Western Journal of Emergency Medicine最新文献

Introduction: Initiation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the emergency department (ED) is supported by the American College of Emergency Physicians and is shown to be beneficial. This practice, however, is largely underutilized.

Methods: To assess emergency clinicians' attitudes and readiness to initiate buprenorphine in the ED we conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey of clinicians (attendings, residents, and non-physician clinicians) in a single, academic ED of a tertiary-care hospital, which serves a rural population. Our survey aimed to assess emergency clinicians' attitudes toward and readiness to initiate buprenorphine in the ED and identify clinician-perceived facilitators and barriers. Our survey took place after the initiation of the IMPACT (Initiation of Medication, Peer Access, and Connection to Treatment) project.

Results: Our results demonstrated the level of agreement that buprenorphine prescribing is within the emergency clinician's scope of practice was inversely correlated to average years in practice (R² = 0.93). X-waivered clinicians indicated feeling more prepared to administer buprenorphine in the ED R² = 0.93. However, they were not more likely to report ordering buprenorphine or naloxone in the ED within the prior three months. Those who reported having a family member or close friend with substance use disorder (SUD) were not more likely to agree buprenorphine initiation is within the clinician's scope of practice (P = 0.91), nor were they more likely to obtain an X-waiver (P = 0.58) or report ordering buprenorphine or naloxone for patients in the ED within the prior three months (P = 0.65, P = 0.77). Clinicians identified availability of pharmacists, inpatient/outpatient referral resources, and support staff (peer recovery support specialists and care managers) as primary facilitators to buprenorphine initiation. Inability to ensure follow-up, lack of knowledge of available resources, and insufficient education/preparedness were primary barriers to ED buprenorphine initiation. Eighty-three percent of clinicians indicated they would be interested in additional education regarding OUD treatment.

Conclusion: Our data suggests that newer generations of emergency clinicians may have less hesitancy initiating buprenorphine in the ED. In time, this could mean increased access to treatment for patients with OUD. Understanding clinician-perceived facilitators and barriers to buprenorphine initiation allows for better resource allocation. Clinicians would likely further benefit from additional education regarding medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), available resources, and follow-up statistics.

Introduction: Standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke from large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) includes prompt evaluation for urgent mechanical thrombectomy (MT) at a comprehensive stroke center (CSC). During the start of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), there were reports about disruption to emergency department (ED) operations and delays in management of patients with AIS-LVO. In this study we investigate the outcome and operations for patients who were transferred from different EDs to an academic CSC's critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU), which specializes in expeditious transfer of time-sensitive disease.

Methods: This was a pre-post retrospective study using prospectively collected clinical data from our CSC's stroke registry. Adult patients who were transferred from any ED to the CCRU and underwent MT were eligible. We compared time intervals in the pre-pandemic (PP) period between January 2018- February 2020, such as ED in-out and CCRU arrival-angiography, to those during the pandemic (DP) between March 2020-May 31, 2021. We used classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to identify which time intervals, besides clinical factors, were associated with good neurological outcome (90-day modified Rankin scale 0-2).

Results: We analyzed 203 patients: 135 (66.5%) in the PP group and 68 (33.5%) in the DP group. Time from ED triage to computed tomography (difference 7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12 to -1, P < 0.01) for the DP group was statistically longer, but ED in-out was similar for both groups. Time from CCRU arrival to angiography (difference 9 minutes, 95% CI 4-13, P < 0.01) for the DP group was shorter. Forty-nine percent of the DP group achieved mRS ≤ 2 vs 32% for the PP group (difference -17%, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.03, P < 0.01). The CART identified initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, age, ED in-and-out time, and CCRU arrival-to-angiography time as important predictors of good outcome.

Conclusion: Overall, the care process in EDs and at this single CSC for patients requiring MT were not heavily affected by the pandemic, as certain time metrics during the pandemic were statistically shorter than pre-pandemic intervals. Time intervals such as ED in-and-out and CCRU arrival-to-angiography were important factors in achieving good neurologic outcomes. Further study is necessary to confirm our observation and improve operational efficiency in the future.

Introduction: Optimizing the performance of emergency department (ED) teams impacts patient care, but the utility of current, team-based performance assessment tools to comprehensively measure this impact is underexplored. In this study we aimed to 1) evaluate ED team performance using current team-based assessment tools during an interprofessional in situ simulation and 2) identify characteristics of effective ED teams.

Methods: This mixed-methods study employed case study methodology based on a constructivist paradigm. Sixty-three eligible nurses, technicians, pharmacists, and postgraduate year 2-4 emergency medicine residents at a tertiary academic ED participated in a 10-minute in situ simulation of a critically ill patient. Participants self-rated performance using the Team Performance Observation Tool (TPOT) 2.0 and completed a brief demographic form. Two raters independently reviewed simulation videos and rated performance using the TPOT 2.0, Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM), and Ottawa Crisis Resource Management Global Rating Scale (Ottawa GRS). Following simulations, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with in situ participants. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: Eighteen team-based simulations took place between January-April 2021. Raters' scores were on the upper end of the tools for the TPOT 2.0 (R1 4.90, SD 0.17; R2 4.53, SD 0.27, IRR [inter-rater reliability] 0.47), TEAM (R1 3.89, SD 0.19; R2 3.58, SD 0.39, IRR 0.73), and Ottawa GRS (R1 6.6, SD 0.56; R2 6.2, SD 0.54, IRR 0.68). We identified six themes from our interview data: team member entrustment; interdependent energy; leadership tone; optimal communication; strategic staffing; and simulation empowering team performance.

Conclusion: Current team performance assessment tools insufficiently discriminate among high performing teams in the ED. Emergency department-specific assessments that capture features of entrustability, interdependent energy, and leadership tone may offer a more comprehensive way to assess an individual's contribution to a team's performance.

Introduction: As opioid overdose deaths continue to rise, the emergency department (ED) remains an important point of contact for many at risk for overdose. In this study our purpose was to better understand the attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of ED nurses in caring for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). We hypothesized a difference in training received and attitudes toward caring for patients with OUD between nurses with <5 years and ≥6 years of clinical experience.

Methods: We conducted a survey among ED nurses in a large academic medical center from May-July 2022. All ED staff nurses were surveyed. Data entry instruments for the nursing surveys were programmed in Qualtrics, and we analyzed results R using a chi-square test or Fisher exact test to compare nurses with <5 years and ≥6 years of clinical experience. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: We distributed 74 surveys, and 69 were completed (93%). Attitudes toward naloxone distribution from the ED were positive, with 72% of respondents reporting they were "very" or "extremely" supportive of distributing naloxone kits to individuals at risk of overdose. While attitudes were positive, barriers included limited time, lack of system support, and cost. Level of comfort in caring for patients with OUD was high, with 78% of respondents "very" or "extremely" comfortable. More education is needed on overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) with respondents 38% and 45% "a little" or "somewhat" comfortable, respectively. Nurses with <5 years of experience reported receiving more training on OEND in nursing school compared to those with ≥6 years of experience (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in reported attitudes, knowledge, or comfort in caring for patients with OUD.

Conclusion: In this single-center survey, we found ED nurses were supportive of overdose education and naloxone distribution. There are opportunities for targeted education and addressing systemic barriers to OEND. All interventions should be evaluated to gauge impact on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.

Introduction: To expand access to naloxone, the state of Illinois implemented a standing order allowing registered pharmacies to dispense the drug without an individual prescription. To participate under the standing order, pharmacies were required to opt in through a formal registration process. In our study we aimed to evaluate the availability and price of naloxone at registered pharmacies.

Methods: This was a prospective, de-identified, cross-sectional telephone survey. Trained interviewers posed as potential customers and used a standardized script to determine the availability of naloxone between February-December, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as a pharmacy indicating it carried naloxone, currently had naloxone in stock, and was able to dispense it without an individual prescription.

Results: Of 948 registered pharmacies, 886 (93.5%) were successfully contacted. Of those, 792 (83.4%) carried naloxone, 659 (74.4%) had naloxone in stock, and 472 (53.3%) allowed purchase without a prescription. Naloxone nasal spray (86.4%) was the formulation most commonly stocked. Chain pharmacies were more likely to carry naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97-5.01, P < 0.01) and have naloxone in stock (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76-4.20, P < 0.01), but no more likely to dispense it without a prescription. Pharmacies in higher population areas (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, P < 0.05) and rural areas adjacent to metropolitan areas (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 025-0.98, P < 0.05) were less likely to have naloxone available without a prescription. Associations of naloxone availability based on other urbanicity designations, overdose count, and overdose rate were not significant.

Conclusion: Among pharmacies in Illinois that formally registered to dispense naloxone without a prescription, the availability of naloxone remains limited. Additional interventions may be needed to maximize the potential impact of a statewide standing order.

Introduction: The opioid epidemic is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Prior work has shown that emergency department (ED) opioid prescribing can increase the incidence of opioid use disorder in a dose-dependent manner, and systemic changes that decrease default quantity of discharge opioid tablets in the electronic health record (EHR) can impact prescribing practices. However, ED leadership may be interested in the impact of communication around the intervention as well as whether the intervention may differentially impact different types of clinicians (physicians, physician assistants [PA], and nurse practitioners). We implemented and evaluated a quality improvement intervention of an announced decrease in EHR default quantities of commonly prescribed opioids at a large, academic, urban, tertiary-care ED.

Methods: We gathered EHR data on all ED discharges with opioid prescriptions from January 1, 2019-December 6, 2021, including chief complaint, clinician, and opioid prescription details. Data was captured and analyzed on a monthly basis throughout this time period. On March 29, 2021, we implemented an announced decrease in EHR default dispense quantities from 20 tablets to 12 tablets for commonly prescribed opioids. We measured pre- and post-intervention quantities of opioid tablets prescribed per discharge receiving opioids, distribution by patient demographics, and inter-clinician variability in prescribing behavior.

Results: The EHR change was associated with a 14% decrease in quantity of opioid tablets per discharge receiving opioids, from 14 to 12 tablets (P = <.001). We found no statistically significant disparities in prescriptions based on self-reported patient race (P = 0.68) or gender (P = 0.65). Nurse practitioners and PAs prescribed more opioids per encounter than physicians on average and had a statistically significant decrease in opioid prescriptions associated with the EHR change. Physicians had a lesser but still significant drop in opioid prescribing in the post-intervention period.

Conclusion: Decreasing EHR defaults is a robust, simple tool for decreasing opioid prescriptions, with potential for implementation in the 42% of EDs nationwide that have defaults exceeding the recommended 12-tablet supply. Considering significant inter-clinician variability, future interventions to decrease opioid prescriptions should examine the effects of combining EHR default changes with targeted interventions for clinician groups or individual clinicians.

Introduction: Healthcare organizations are under increasing pressure from policymakers, payers, and advocates to screen for and address patients' health-related social needs (HRSN). The emergency department (ED) presents several challenges to HRSN screening, and patients are frequently not screened for HRSNs. Predictive modeling using machine learning and artificial intelligence, approaches may address some pragmatic HRSN screening challenges in the ED. Because predictive modeling represents a substantial change from current approaches, in this study we explored the acceptability of HRSN predictive modeling in the ED.

Methods: Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patient perspectives on the acceptability and usage of predictive modeling for HRSNs in the ED were obtained through in-depth semi-structured interviews (eight per group, total 24). All participants practiced at or had received care from an urban, Midwest, safety-net hospital system. We analyzed interview transcripts using a modified thematic analysis approach with consensus coding.

Results: Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patients agreed that HRSN predictive modeling must lead to actionable responses and positive patient outcomes. Opinions about using predictive modeling results to initiate automatic referrals to HRSN services were mixed. Emergency clinicians and staff wanted transparency on data inputs and usage, demanded high performance, and expressed concern for unforeseen consequences. While accepting, patients were concerned that prediction models can miss individuals who required services and might perpetuate biases.

Conclusion: Emergency clinicians, ED staff, and patients expressed mostly positive views about using predictive modeling for HRSNs. Yet, clinicians, staff, and patients listed several contingent factors impacting the acceptance and implementation of HRSN prediction models in the ED.

Introduction: Severe trauma-induced blood loss can lead to metabolic acidosis, shock, and death. Identification of abnormalities in the bicarbonate and serum markers may be seen before frank changes in vital signs in the hemorrhaging trauma patient, allowing for earlier lifesaving interventions. In this study the author aimed to evaluate the usefulness of serum bicarbonate and other lab markers as predictors of mortality in trauma patients within 30 days after injury.

Methods: This retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study used the TriNetX database, covering approximately 92 million patients from 55 healthcare organizations in the United States, including 3.8 million trauma patients in the last two decades. Trauma patients were included if they had lab measurements available the day of the event. The analysis focused on mortality within 30 days post-trauma in comparison to measured lab markers. Cohorts were formed based on ranges of bicarbonate, lactate, and base excess levels.

Results: Before propensity score matching, a total of 1,275,363 trauma patients with same-day bicarbonate, lactate, or base excess labs were identified. A significant difference in mortality was found across various serum bicarbonate lab ranges compared to the standard range of 21-27 milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L), post-propensity score matching. The relative risk of death was 6.806 for bicarbonate ≤5 mEq/L; 8.651 for 6-10; 6.746 for 11-15; 2.822 for 16-20; and 1.015 for bicarbonate ≥28. Serum lactate also displayed significant mortality outcomes when compared to a normal level of ≤2 millimoles per liter. Base excess showed similar significant correlation at different values compared to a normal base excess of -2 to 2 mEq/L.

Conclusion: This study, approximately 100 times larger than prior studies, associated lower bicarbonate levels with increased mortality in the trauma patient. While lactate and base excess offer prognostic value, lower bicarbonate values have a higher relative risk of death. The greater predictive value of bicarbonate and accessibility during resuscitations suggests that it may be the superior prognostic marker in trauma.

Introduction: Recent policy changes in Washington State presented a unique opportunity to pair evidence-based interventions with first responder services to combat increasing opioid overdoses. However, little is known about how these interventions should be implemented. In partnership with the Research with Expert Advisors on Drug Use team, a group of academically trained and community-trained researchers with lived and living experience of substance use, we examined facilitators and barriers to adopting leave-behind naloxone, field-based buprenorphine initiation, and HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing for first responder programs.

Methods: Our team completed semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 32 first responders, mobile integrated health staff, and emergency medical services (EMS) leaders in King County, Washington, from February-May 2022. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using an integrated deductive and inductive thematic analysis approach grounded in community-engaged research principles. We collected data until saturation was achieved. Data collection and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Two investigators coded independently until 100% consensus was reached.

Results: Our thematic analysis revealed several perceived facilitators (ie, tension for change, relative advantage, and compatibility) and barriers (ie, limited adaptability, lack of evidence strength and quality, and prohibitive cost) to the adoption of these evidence-based clinical interventions for first responder systems. There was widespread support for the distribution of leave-behind naloxone, although funding was identified as a barrier. Many believed field-based initiation of buprenorphine treatment could provide a more effective response to overdose management, but there were significant concerns that this intervention could run counter to the rapid care model. Lastly, participants worried that HIV and HCV testing was inappropriate for first responders to conduct but recommended that this service be provided by mobile integrated health staff.

Conclusion: These results have informed local EMS strategic planning, which will inform roll out of process improvements in King County, Washington. Future work should evaluate the impact of these interventions on the health of overdose survivors.

Introduction: Hundreds of children suffer burn injuries each day, yet care guidelines regarding the need for acute inpatient treatment vs outpatient follow-up vs no required follow-up remain nebulous. This gap in the literature is particularly salient for the emergency clinician, who must be able to rapidly determine appropriate disposition.

Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients presenting to a Level II pediatric trauma center, January 1, 2017-December 31, 2019, and discharged with an International Classification of Diseases, Rev 10, burn diagnosis. We obtained and analyzed demographics, burn characteristics, and follow-up data using univariate and bivariate analysis as well as logistic regression modeling. Patients were stratified into three outcome groups: group 1-patients who underwent emergent evaluation at a burn center or were admitted at their first follow-up appointment; group 2-patients who followed up at a burn center (as an outpatient) or at the emergency department (and were discharged home); and group 3-patients with no known follow-up.

Results: A total of 572 patients were included in this study; 58.9% of patients were 1-5 years of age. Sixty-five patients met group 1 criteria, 189 patients met group 2 criteria, and 318 patients met group 3 criteria. Sixty-five percent of patients met at least one American Burn Association criteria, and 79% of all burns were second-degree burns. Flame and scald burns were associated with increased odds (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, OR 1.12) of group 1 vs group 2 + group 3 (P = 0.02, P < 0.001). Second/third-degree burns and concern for non-accidental trauma were also associated with increased odds of group 1 vs 2 or 3 (OR = 1.11, 1.35, P ≤ 0.001, 0.001, respectively). Scald burns were associated with increased odds of group 2 compared to group 3 (OR 1.11, P = 0.04). Second/third degree burns were also associated with increased odds of group 2 vs 3 (OR 1.19, P ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion: There were few statistically significant variables strongly associated with group 1 (emergent treatment/admission) vs group 2 (follow-up/outpatient treatment) vs group 3 (no follow- up). However, one notable finding in this study was the association of scald burns with treatment (admission or follow-up) suggesting that the presence of a scald burn in a child may signify to clinicians that a burn center consult is warranted.