Search

Background: Treatment for partners of patients diagnosed with sexually transmitted infections (STI), referred to as expedited partner therapy (EPT), is infrequently used in the emergency department (ED). This was a pilot program to initiate and evaluate EPT through medication-in-hand (“take-home”) kits or paper prescriptions. In this study we aimed to assess the frequency of EPT prescribing, the efficacy of a randomized best practice advisory (BPA) on the uptake, perceptions of emergency clinicians regarding the EPT pilot, and factors associated with EPT prescribing.Methods: We conducted this pilot study at an academic ED in the midwestern US between August–October 2021. The primary outcome of EPT prescription uptake and the BPA impact was measured via chart abstraction and analyzed through summary statistics and the Fisher exact test. We analyzed the secondary outcome of barriers and facilitators to program implementation through ED staff interviews (physicians, physician assistants, and nurses). We used a rapid qualitative assessment method for the analysis of the interviews.Results: During the study period, 52 ED patients were treated for chlamydia/gonorrhea, and EPT was offered to 25% (95% CI 15%–39%) of them. Expedited partner therapy was prescribed significantly more often (42% vs 8%; P < 0.01) when the interruptive pop-up alert BPA was shown compared to not shown. Barriers identified in the interviews included workflow constraints and knowledge of EPT availability. The BPA was viewed positively by the majority of participants.Conclusion: In this pilot EPT program, expedited partner therapy was provided to 25% of ED patients who appeared eligible to receive it. The interruptive pop-up alert BPA significantly increased EPT prescribing. Barriers identified to EPT prescribing should be the subject of future interventions to improve provision of EPT from the emergency department.

Introduction: Urolithiasis causes severe acute pain and is commonly treated with opioid analgesics in the emergency department (ED). We examined opioid analgesic use after episodes of acute pain.  Methods: Using data from a longitudinal trial of ED patients with urolithiasis, we constructed multivariable models to estimate the adjusted probability of opioid analgesic use 3, 7, 30, and 90 days after ED discharge. We used multiple imputation to account for missing data and weighting to account for the propensity to be prescribed an opioid analgesic at ED discharge. We used weighted multivariable regression to compare longitudinal opioid analgesic use for those prescribed vs not prescribed an opioid analgesic at discharge, stratified by reported pain at ED discharge.  Results: Among 892 adult ED patients with urolithiasis, 79% were prescribed an opioid analgesic at ED discharge. Regardless of reporting pain at ED discharge, those who were prescribed an opioid analgesic were significantly more likely to report using it one, three, and seven days after the visit in weighted multivariable analysis. Among those who were not prescribed an opioid analgesic, an estimated 21% (not reporting pain at ED discharge) and 30% (reporting pain at discharge) reported opioid analgesic use at day three. Among those prescribed an opioid analgesic, 49% (no pain at discharge) and 52% (with pain at discharge) reported using an opioid analgesic at day three.  Conclusion: Urolithiasis patients who received an opioid analgesic at ED discharge were more likely to continue using an opioid analgesic than those who did not receive a prescription at the initial visit, despite the time-limited nature of urolithiasis.

BackgroundSevere acute pain is still commonly treated with opioid analgesics in the United States, but this practice could prolong the duration of pain.ObjectivesEstimate the risk of experiencing persistent pain after opioid analgesic use after emergency department (ED) discharge among patients with suspected urolithiasis.MethodsWe analyzed data collected for a longitudinal, multicenter clinical trial of ED patients with suspected urolithiasis. We constructed multilevel models to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) of reporting pain at 3, 7, 30, or 90 days after ED discharge, using multiple imputation to account for missing outcome data. We controlled for clinical, demographic, and institutional factors and used weighting to account for the propensity to be prescribed an opioid analgesic at ED discharge.ResultsAmong 2413 adult ED patients with suspected urolithiasis, 62% reported persistent pain 3 days after discharge. Participants prescribed an opioid analgesic at discharge were OR 2.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-3.46) more likely to report persistent pain than those without a prescription. Those who reported using opioid analgesics 3 days after discharge were OR 2.24 (95% CI 1.77-2.84) more likely to report pain at day 7 than those not using opioid analgesics at day 3, and those using opioid analgesics at day 30 had OR 3.25 (95% CI 1.96-5.40) greater odds of pain at day 90.ConclusionsOpioid analgesic prescription doubled the odds of persistent pain among ED patients with suspected urolithiasis. Limiting opioid analgesic prescribing at ED discharge for these patients might prevent persistent pain in addition to limiting access to these medications.

Introduction: Blacks in the United States experience greater persistent pain than non-Hispanic Whites across a range of medical conditions, but to our knowledge no longitudinal studies have examined the risk factors or incidence of persistent pain among Blacks experiencing common traumatic stress exposures such as after a motor vehicle collision (MVC). We evaluated the incidence and predictors of moderate to severe axial musculoskeletal pain (MSAP) and widespread pain six weeks after a MVC in a large cohort of Black adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) for care.Methods: This prospective, multi-center, cohort study enrolled Black adults who presented to one of 13 EDs across the US within 24 hours of a MVC and were discharged home after their evaluation. Data were collected at the ED visit via patient interview and self-report surveys at six weeks after the ED visit via internet-based, self-report survey, or telephone interview. We assessed MSAP pain at ED visit and persistence at six weeks. Multivariable models examined factors associated with MSAP persistence at six weeks post-MVC.Results: Among 787 participants, less than 1% reported no pain in the ED after their MVC, while 79.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 77.1 – 82.2) reported MSAP and 28.3 (95% CI, 25.5 – 31.3) had widespread pain. At six weeks, 67% (95% CI, 64, 70%) had MSAP and 31% (95% CI, 28, 34%) had widespread pain. ED characteristics predicting MSAP at six weeks post-MVC (area under the curve  = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72, 0.74) were older age, peritraumatic dissociation, moderate to severe pain in the ED, feeling uncertain about recovery, and symptoms of depression.Conclusion: These data indicate that Blacks presenting to the ED for evaluation after MVCs are at high risk for persistent and widespread musculoskeletal pain. Preventive interventions are needed to improve outcomes for this high-risk group.

ObjectivePrevious research has suggested caution about opioid analgesic usage in the emergency department (ED) setting and raised concerns about variations in prescription opioid analgesic usage, both across institutions and for whom they are prescribed. We examined opioid analgesic usage in ED patients with suspected urolithiasis across fifteen participating hospitals.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of a clinical trial including adult ED patients with suspected urolithiasis. In multilevel models accounting for clustering by hospital, we assessed demographic, clinical, state-level, and hospital-level factors associated with opioid analgesic administration during the ED visit and prescription at discharge.ResultsOf 2352 participants, 67% received an opioid analgesic during the ED visit and 61% were prescribed one at discharge. Opioid analgesic usage varied greatly across hospitals, ranging from 46% to 88% (during visit) and 34% to 85% (at discharge). Hispanic patients were less likely than non-Hispanic white patients to receive opioid analgesics during the ED visit (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94). Patients with higher education (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.59), health insurance coverage (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.60), or receiving care in states with a prescription drug monitoring program (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06-2.53) were more likely to receive an opioid analgesic prescription at ED discharge.ConclusionWe found marked hospital-level differences in opioid analgesic administration and prescribing, as well as associations with education, healthcare insurance, and race/ethnicity groups. These data might compel clinicians and hospitals to examine their opioid use practices to ensure it is congruent with accepted medical practice.

Introduction: Among adult emergency department (ED) patients, we sought to examine how estimates of substance use prevalence and the need for interventions can differ, based on the type of screening and assessment strategies employed.Methods: We estimated the prevalence of substance use and the need for interventions using the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in a secondary analysis of data from two cross-sectional studies using random samples of English- or Spanish-speaking 18-64-year-old ED patients. In addition, the test performance characteristics of three simplified screening strategies consisting of selected questions from the ASSIST (lifetime use, past three-month use, and past three-month frequency of use) to identify patients in need of a possible intervention were compared against using the full ASSIST.Results: Of 6,432 adult ED patients, the median age was 37 years-old, 56.6% were female, and 61.6% were white. Estimated substance use prevalence among this population differed by how it was measured (lifetime use, past three-month use, past three-month frequency of use, or need for interventions). As compared to using the full ASSIST, the predictive value and accuracy to identify patients in need of any intervention was best for a simplified strategy asking about past three-month substance use. A strategy asking about daily/near-daily use was better in identifying patients needing intensive interventions. However, some patients needing interventions were missed when using these simplified strategies.Conclusion: Substance use prevalence estimates and identification of ED patients needing interventions differ by screening strategies used. EDs should carefully select strategies to identify patients in need of substance use interventions.

BackgroundFalls are a common problem among older adults that lead to injury, emergency department (ED) visits, and institutionalization. The Apple Watch can detect falls and alert caregivers and clinicians that help is needed; the device could also be used to objectively collect data on gait, fitness, and falls as part of clinical trials. However, little is known about the ease of use of this technology among older adult ED patients, a population at high risk of recurrent falls. ObjectiveThe goal of this study—the Geriatric Acute and Post-Acute Fall Prevention Intervention (GAPcare) II—is to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of the Apple Watch Series 4 paired with the iPhone and our research app Rhode Island FitTest (RIFitTest) among older adult ED patients seeking care for falls. MethodsWe will conduct field-testing with older adult ED patients (n=25) who sustained a fall and their caregivers (n=5) to determine whether they can use the Apple Watch, iPhone, and app either (1) continuously or (2) periodically, with or without telephone assistance from the research staff, to assess gait, fitness, and/or falls over time. During the initial encounter, participants will receive training in the Apple Watch, iPhone, and our research app. They will receive an illustrated training manual and a number to call if they have questions about the research protocol or device usage. Participants will complete surveys and cognitive and motor assessments on the app during the study period. At the conclusion of the study, we will solicit participant feedback through semistructured interviews. Qualitative data will be summarized using framework matrix analyses. Sensor and survey response data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics. ResultsRecruitment began in December 2019 and was on pause from April 2020 until September 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Study recruitment will continue until 30 participants are enrolled. This study has been approved by the Rhode Island Hospital Institutional Review Board (approval 1400781-16). ConclusionsGAPcare II will provide insights into the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of the Apple Watch, iPhone, and the RIFitTest app in the population most likely to benefit from the technology: older adults at high risk of recurrent falls. In the future, wearables could be used as part of fall prevention interventions to prevent injury before it occurs. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04304495; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04304495 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/24455