Western Journal of Emergency Medicine最新文献

Background and objectives: Greater lifetime exposure to psychological trauma correlates with a higher number of health comorbidities and negative health outcomes. However, physicians often are not specifically trained in how to care for patients with trauma, especially in acute care settings. Our objective was to identify implemented trauma-informed care (TIC) training protocols for emergency and/or trauma service physicians that have both sufficient detail that they can be adapted and outcome data indicating positive impact.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ebsco's Academic Search Premier, and MedEdPORTAL. Inclusion criteria were EM and trauma service clinicians (medical doctors, physician assistants and nurse practitioners, residents), adult and/or pediatric patients, and training evaluation. Evaluation was based on the Kirkpatrick Model.

Results: We screened 2,280 unique articles and identified two different training protocols. Results demonstrated the training included patient-centered communication and interprofessional collaboration. One curriculum demonstrated that targeted outcomes were due to the training (Level 4). Both curricula received overall positive reactions (Level 1) and illustrated behavioral change (Level 3). Neither were found to specifically illustrate learning due to the training (Level 2).

Conclusion: Study findings from our review show a paucity of published TIC training protocols that demonstrate positive impact and are described sufficiently to be adopted broadly. Current training protocols demonstrated an increasing comfort level with the TIC approach, integration into current practices, and referrals to trauma intervention specialists.

Introduction: During the coronavirus 2019 pandemic, hospitals in the United States experienced a shortage of contrast agent, much of which is manufactured in China. As a result, there was a significantly decreased amount of intravenous (IV) contrast available. We sought to determine the effect of restricting the use of IV contrast on emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS).

Methods: We conducted a single-institution, retrospective cohort study on adult patients presenting with abdominal pain to the ED from March 7-July 5, 2022. Of 26,122 patient encounters reviewed, 3,028 (11.6%) included abdominopelvic CT with a complaint including "abdominal pain." We excluded patients with outside imaging and non-ED scans. Routine IV contrast agent was administered to approximately 74.6% of patients between March 7-May 6, 2022, when we altered usage guidelines due to a nationwide shortage. Between May 6-July 5, 2022, 32.8% of patients received IV contrast after institutional recommendations were made to limit contrast use. We compared patient demographics and clinical characteristics between groups with chi-square test for frequency data. We analyzed ED LOS with nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous measures with focus before and after new ED protocols. We also used statistical process control charts and plotted the 1, 2 and 3 sigma control limits to visualize the variation in ED LOS over time. The charts include the average (mean) of the data and upper and lower control limits, corresponding to the number of standard deviations away from the mean.

Results: After use of routine IV contrast was discontinued, ED LOS (229.0 vs 212.5 minutes, P = <0.001) declined by 16.5 minutes (95% confidence interval -10, -22).

Conclusion: Intravenous contrast adds significantly to ED LOS. Decreased use of routine IV contrast in the ED accelerates time to CT completion. A policy change to limit IV contrast during a national shortage significantly decreased ED LOS.

Introduction: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) inequitably impacted minority populations and regions with limited access to healthcare resources. The Barnes-Jewish Emergency Department in St. Louis, MO, serves such a population. The COVID-19 vaccine is an available defense to help achieve community immunity. The emergency department (ED) is a potential societal resource to provide access to a vaccination intervention. Our objective in this study was to describe and evaluate a novel ED COVID-19 vaccine program, including its impact on the local surrounding underserved community.

Methods: This was a retrospective, post-protocol implementation review of an ED COVID-19 vaccination program. Over the initial six-month period, we compiled data on all vaccinated patients out of the ED to evaluate demographic data and the impact on underserved regional areas.

Results: We report a successful ED-based COVID-19 vaccine program (with over 1,000 vaccines administered). This program helped raise regional and state vaccination rates. Over 50% of the population that received the COVID-19 vaccine from the ED were from defined socially vulnerable patient populations. No adverse effects were documented.

Conclusion: Operation CoVER (COVID-19 Vaccine in the Emergency Room) Saint Louis was able to successfully vaccinate a socially vulnerable patient population. This free, COVID-19 ED-based vaccine program with dedicated pharmacy support, was novel in emergency medicine practice. Similar ED-based vaccine programs could help with future vaccine distribution.

Emergency departments (ED) in the United States serve a dual role in public health: a portal of entry to the health system and a safety net for the community at large. Public health officials often target the ED for public health interventions due to the perception that it is uniquely able to reach underserved populations. However, under time and resource constraints, emergency physicians and public health officials must make calculated decisions in choosing which interventions in their local context could provide maximal impact to achieve public health benefit. We identify how decisions regarding public health interventions are affected by considerations of cost, time, and available personnel, and further consider the role of local community needs, health department goals, and political environment. We describe a sample of ED-based public health interventions and demonstrate how to use a proposed framework to assess interventions. We posit a series of questions and variables to consider: local disease prevalence; ability of the ED to perform the intervention; relative efficacy of the ED vs community partnerships as the primary intervention location; and expected outcomes. In using this framework, clinicians should be empowered to improve the public health in their communities.

Introduction: The incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STI) increased in the United States between 2017-2021. There is limited data describing STI co-testing practices and the prevalence of STI co-infections in emergency departments (ED). In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of co-testing and co-infection of HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV), syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, in a large, academic ED.

Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cross-sectional study of ED patients tested for HIV, HCV, syphilis, gonorrhea or chlamydia between November 27, 2018-May 26, 2019. In 2018, the study institution implemented an ED-based infectious diseases screening program in which any patient being tested for gonorrhea/chlamydia was eligible for opt-out syphilis screening, and any patient 18-64 years who was having blood drawn for any clinical purpose was eligible for opt-out HIV and HCV screening. We analyzed data from all ED patients ≥13 years who had undergone STI testing. The outcomes of interest included prevalence of STI testing/co-testing and the prevalence of STI infection/co-infection. We describe data with simple descriptive statistics.

Results: During the study period there were 30,767 ED encounters for patients ≥13 years (mean age: 43 ± 14 years, 52% female), and 7,866 (26%) were tested for at least one of HIV, HCV, syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia. We observed the following testing frequencies (and prevalence of infection): HCV, 7,539 (5.0%); HIV, 7,359 (0.9%); gonorrhea, 574 (6.1%); chlamydia, 574 (9.8%); and syphilis, 420 (10.5%). Infectious etiologies with universal testing protocols (HIV and HCV) made up the majority of STI testing. In patients with syphilis, co-infection with chlamydia (21%, 9/44) and HIV (9%, 4/44) was high. In patients with gonorrhea, co-infection with chlamydia (23%, 8/35) and syphilis (9%, 3/35) was high, and in patients with chlamydia, co-infection with syphilis (16%, 9/56) and gonorrhea (14%, 8/56) was high. Patients with HCV had low co-infection proportions (<2%).

Conclusion: Prevalence of STI co-testing was low among patients with clinical suspicion for STIs; however, co-infection prevalence was high in several co-infection pairings. Future efforts are needed to improve STI co-testing rates among high-risk individuals.

Introduction: Bystander provision of naloxone is a key modality to reduce opioid overdose-related death. Naloxone training courses are available, but no standardized program exists. As part of a bystander empowerment course, we created and evaluated a brief naloxone training module.

Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of a naloxone training course, which was paired with Stop the Bleed training for hemorrhage control and was offered to administrative staff in an office building. Participants worked in an organization related to healthcare, but none were clinicians. The curriculum included the following topics: 1) background about the opioid epidemic; 2) how to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose; 3) actions not to take when encountering an overdose victim; 4) the correct steps to take when encountering an overdose victim; 5) an overview of naloxone products; and 6) Good Samaritan protection laws. The 20-minute didactic section was followed by a hands-on session with nasal naloxone kits and a simulation mannequin. The course was evaluated with the Opioid Overdose Knowledge (OOKS) and Opioid Overdose Attitudes (OOAS) scales for take-home naloxone training evaluation. We used the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare scores pre- and post-course.

Results: Twenty-eight participants completed the course. The OOKS, measuring objective knowledge about opioid overdose and naloxone, had improved scores from a median of 73.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.3%-79.9%) to 91.5% (IQR 85.4%-95.1%), P < 0.001. The three domains on the OOAS score also showed statistically significant results. Competency to manage an overdose improved on a five-point scale from a median of 2.5 (IQR 2.4-2.9) to a median of 3.7 (IQR 3.5-4.1), P < 0.001. Concerns about managing an overdose decreased (improved) from a median of 2.3 (IQR 1.9-2.6) to median 1.8 (IQR 1.5-2.1), P < 0.001. Readiness to intervene in an opioid overdose improved from a median of 4 (IQR 3.8-4.2) to a median of 4.2 (IQR 4-4.2), P < 0.001.

Conclusion: A brief course designed to teach bystanders about opioid overdose and naloxone was feasible and effective. We encourage hospitals and other organizations to use and promulgate this model. Furthermore, we suggest the convening of a national consortium to achieve consensus on program content and delivery.

Introduction: The United States Veterans Health Administration is a leader in the use of telemental health (TMH) to enhance access to mental healthcare amidst a nationwide shortage of mental health professionals. The Tennessee Valley Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System piloted TMH in its emergency department (ED) and urgent care clinic (UCC) in 2019, with full 24/7 availability beginning March 1, 2020. Following implementation, preliminary data demonstrated that veterans ≥65 years old were less likely to receive TMH than younger patients. We sought to examine factors associated with older veterans receiving TMH consultations in acute, unscheduled, outpatient settings to identify limitations in the current process.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted within the Tennessee Valley VA Health System. We included veterans ≥55 years who received a mental health consultation in the ED or UCC from April 1, 2020-September 30, 2022. Telemental health was administered by a mental health clinician (attending physician, resident physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) via iPad, whereas in-person evaluations were performed in the ED. We examined the influence of patient demographics, visit timing, chief complaint, and psychiatric history on TMH, using multivariable logistic regression.

Results: Of the 254 patients included in this analysis, 177 (69.7%) received TMH. Veterans with high-risk chief complaints (suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, or agitation) were less likely to receive TMH consultation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.95). Compared to attending physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants were associated with increased TMH use (AOR 4.81, 95% CI 2.04-11.36), whereas consultation by resident physicians was associated with decreased TMH use (AOR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.59). The UCC used TMH for all but one encounter. Patient characteristics including their visit timing, gender, additional medical complaints, comorbidity burden, and number of psychoactive medications did not influence use of TMH.

Conclusion: High-risk chief complaints, location, and type of mental health clinician may be key determinants of telemental health use in older adults. This may help expand mental healthcare access to areas with a shortage of mental health professionals and prevent potentially avoidable transfers in low-acuity situations. Further studies and interventions may optimize TMH for older patients to ensure safe, equitable mental health care.

Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) are in the unique position to initiate buprenorphine, an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, barriers at the system and clinician level limit its use. We describe a series of interventions that address these barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine in one urban ED. We compare post-intervention physician outcomes between the study site and two affiliated sites without the interventions.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted at three affiliated urban EDs where the intervention site implemented OUD-related electronic note templates, clinical protocols, a peer navigation program, education, and reminders. Post-intervention, we administered an anonymous, online survey to physicians at all three sites. Survey domains included demographics, buprenorphine experience and knowledge, comfort with addressing OUD, and attitudes toward OUD treatment. Physician outcomes were compared between the intervention site and the control sites with bivariate tests. We used logistic regression controlling for significant demographic differences to compare physicians' buprenorphine experience.

Results: Of 113 (51%) eligible physicians, 58 completed the survey: 27 from the intervention site, and 31 from the control sites. Physicians at the intervention site were more likely to spend <75% of their work week in clinical practice and to be in medical practice for <7 years. Buprenorphine knowledge (including status of buprenorphine prescribing waiver), comfort with addressing OUD, and attitudes toward OUD treatment did not differ significantly between the sites. Physicians were 4.5 times more likely to have administered buprenorphine at the intervention site (odds ratio [OR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval 1.4-14.4, P = 0.01), which remained significant after adjusting for clinical time and years in practice, (OR 3.5 and 4.6, respectively).

Conclusion: Physicians exposed to interventions addressing system- and clinician-level implementation barriers were at least three times as likely to have administered buprenorphine in the ED. Physicians' buprenorphine knowledge, comfort with addressing and attitudes toward OUD treatment did not differ significantly between sites. Our findings suggest that ED-initiated buprenorphine can be facilitated by addressing implementation barriers, while physician knowledge, comfort, and attitudes may be harder to improve.