Annals of emergency medicine最新文献

Study objective(s): To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementation facilitation compared with a standard educational strategy to promote emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine with linkage to ongoing opioid use disorder care in the community, from a health care-sector perspective.

Methods: A prospective cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside "Project ED Health" (CTN-0069), a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness study conducted at 4 academic EDs. Resources were gathered and valued according to the health care-sector perspective. Three effectiveness measures were evaluated: quality-adjusted life-years, opioid-free years, and patient engagement in community-based opioid use disorder care on the 30th day following the index ED visit. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for each measure of effectiveness. Likelihood of cost-effectiveness was evaluated across a wide range of "value" thresholds through cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Results: The mean, per-person, health care-sector cost associated with ED-administered buprenorphine following implementation facilitation did not differ significantly from that of standard education ($3,239 versus $4,904), whereas the mean effectiveness for all 3 measures significantly favored the implementation facilitation strategy. Implementation facilitation has a 74% to 75% probability of being considered cost-effective from a health care-sector perspective at the recommended value range of $100,000 to $200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios estimated using secondary effectiveness measures had a 75% probability of being considered cost-effective at $25,000 per opioid-free year and $38,000 per engagement.

Conclusion: Implementation facilitation, relative to a standard educational strategy, has a moderate-to-high likelihood of being considered cost-effective from a health care-sector perspective, depending on decisionmakers' willingness to pay for units of effectiveness.

Study objective: The primary objective of our study was to compare the effectiveness of oral cephalosporins versus fluroquinolones and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for the treatment of pyelonephritis in patients discharged home from the emergency department (ED).

Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study of 11 geographically diverse US EDs. Patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with pyelonephritis and discharged home from the ED between January 1, 2021 and October 31, 2023 were included. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 14 days defined as a composite outcome of the following: (1) recurrence of urinary symptoms, (2) repeat ED visit or hospitalization for a urinary tract infection, (3) receipt of a new antibiotic prescription for urinary tract infection. Secondary outcome was appropriateness of empiric treatment based on urine culture susceptibility.

Results: Among the 851 patients who met inclusion criteria, 647 patients received a cephalosporin, and 204 patients received an Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline-endorsed first-line treatment (fluroquinolones, TMP-SMX). Overall, baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts. Rates of treatment failure were not significantly different in the cephalosporin group compared with the fluroquinolone/TMP-SMX groups (17.2% of cephalosporin vs 22.5% of fluroquinolone/TMP-SMX group, difference=5.3%, 95% confidence interval -0.118 to 0.01). After adjusting for potential confounders, cephalosporin use was not associated with treatment failure (odds ratio=0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.95). There was no difference in rates of appropriate empiric treatment based on urine culture susceptibility.

Conclusion: Oral cephalosporins were associated with similar treatment failure rates compared with Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline-endorsed treatments for the treatment of pyelonephritis in ED patients discharged home.

Study objective: Prior studies examined the retention of women emergency physicians through residency training, but their career paths on completing residency are less well understood. Our primary objective was to identify a difference in attrition rates between binary genders of practicing clinical emergency physicians within 10 to 30 years after residency graduation. Our secondary aims investigated gender differences in geographic practice location, academic, and community practice. We hypothesized that women emergency physicians have higher rates of attrition from clinical practice than men.

Methods: In this cohort study, we tracked employment over 10 to 30 years of graduates from allopathic emergency medicine residency programs established before 2005 and those who graduated before 2010. We obtained graduate lists from 21 residency programs representing geographically diverse training programs in the United States. We utilized public databases to investigate current licensure, board certification, practice location, and occupation for graduates more than 10 years after residency graduation. Physicians who do not practice clinically in emergency medicine or an emergency medicine subspecialty were placed in the "attrition" category. "Not available" was defined as those individuals who did not have adequate information available online. We analyzed differences in attrition of women and men emergency physicians in clinical practice in 2020. We also noted whether they worked in an academic or community setting and assessed their geographic clinical practice region.

Results: We identified a total of 4,170 graduates. Of those, 445 (10.6%) were excluded because of insufficient information. Of the 3,725 emergency medicine residency graduates, 71% were men. The attrition rate from clinical emergency medicine for men was 5.3% (95% confidence interval, 4.4% to 6.1%) and the attrition rate for women was 5.8% (95% confidence interval, 4.4% to 7.2%). The difference between the 2 proportions was -0.005 (95% confidence interval, -0.02 to 0.01). There were no gender differences in geographic location or practice type.

Conclusion: We did not observe differences in attrition rates by gender in our sample from 21 programs over a 30-year period. The findings from this cohort are disparate from reports of recent emergency medicine graduates and identifying reasons for attrition of emergency physicians will be important to understanding the workforce needs of the future.

Study objective: Overdue cervical cancer screening increases the risk of invasive cervical cancer. It is important to identify settings where self-collection for primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing can be implemented to have high effect on cervical cancer screening among hard-to-reach women with overdue screening. Herein, we examined the acceptability of HPV self-collection, including completion rates, attitudes, and experiences among women seeking noncritical care at a high-volume urban safety-net hospital emergency department (ED) in Houston, Texas, United States.

Methods: In this single-arm intervention pilot study, we recruited women overdue for cervical cancer screening in the waiting areas of a safety-net hospital ED, seeking noncritical care from November 2023 to April 2024. Participants completed a preintervention survey and were offered an HPV self-collection kit. A postintervention survey followed immediately after HPV self-collection.

Results: Nearly 30% (119 of 401) screened for eligibility were overdue for cervical cancer screening. Of these, 93% were enrolled and were predominantly Hispanic, non-US born, and uninsured, with a median age of 45 years (IQR: 37 to 53). HPV self-collection completion rate was 90% (95% CI 82.9% to 94.9%). More than a quarter (27%) of these women had never been screened, and 14% had a screening >10 years prior. Most women who completed the HPV self-collection had positive attitudes and experiences and reported that the kit was easy to use (97%) and would be very willing to use HPV self-collection for regular screening (88%).

Conclusion: HPV self-collection for primary cervical cancer screening during noncritical ED visits is possible and highly acceptable among women overdue for cervical cancer screening.

Study objective: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is critical for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients but is prone to rapid changes and errors. Effective teamwork and leadership are essential for high-quality CPR. We aimed to introduce the Airway-Circulation-Leadership-Support (A-C-L-S) teamwork model in the emergency department (ED) to address these challenges.

Methods: The study comprised 2 phases. The development phase involved reviewing CPR videos, categorizing problems, and formulating strategies using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. Resuscitation tasks were organized into A-C-L-S domains using hierarchical task analysis. Equipment and environmental deficits were optimized ergonomically with a pit-crew style arrangement. Mnemonics enhanced teamwork and leadership. The evaluation phase assessed postimplementation ED resuscitation team performance, focusing on adherence, timeliness, and quality of A-C-L-S tasks.

Results: The development phase produced a structured teamwork model, assigning tasks, tools, mnemonics, and positions based on A-C-L-S domains. The A-team manages the airway and optimizes end-tidal CO₂ levels; the C-team focuses on high-quality chest compressions and defibrillation. Leadership coordinates resuscitation efforts using goal-directed mnemonics (DABCD²E³), whereas the S-team handles medications, timekeeping, and recording. The evaluation phase showed improvements in adherence and timeliness of A-C-L-S tasks, with sustained increases in chest compression fraction before mechanical CPR, from 67.2% preimplementation to 83.0% postimplementation, 89.1% after 1 year, and 86.1% after 2 years. Overall, chest compression fraction also improved from 81.7% to 88.6%, peaking at 92.2% after 1 year and maintaining 90.8% after 2 years.

Conclusion: The A-C-L-S teamwork model is feasible, applicable, and effective. Further research is needed to assess its influence on patient outcomes.