Trauma, a global health challenge, remains a significant cause of mortality despite advances in trauma management. The establishment of trauma teams has revolutionized care in trauma resuscitation. The training of these teams is designed to promote self-trust and empower trainees in trauma care, enhance performance, and improve patient outcomes. Various training curricula have been developed, utilizing a plethora of teaching methods such as lectures, simulations, debriefings, skill workshops, and demonstrations. However, a universally accepted gold standard curriculum in trauma training is yet to be defined, and there is no standard method for delivering education in injury care teaching. In this review, we have examined relevant literature data on standard teaching programs, the educational delivery methods used, and their impact on adult trauma patients’ outcomes and trained team-related outcomes. While most studies indicate improved trained team performance, they consistently show no improvement in patient-specific outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, and length of stay. However, data hints at optimal educational delivery and the role that technology may play in the future of trauma training development.

Background: Disasters, although predictable, often occur unexpectedly, and efforts must be directed towards reducing their impact. Emergency healthcare workers, key players in disaster response, should maintain a high level of preparedness to act in catastrophic situations. Data on knowledge, attitude, and disaster preparedness among emergency healthcare workers is scarce, particularly for developed countries in Europe. This study aimed to measure the perceived preparedness of various health practitioners in emergency care in Iași county (Romania) and identify factors that influence it. Materials and methods: A self-assessment web-based questionnaire was developed to measure knowledge (K), attitude (A), and preparedness (P). Nonparametric tests compared measurements between demographic groups. Spearman correlation, linear univariate, and multivariate regression models were used to test the effect of perceived knowledge, attitude, and other work-related factors (such as experience, training, and leadership) on disaster preparedness. Results: 211 valid entries were recorded (114 female and 97 male), of which 33.6% were doctors, 25.1% were nurses, and 23.7% were paramedics. There were differences in exposure to training across health professions for disasters and trauma management (p = 0.03 and p = 0.009). The sample’s overall scores for the three primary domains assessed were moderate. Univariate analyses identified a significant effect of knowledge and attitude on preparedness (B = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.79–1.01, p < 0.001, and B = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.66–0.97, p < 0.001, respectively), which was maintained in multivariate regression. Workplace factors (disaster plans and institutional collaboration), along with experience in disaster management and emergency care, were determinants of preparedness, while the effect of training was insignificant. Conclusions: Most healthcare workers displayed moderate preparedness for disasters, while exposure to training and practice was found to be inadequate. Focus should be placed on identifying barriers and enhancing training delivery, strengthening institutional involvement in staff preparedness, and improving inter-professional collaborations. Adequate training methods must be developed and validated in further studies.

Background and Objectives: The incidence and prevalence of cancers are increasing worldwide, with special emphasis placed on prevention, early detection, and the development of new therapeutic strategies that strongly impact patient outcomes. Limited data are available about emergency care’s role in treating patients with cancer. This study aims to determine the burden of end-stage and first-time diagnosis of cancer on emergency care in a high-turnover emergency care center. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted to identify patients requesting emergent aid for cancer-related symptoms in the Emergency Department of “St. Spiridon” Hospital from Iasi (Romania) between 1 October 2022 and 30 September 2023. The proportion and demographic characteristics of end-stage patients and those who received a first-time diagnosis during the emergency visit were evaluated. Risk analysis was performed to understand these patients’ care needs (such as medical care, surgical care, specialty consults, intensive care, ward admission, and other hospital transfers) and immediate care outcomes (such as in-hospital mortality and home discharge). Results: 2318 patients with cancer requested emergent care (patient presentation rate of 3.08%), of which 444 (19.15%) were diagnosed for the first time, and 616 (26.57%) were at the end-stage. First-time diagnosed patients had a significantly different distribution of cancer types (p < 0.001), were more likely to need any form of medical care, to require a specialty consultation, or to be admitted to a ward (OR 2.65, 95% CI: 2.12–3.32; p < 0.001; OR 3.28, 95% CI: 2.48–4.35, p < 0.001; OR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.70–2.59; p < 0.001, respectively) but were less severe, while end-stage patients were more likely to address repeatedly to the emergency room (OR 1.86, 95% CI: 1.32–2.59; p = 0.001) and had higher odds of needing intensive care, assisted ventilation and death (OR-4.63, 95% CI: 1.10–19.45, p = 0.04; OR 2.59, 95% CI: 1.57–4.28; p < 0.001, and OR 4.06, 95% CI: 1.73–9.54; p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: The emergency department often carries the weight of diagnosing patients with cancer and treating patients with end-stage disease. These data highlight the importance of prehospital care, particularly for cancer screening and palliative care, and the importance of fostering multidisciplinary collaboration in the emergency room with oncologists, geriatricians, and palliative care specialists to improve patient outcomes.

Risk assessment for immediate mortality is a vital component of the preoperative assessment in elective cardiac surgeries of the adult population. It is generally used to inform consent and plan postoperative care, but can also help identify patients who need preoperative optimization. Risk assessment for open cardiac interventions remains difficult, as an absolute risk assessment tool is still lacking. In this narrative review, we examine recent data on the predictive performance of commonly used risk assessment tools in cardiac surgery and explore missed opportunities to improve predictive performance, including overlooked independent predictors and alternative calculation strategies, such as machine learning. The literature shows that the most popular risk assessment tools are the Parsonnet score, EuroSCORE II, STS-PROM, and ACEF. These have reasonable discriminative capabilities across most populations but occasionally suffer from poor calibration and over- or underprediction. Preoperative inflammation, functional status, physical performance, nutrition, and frailty are potentially relevant clinical factors that could improve mortality prediction modeling using traditional approaches. By far, the largest advancement comes from artificial intelligence-based models that demonstrate superior predictive capabilities utilizing the same predictors. These models are still in development, have not received external validation, are not yet trusted by physicians, and may not be accessible to all institutions due to computing limitations, and thus are not ready for global rollout. Further research in identifying novel predictors of mortality is required, and efforts are needed to validate machine learning models in external cohorts.

Religious mass gathering events are repeated occurrences characterized by a large convergence of populations in a specific location. These events challenge

Background: Medical emergencies occur at varying rates across the globe. Given the significant effort invested in identifying them and assessing dentists’ preparedness to deliver treatment in these life-threatening conditions, a global overview was needed. Materials and Methods: In this scoping review, data from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were examined to identify all relevant studies reporting on the impact of medical emergencies on dentists and determine their operational preparedness at a national or regional level. Operational preparedness was determined in accordance with existing emergency operational preparedness frameworks across six domains: Anticipate, Assess, Prevent, Prepare, Respond, and Recover. Significant Findings: Global data show that dentists will invariably encounter medical emergencies across their careers. However, our investigation found that in countries where there is strong foundational training and regular refresher training, fewer frequent emergencies and stronger operational preparedness are reported. Governmental regulation emerged as a key facilitator of operational preparedness. Still, barriers exist, primarily limited access to medical emergency courses, shortages of office supplies for emergency drugs and materials, and the absence of medical emergency registries. Conclusions: A reassessment of the medical emergency training courses’ content appropriateness is paramount. Training interventions should also focus on raising awareness about the importance of preventive measures and office optimization through planning. Further research is needed to identify any overlooked facilitators and barriers to operational preparedness in medical emergencies. This will help identify opportunities for improvement and minimize the impact of emergencies on dental practices.