Western Journal of Emergency Medicine最新文献

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.