Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Primary survey: Highlights from this issue
  1. Richard Body1,2
  1. 1 Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2 Emergency Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Richard Body, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK; richard.body{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Welcome to the September 2023 issue of the Emergency Medicine Journal. This month we have a trio of papers on health services: a qualitative study exploring views of NHS 111 from the perspective of the Emergency Department (ED); a retrospective study looking at the impact scrapping the UK 4 hour process target; and an evaluation of an innovative service to try and avoid ED attendances for older adults. We also cover a range of topics from the experience of feeling uncertain as a consultant to fluid biomarkers of traumatic brain injury, a look at the use of isopropyl alcohol as an anti-emetic and a survey of current practice with regard to the size of chest drains used for patients with traumatic pneumothorax. I’ll take you through some of the highlights.

The only thing I know is that I know nothing: the lived experience of new ED consultants

I can vividly remember my first months as an ED consultant, though it was some time ago now. It felt lonely to be the consultant on-call, responsible for making decisions that could have such important consequences for patients but suddenly having nobody more senior to defer to when needed. This …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @richardbody

  • Contributors na.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.