) were significantly associated with overall knowledge. Additionally, short course attendance was significantly associated with most practice items, and two knowledge items (which views are done for perforation; and which view(s) demonstrate a stab abdomen). Pattern recognition was significantly associated with one knowledge item (which views are regarded as an acute abdomen).

Conclusion

Despite the lack of short courses and pattern recognition courses, radiographers' knowledge of clinical indications was good (>50%). Continuous training, accessible protocols for performing clinical indications for plain abdominal radiographic examinations for radiographers, audit, feedback and reminders to enhance protocol adherence are recommended.

Contribution

The study findings could be used to enhance knowledge and practices regarding clinical indications for plain abdominal radiographic examinations among radiographers.

Prehospital assessment of patients with abdominal pain triaged to self-care at home: an observation study

BACKGROUND

Patients who call for emergency medical services (EMS) due to abdominal pain suffer from a broad spectrum of diseases, some of which are time sensitive. As a result of the introduction of the concept of 'optimal level of care', some patients with abdominal pain are triaged to other levels of care than in an emergency department (ED). We hypothesised that it could be challenging in a patient safety perspective.

AIM

This study aims to describe consecutive patients who call for EMS due to abdominal pain and are triaged to self-care by EMS clinicians.

METHODS

This was an observational study performed in an EMS organisation in Western Sweden during 2020. The triage tool Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System (RETTS), which included Emergency Signs and Symptom (ESS) codes, was used to find medical records where patients with abdominal pain have been triaged to self-care and 194 patients was included in the study.

RESULTS

Of total 48,311 ambulance missions, A total of 1747 patients were labelled with ESS code six (abdominal pain), including 223 (12.8%) who were given the code for self-care and 194 who were further assessed by the research group. Of these patients, 32 (16.3%) had a return visit within 96 hours due to the same symptoms and 11 (5.6%) were hospitalised. In six of these patients, the EMS triage was evaluated retrospectively and assessed as inappropriate. These patients had a final diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aneurysm (n = 1), acute appendicitis with peritonitis (n = 2) and acute pancreatitis (n = 3). All these patients required extensive evaluation and different treatments, including acute surgery, antibiotics and fluid therapy.

CONCLUSION

Amongst the 1747 patients assessed by EMS due to abdominal pain, 223 (12.8%) were triaged to self-care. Of the 194 patients who were further assessed, 16.3% required a return visit to the ED within 96 hours and 5.6% were hospitalised. Six patients had obvious time-sensitive conditions. Our study highlights the difficulties in the early assessment of abdominal pain and the requirement for an accurate decision support tool.

Vitamin D Deficiency and Unclear Abdominal Pain in Patients from Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Background: Abdominal pain is one of the commonest symptoms in emergency departments (EDs). Diagnosis demands full attention and critical thinking, since many diseases manifest atypically and the consequences of overlooking the symptoms may be disastrous. Despite intensive diagnostic procedures, some cases remain elusive and unclear abdominal pain (UAP) is not infrequent. Emerging evidence supports the hypothesis that functional pain might be attributed to vitamin D deficiency (VDD). People with darker or covered skin are predisposed to developing VDD. Patients in Switzerland stemming from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are such a population. Aim: To identify cases with UAP in LMIC patients and to compare vitamin D status with a control group. Methods: A retrospective single-center case-control study was carried out from 1 January 2013 to 31 August 2016 in all adult patients (more than 16 years old) stemming from LMIC and presenting at the university ED of Bern with abdominal pain. Vitamin D status was retrieved from these cases when available. The control group consisted of patients without abdominal pain or metabolic diseases and was matched (1:1) to the cases for age, gender, body mass index, geographic distribution, and season of vitamin D estimation. Results: A total of 10,308 cases from LMIC were reported to the ED. In total, 223 cases were identified with UAP. The status of vitamin D was available for 27 patients; 27 matched individuals were subsequently retrieved for the control group. Women made up 56.7% of the UAP group and 43.3% of the control group. The most common origin of the LMIC subjects was southern Europe (20.4%), followed by southern Asia (16.7%) and Eastern Europe (13%). Fourteen UAP patients exhibited severe VDD (<25 nmol/L) versus one in the control group (p = 0.001). The difference remained significant if the patients were identified as having VDD (<50 nmol/L) or not (p = 0.024). Comparison of the means indicated that the UAP group had lower vitamin D levels than the control group (41.3 vs. 53.7 nmol/L, respectively), but this difference was marginal (p = 0.060) and not statistically significant. After adjustment for potential confounders, including gender, mean vitamin D levels remained non-significantly different between groups. In the sub-group analysis, vitamin D levels were lower in women than in men (p = 0.037), compared to the respective controls. Conclusion: This study showed for the first time that patients from LMIC who presented to ED with UAP displayed VDD. Validation from larger studies is warranted to evaluate the linkage of VDD with UAP.

Diagnostic imaging for acute abdominal pain in an Emergency Department in Italy

Imaging plays a key role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with non-traumatic acute abdominal pain (AAP) in emergency department (ED). We aimed to evaluate the use and diagnostic performance of imaging techniques in adult patients with AAP in an ED in Italy. Patients with non-traumatic AAP admitted at the ED of S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital of Bologna (Italy) from the 1st to the 30th November 2016 were included. Demographic and clinical data, data on radiological procedures and discharge diagnosis were collected. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting acute diseases were assessed using the discharge diagnosis from the ED as reference standard. Of the 578 patients (female 52.8%, mean age 51.3 years) admitted to the ED for AAP, 433 (74.9%) underwent abdominal imaging. The most frequent techniques used were abdominal plain radiography and ultrasonography (US), performed in 38.4% and 37.9% of patients, respectively, followed by computed tomography (CT) in 28% of patients. Plain radiography yielded a sensitivity of 28% and specificity of 91.1%; the sensitivity increased to 79.4% in patients with small bowel obstruction. Ultrasonography's sensitivity and specificity were 61.8% and 98.4%, respectively; the sensitivity of US reached 85.2% and 90% in patients with acute cholecystitis/biliary colic and urolithiasis, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of CT were 87.8% and 92.9%, respectively. Plain radiography is still overused in the diagnostic work-up of AAP in ED in Italy, despite its unsatisfactory sensitivity. Ultrasonography and CT has a higher sensitivity and should be used as first-level imaging in most patients.