Search

Purpose: The opioid epidemic in the United States continues to grow, particularly impacting rural communities served by critical access hospitals (CAHs) in Maine. Buprenorphine is an effective medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) that can be successfully initiated in the emergency department (ED). However, many EDs have not implemented programs to initiate buprenorphine. This study sought to identify barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of buprenorphine programs inCAH EDs. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with ED directors of Maine CAHs regarding barriers and facilitators to developing programs for ED‐initiated buprenorphine. Seventeen Maine CAH EDs exist and 11 of their directors agreed to participate and completed interviews, which were audio‐recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic approach. Results: Four themes and 11 subthemes were identified, including (1) compelled to act—directors' personal experiences with patients facilitated the development of buprenorphine programs in their EDs; (2) leadership and mentorship—peer mentorship from other CAH ED directors facilitated, and senior hospital administrators facilitated, or created a barrier in some cases; (3) stigma—fear that EDs would be overcrowded by drug‐seeking patients was a common barrier; and (4) follow‐up—finding appropriate outpatient follow‐up for OUD patients created the greatest logistical barrier. Discussion: ED directors' clinical experience with OUD patients, supportive hospital leadership, and peer mentorship facilitated ED‐initiated buprenorphine programs in rural Maine CAH EDs. Overcoming stigma, developing community outreach, and appropriate follow‐up were the greatest barriers. Future research should focus on enhancing peer mentorship, administrative support, community outreach, and staff education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals aged 65 and older face unique barriers to adoption of telehealth, and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has provided a "natural experiment" in how to meet the health needs of older patients remotely. Physician perspectives on practical considerations surrounding telehealth adoption, motivations of use, and reasons for nonuse are necessary to inform the future of healthcare delivery. The objective is to understand the experiences of physicians using telemedicine for older patients. Methods: From September to November 2020, we conducted 30‐min semi‐structured interviews using purposeful sampling to identify and enroll participants from diverse settings. We included 48 U.S.‐based physicians (geriatrician, n = 18, primary care, n = 15, emergency, n = 15) from all geographic regions, rural–urban and academic/community settings. Audio‐recorded interviews were professionally transcribed and analyzed using framework analysis. Major themes and subthemes were identified. Results: Participants had a median (interquartile range) age of 37.5 (34–44.5), 27 (56%) were women. Five major themes emerged: (1) telehealth uptake was rapid and iterative, (2) telehealth improved the safety of medical care, (3) use cases were specialty‐specific (for geriatricians and primary care physicians telehealth substituted for in‐person visits; for emergency physicians it primarily supplemented in‐person visits), (4) physicians altered clinical care to overcome older patient barriers to telehealth use, and (5) telehealth use among physicians declined in mid‐April 2020, due primarily to patient needs and administrator preferences, not physician factors. Conclusion: In this qualitative analysis, physicians reported a rapid, iterative uptake of telehealth and attenuation of use as coronavirus disease 2019 prevalence declined. Physician experiences during the pandemic can inform interventions and policies to help buoy telehealth for ongoing healthcare delivery and ensure its accessibility for older Americans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the authors present their study to assess how older adult (AO) patients in emergency departments (ED) accurately recall their medications and avoid adverse drug events (ADE). Also cited are the use of the American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria to reduce new prescriptions for potentially inappropriate medications, and the commonly omitted drugs like antibiotics, urologicals and cardiac therapy medications.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe a new multidisciplinary team fall prevention intervention for older adults who seek care in the emergency department (ED) after having a fall, assess its feasibility and acceptability, and review lessons learned during its initiation. DESIGN: Single‐blind randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING: Two urban academic EDs PARTICIPANTS: Adults 65 years old or older (n = 110) who presented to the ED within 7 days of a fall. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to a usual care (UC) and an intervention (INT) arm. Participants in the INT arm received a brief medication therapy management session delivered by a pharmacist and a fall risk assessment and plan by a physical therapist (PT). INT participants received referrals to outpatient services (eg, home safety evaluation, outpatient PT). MEASUREMENTS: We used participant, caregiver, and clinician surveys, as well as electronic health record review, to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 110 participants, the median participant age was 81 years old, 67% were female, 94% were white, and 16.3% had cognitive impairment. Of the 55 in the INT arm, all but one participant received the pharmacy consult (98.2%); the PT consult was delivered to 83.6%. Median consult time was 20 minutes for pharmacy and 20 minutes for PT. ED length of stay was not increased in the INT arm: UC 5.25 hours vs INT 5.0 hours (P <.94). After receiving the Geriatric Acute and Post‐acute Fall Prevention Intervention (GAPcare), 100% of participants and 97.6% of clinicians recommended the pharmacy consult, and 95% of participants and 95.8% of clinicians recommended the PT consult. CONCLUSION: These findings support the feasibility and acceptability of the GAPcare model in the ED. A future larger randomized controlled trial is planned to determine whether GAPcare can reduce recurrent falls and healthcare visits in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:198–206, 2019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Substance use is prevalent among emergency department ( ED) patients, and sex has been implicated as an important factor in the etiology, pathophysiology, sequelae, and treatment of substance use disorders. However, additional information is needed about the epidemiology of substance use as it relates to sex among ED patients. Objectives This study examined sex differences in the prevalence and severity of self-reported tobacco, alcohol, and drug use among adult ED patients. Methods A random sample of English- or Spanish-speaking, non-critically ill or injured, 18- to 64-year-old patients was approached at two urban EDs and asked to self-report their lifetime and past 3-month tobacco, alcohol, and drug use. Participants completed the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test ( ASSIST) using an audio computer-assisted self-interview. Participants were categorized by their substance severity ( ASSIST score) and need for a brief or more intensive intervention per World Health Organization recommendations. Substance misuse prevalence, frequency, severity, and need for interventions were compared between sexes by substance category. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between sexes and the need for intervention after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Results Of the 6,432 participants in the study, the median age was 37 years (interquartile range = 26 to 48 years), and 56.6% were female. Overall, lifetime, and past 3-month use was higher for men across all substances (tobacco, alcohol, and drugs). Among those reporting past 3-month use, the frequency of use was similar between sexes for tobacco and all drugs, but men reported more frequent alcohol use. Men had higher mean ASSIST scores compared to women, 30.3 (standard error [SE] ± 0.8) vs. 21.1 (SE ± 0.5); mean difference 9.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.4 to 10.9). The need for any intervention (brief or intensive) was similar between sexes for tobacco and drugs. After sociodemographic factors were adjusted for, women were less likely than men to need any intervention for alcohol (odds ratio [OR] = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4 to 0.8), but not other substances: tobacco (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.6 to 1.3), marijuana (OR = 0.8; 95% CI = 0.6 to 1.1), or other drugs (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 0.7 to 1.7). Conclusions Although men have a higher overall prevalence of substance use, the frequency and severity of use were similar for men and women for most substances. After other characteristics were adjusted for, sex appears associated with the need for interventions for alcohol, but not tobacco, marijuana, or other drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Although brief interventions ( BIs) have shown some success for smoking cessation and alcohol misuse, it is not known if they can be applied in the emergency department ( ED) to drug use and misuse. The objectives of this investigation were to assess the 3-month efficacy of a BI to reduce drug use and misuse, increase drug treatment services utilization among adult ED patients, and identify subgroups more likely to benefit from the BI. Methods This randomized, controlled trial enrolled 18- to 64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients from two urban, academic EDs whose responses to the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test indicated a need for a brief or intensive intervention. Treatment participants received a tailored BI, while control participants only completed the study questionnaires. At the 3-month follow-up, each participant's past 3-month drug use and misuse and treatment utilization were compared to his or her baseline enrollment data. Regression modeling was used to identify subgroups of patients (per demographic and clinical factors) more likely to stop or reduce their drug use or misuse or engage in drug treatment by the 3-month follow-up assessment. Results Of the 1,030 participants, the median age was 30 years (interquartile range = 24 to 42 years), and 46% were female; 57% were white/non-Hispanic, 24.9% were black/non-Hispanic, and 15% were Hispanic. The most commonly misused drugs were marijuana, prescription opioids, cocaine/crack, and benzodiazepines. Although at follow-up the proportions of participants reporting any past 3-month drug misuse had decreased in both study arms (control 84% vs. treatment 78%), the decreases were similar between the two study arms (Δ-6.3%; 95% confidence interval [ CI] = -13.0% to 0.0). In addition, at follow-up there were no differences between study arms in those who were currently receiving drug treatment (Δ1.8; 95% CI = -3.5 to 6.8), who had received treatment during the past 3 months (Δ-2.0; 95% CI = -6.5 to 2.4), or who at least contacted a treatment program (Δ 1.7; 95% CI = -2.4 to 6.1). Those whose baseline screening indicated the need for a brief instead of a more intensive intervention, and those currently engaged in drug treatment at the 3-month follow-up, were generally more likely to stop or decrease their drug use/misuse. Conclusions The BI employed in this study did not reduce drug use and misuse or increase treatment utilization more than the control condition over a 3-month period. Future research should help determine what role, if any, BIs should play in affecting drug use and misuse among ED patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The authors discuss survey methodologies and presentation of data for emergency medicine (EM) researchers using two survey-based studies as examples. The article discusses in detail data collection using a questionnaire that measures the respondents' opinions and observations from selection and development of the questionnaire to methods of delivery and evaluation of responses. It outlines the presentation required for manuscripts submitted to the Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) journal.

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2012; 19:924-933 © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Abstract Objectives: The objective was to assess the relationship between alcohol use and misuse and patient sex among emergency department (ED) patients by comparing self-reported estimates of quantity and frequency of alcohol use, estimated blood alcohol concentrations (eBACs) when typically drinking and during heavy episodic drinking (binging), and alcohol misuse severity, to understand sex differences in alcohol use and misuse for this population. Methods: The authors surveyed a random sample of nonintoxicated, subcritically ill or injured, 18- to 64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients on randomly selected dates and times at two EDs during July 2009 and August 2009. Participants self-administered a questionnaire about their self-reported alcohol use during a typical month within the past 12 months and the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Using the formulae by Matthews and Miller, sex-specific eBACs were calculated for participants according to their reported weight and the number of reported alcoholic drinks consumed on days when typically drinking and on days of heavy episodic (binge) drinking (five or more drinks/occasion for men, four or more drinks for women). Sex-specific alcohol misuse severity levels (low-risk, harmful, hazardous, and dependence) were calculated using AUDIT scores. Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson's chi-square tests were used to compare outcomes by sex. Negative binomial regression was used to assess the relationship between sex and the number of drinks consumed on a typical day, the number of days spent drinking and binging, and estimated AUDIT scores. Logistic regression was used to assess the outcome of the presence of binging according to sex. Multinomial logistic regression was used to compare by sex the percentage of days spent drinking and binging in 1 month, eBACs when typically drinking and when binging, and AUDIT at-risk drinking levels. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. All models were adjusted for patient demographic characteristics. Results: Of the 513 participants, 52.1% were women, 55.8% were white non-Hispanic, and their median age was 34 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 25 to 46 years). Men reported greater mean alcohol consumption than women when typically drinking (4.3 vs. 3.3 drinks/day; p < 0.001) and during heavy episodic drinking (8.6 vs. 5.3 drinks/occasion; p < 0.001). Men spent more days drinking (IRR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.65) and engaging in heavy episodic drinking (IRR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.31 to 2.17) than women. Additionally, men were more likely to engage in heavy episodic drinking (AOR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.16 to 2.56) than women. However, the mean eBACs for men and women were similar when typically drinking (0.05 vs. 0.06; p < 0.13) and during heavy episodic drinking (0.13 vs. 0.12; p < 0.13). Mean AUDIT scores were greater for men than women (7.5 vs. 5.3; p < 0.001), although alcohol misuse severity levels were similar between men and women (24.4% vs. 26.6% for hazardous, 2.8% vs. 2.2% for harmful, and 6.5% vs. 3.4% for dependence; p < 0.38). Conclusions: Although men drink more than women, women have similar eBACs with comparable levels of alcohol misuse. Women may benefit from recognizing that they are reaching similar levels of intoxication compared to men. Addressing these differences and possible health implications in future ED brief interventions may induce changes in problematic alcohol use among women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Prior research has demonstrated that emergency department (ED) patient acceptance of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening is partially dependent on patients’ self-perceived risk of infection. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI)-based feedback. The intervention aimed to increase patient’s self-perceived risk of being HIV infected by providing immediate feedback on their risk behaviors. Methods: This 1-year, randomized, controlled trial at a U.S. ED enrolled a random sample of 18- to 64-year-old subcritically ill or injured adult patients who were not known to be HIV infected. All participants completed an anonymous, ACASI-based questionnaire about their HIV risk behaviors related to injection drug use and sex, as well as their self-perceived risk for being HIV infected. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two study groups: an intervention group in which participants received immediate ACASI-based feedback in response to each of their reported risk behaviors or a no-intervention group without feedback. Participants were asked to indicate their level of HIV risk on a five-point scale before and after they answered the questions. Change in level of self-perceived HIV risk was calculated and compared by study group using Pearson’s chi-square test. An HIV risk behavior score that summarized reported HIV risk behavior was devised. Because HIV risk behaviors differ by sex, scores were calculated separately for each sex. Linear regression models that adjusted for study group and same subject covariance were employed to determine if higher HIV risk behavior scores were associated with an increase in self-perceived HIV risk. Results: Of the 566 trial participants, the median age was 29 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 22–43 years), 62.2% were females, and 66.9% had been tested previously for HIV. After answering the reported HIV risk behavior questions, 12.6% of participants had an increase, 79.9% had no change, and 7.5% had a decrease in self-perceived HIV risk. Of the 46.6% of participants who initially indicated that they were not at risk for HIV, 11.4% had an increase in self-perceived HIV risk after answering the reported HIV risk behavior questions. Change in self-perceived HIV risk did not differ by study group (p = 0.77). There were no differences in reported HIV risk scores between the intervention and no-intervention groups for females (p = 0.78) or males (p = 0.86). In the linear regression models, a greater increase in self-perceived HIV risk was associated with higher reported HIV risk behavior scores for females (β = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.15, 1.04) but not for males (β = 1.00, 95% CI = −0.13 to 2.14). Conclusions: Some ED patients can be moved, although modestly, to recognize their risk for being HIV infected by asking about their HIV risk behaviors. However, ACASI-based feedback messages about HIV risk behaviors do not increase subjects’ self-perceived HIV risk. Female ED patients appear to increase their self-perceived HIV risk more than males when queried about their HIV risk behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early diagnosis of persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through diagnostic testing and screening is a critical priority for individual and public health. Emergency departments (EDs) have an important role in this effort. As EDs gain experience in HIV testing, it is increasingly apparent that implementing testing is conceptually and operationally complex. A wide variety of HIV testing practice and research models have emerged, each reflecting adaptations to site-specific factors and the needs of local populations. The diversity and complexity inherent in nascent ED HIV testing practice and research are associated with the risk that findings will not be described according to a common lexicon. This article presents a comprehensive set of terms and definitions that can be used to describe ED-based HIV testing programs, developed by consensus opinion from the inaugural meeting of the National ED HIV Testing Consortium. These definitions are designed to facilitate discussion, increase comparability of future reports, and potentially accelerate wider implementation of ED HIV testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Video-based delivery of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pretest information might assist in streamlining HIV screening and testing efforts in the emergency department (ED). The objectives of this study were to determine if the video “Do you know about rapid HIV testing?” is an acceptable alternative to an in-person information session on rapid HIV pretest information, in regard to comprehension of rapid HIV pretest fundamentals, and to identify patients who might have difficulties in comprehending pretest information. Methods: This was a noninferiority trial of 574 participants in an ED opt-in rapid HIV screening program who were randomly assigned to receive identical pretest information from either an animated and live-action 9.5-minute video or an in-person information session. Pretest information comprehension was assessed using a questionnaire. The video would be accepted as not inferior to the in-person information session if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference (Δ) in mean scores on the questionnaire between the two information groups was less than a 10% decrease in the in-person information session arm’s mean score. Linear regression models were constructed to identify patients with lower mean scores based upon study arm assignment, demographic characteristics, and history of prior HIV testing. Results: The questionnaire mean scores were 20.1 (95% CI = 19.7 to 20.5) for the video arm and 20.8 (95% CI = 20.4 to 21.2) for the in-person information session arm. The difference in mean scores compared to the mean score for the in-person information session met the noninferiority criterion for this investigation (Δ = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.26). In a multivariable linear regression model, Blacks/African Americans, Hispanics, and those with Medicare and Medicaid insurance exhibited slightly lower mean scores, regardless of the pretest information delivery format. There was a strong relationship between fewer years of formal education and lower mean scores on the questionnaire. Age, gender, type of insurance, partner/marital status, and history of prior HIV testing were not predictive of scores on the questionnaire. Conclusions: In terms of patient comprehension of rapid HIV pretest information fundamentals, the video was an acceptable substitute to pretest information delivered by an HIV test counselor. Both the video and the in-person information session were less effective in providing pretest information for patients with fewer years of formal education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emergency prophylaxis following needle-stick and sexual exposures includes HIV post-exposure prophylaxis, hepatitis B prophylaxis and emergency contraception. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorse HIV post-exposure and hepatitis B prophylaxis for health care workers, and hepatitis B prophylaxis and emergency contraception after sexual assault. The New York State Department of Health advocates HIV post-exposure prophylaxis after sexual assault. This study compares emergency department practitioners in New York State (NYS) with those from other states in their willingness to offer emergency prophylaxis after needle-stick and sexual exposures, and their self-reported history of prescribing and using HIV post-exposure prophylaxis. Methods: The authors surveyed emergency department practitioners from across the US at the American College of Emergency Physicians 2000 Scientific Assembly. The questionnaire included clinical scenarios describing different patients who present to the emergency department within one hour of a needle-stick injury, sexual assault or consensual sexual encounter, and had questions on the practitioners' self-reported prescribing and usage of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis. For each scenario the practitioners were asked to indicate if they would offer emergency prophylaxis to different patients at varied HIV risk levels. The data were processed through SPSS 10.0. Results: Of the 600 respondents, 100 were from NYS. In the clinical scenarios, NYS practitioners were more likely than other US practitioners to offer HIV post-exposure prophylaxis for exposures to unknown and low HIV risk sources (p<0.05) and to offer hepatitis B prophylaxis in most of the sexual exposure scenarios (p<0.01). All practitioners offered HIV post-exposure and hepatitis B... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the results of a study that examined the frequency that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are prescribed to children with asthma exacerbations discharge in U.S. emergency departments (ED). It analyzes the 2005-2007 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) database for ED for children with acute respiratory symptoms and asthma exacerbation. It concludes with a suggestion for ED clinicians to consider interventions to boost ICS prescriptions.