Search

In this chapter, through prose and poetry, physicians explore their experiences with cancer. These narratives extend our understanding of cancer’s impact on health beyond the biomedical domain. In gathering and listening to these stories we tell ourselves and others, our goal is to foster more humanistic and holistic care for those with cancer.

Introduction Pain is the most common symptom prompting an emergency department visit and emergency physicians are responsible for managing both acute pain and acute exacerbations of chronic pain resulting from a broad range of illnesses and injuries. The responsibility to treat must be balanced by the duty to limit harm resulting from analgesics. In recent years, opioid-related adverse effects, including overdose and deaths, have increased dramatically in the USA. In response to the US opioid crisis, emergency physicians have broadened their analgesic armamentarium to include a variety of non-opioid approaches. For some of these therapies, sparse evidence exists to support their efficacy for emergency department use. The purpose of this paper is to review historical trends and emerging approaches to emergency department analgesia, with a particular focus on the USA and Canada. Methods We conducted a qualitative review of past and current descriptive studies of emergency department pain practice, as well as clinical trials of emerging pain treatment modalities. The review considers the increasing use of non-opioid and multimodal analgesic therapies, including migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, subdissociative-dose ketamine, nitrous oxide, intravenous lidocaine and gabapentinoids, as well as broad programmatic initiatives promoting the use of non-opioid analgesics and nonpharmacologic interventions. Results While migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, nitrous oxide and subdissociative-dose ketamine are supported by a relatively robust evidence base, data supporting the emergency department use of intravenous lidocaine, gabapentinoids and various non-pharmacologic analgesic interventions remain sparse. Conclusion Additional research on the relative safety and efficacy of non-opioid approaches to emergency department analgesia is needed. Despite a limited research base, it is likely that non-opioid analgesic modalities will be employed with increasing frequency. A new generation of emergency physicians is seeking additional training in pain medicine and increasing dialogue between emergency medicine and pain medicine researchers, educators and clinicians could contribute to better management of emergency department pain.

BACKGROUND To improve the management of advanced cancer patients with delirium in an emergency department (ED) setting, we compared outcomes between patients with delirium positively diagnosed by both the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), or group A (n = 22); by the MDAS only, or group B (n = 22); and by neither CAM nor MDAS, or group C (n = 199). MATERIALS AND METHODS In an oncologic ED, we assessed 243 randomly selected advanced cancer patients for delirium using the CAM and the MDAS and for presence of advance directives. Outcomes extracted from patients' medical records included hospital and intensive care unit admission rate and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Hospitalization rates were 82%, 77%, and 49% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0013). Intensive care unit rates were 18%, 14%, and 2% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0004). Percentages with advance directives were 52%, 27%, and 43% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .2247). Median OS was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-3.55) for group A, 4.70 months (95% CI 0.89-7.85) for group B, and 10.45 months (95% CI 7.46-14.82) for group C. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups A and B (p = .6392), but OS in group C exceeded those of the other groups (p

Objective With the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (e.g., pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain. Setting Consensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM). Methods As a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions. Perspective The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Conclusions Significant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30 days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions.

OBJECTIVE: With the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (eg, pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain.SETTING: Consensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM).METHODS: As a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions.PERSPECTIVE: The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms.CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30 days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions.

ObjectiveIntranasal fentanyl (INF) quickly and noninvasively relieves severe pain, whereas intravenous hydromorphone (IVH) reliably treats severe cancer pain but requires vascular access. The trial evaluated the efficacy of INF relative to IVH for treating cancer patients with severe pain in an emergency department (ED) setting.MethodsWe randomized 82 patients from a comprehensive cancer center ED to receive INF (n = 42) or IVH (n = 40). Eligible patients reported severe pain at randomization (≥7, scale: 0 "none" to 10 "worst pain"). We conducted non-inferiority comparisons (non-inferiority margin = 0.9) of pain change from treatment initiation (T0) to one hour later (T60). T0 pain ratings were unavailable; therefore, we estimated T0 pain by comparing 1) T60 ratings, assuming similar group T0 ratings; 2) pain change, estimating T0 pain = randomization ratings, and 3) pain change, with T0 pain = 10 (IVH group) or T0 pain = randomization rating (INF group).ResultsAt T60, the upper 90% confidence limit (CL) of the mean log-transformed pain ratings for the INF group exceeded the mean IVH group rating by 0.16 points (>pain). Substituting randomization ratings for T0 pain, the lower 90% CL of mean pain change in the INF group extended 0.32 points below (ConclusionsTwo of three analyses supported non-inferiority of INF versus IVH, while one analysis was inconclusive. Compared to IVH, INF had the advantage of shorter time to administration.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02459964.

Due to rising misuse, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) moved hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) from DEA Schedule III to DEA Schedule II in October 2014. Aside from increasing regulatory scrutiny, rescheduling may have increased the administrative burden surrounding HCP prescribing. This study explored how HCP rescheduling and associated administrative barriers may have affected physician treatment of acute (aNCP) and chronic (cNCP) noncancer pain. To this end, physician members of the Texas Medical Association completed a self-administered online questionnaire. Pharmacotherapy treatment plan was measured with two questions asking physicians whether they were more likely to recommend HCPs, acetaminophen/codeine (APAP/codeine), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol, or other agents for the treatment of aNCP and cNCP. Two Likert-scaled items were used to assess administrative burden. In total, 1365 physicians responded (response rate = 15.39%). Physicians more frequently selected APAP/codeine (37%) for aNCP and tramadol (44%) for cNCP. A majority (78.8%) of physicians agreed that rescheduling led to modified prescribing, and those in agreement were significantly less likely than those who disagreed to prescribe HCPs for aNCP (24.2% vs. 56.4%; χ

Objectives To compared outcomes of regional nerve blocks with those of standard analgesics after hip fracture. Design Multisite randomized controlled trial from April 2009 to March 2013. Setting Three New York hospitals. Participants Individuals with hip fracture (N = 161). Intervention Participants were randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided, single-injection, femoral nerve block administered by emergency physicians at emergency department (ED) admission followed by placement of a continuous fascia iliaca block by anesthesiologists within 24 hours (n = 79) or conventional analgesics (n = 82). Measurements Pain (0-10 scale), distance walked on Postoperative Day (POD) 3, walking ability 6 weeks after discharge, opioid side effects. Results Pain scores 2 hours after ED presentation favored the intervention group over controls (3.5 vs 5.3, P = .002). Pain scores on POD 3 were significantly better for the intervention than the control group for pain at rest (2.9 vs 3.8, P = .005), with transfers out of bed (4.7 vs 5.9, P = .005), and with walking (4.1 vs 4.8, P = .002). Intervention participants walked significantly further than controls in 2 minutes on POD 3 (170.6 feet, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 109.3-232 vs 100.0 feet, 95% CI = 65.1-134.9; P = .04). At 6 weeks, intervention participants reported better walking and stair climbing ability (mean Functional Independence Measure locomotion score of 10.3 (95% CI = 9.6-11.0) vs 9.1 (95% CI = 8.2-10.0), P = .04). Intervention participants were significantly less likely to report opioid side effects (3% vs 12.4%, P = .03) and required 33% to 40% fewer parenteral morphine sulfate equivalents. Conclusion Femoral nerve blocks performed by emergency physicians followed by continuous fascia iliaca blocks placed by anesthesiologists are feasible and result in superior outcomes.

BACKGROUND The frequency of delirium among patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine delirium frequency and recognition by ED physicians among patients with advanced cancer presenting to the ED of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS The study population was a random sample of English-speaking patients with advanced cancer who presented to the ED and met the study criteria. All patients were assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) to screen for delirium and with the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) to measure delirium severity (mild, ≤15; moderate, 16-22; and severe, ≥23). ED physicians were also asked whether their patients were delirious. RESULTS Twenty-two of the 243 enrolled patients (9%) had CAM-positive delirium, and their median MDAS score was 14 (range, 9-21 [30-point scale]). The median age of the enrolled patients was 62 years (range, 19-89 years). Patients with delirium had a poorer performance status than patients without delirium (P < .001); however, the 2 groups did not differ in other characteristics. Ten of the 99 patients who were 65 years old or older (10%) had CAM-positive delirium, whereas 12 of the 144 patients younger than 65 years (8%) did (P = .6). According to the MDAS scores, delirium was mild in 18 patients (82%) and moderate in 4 patients (18%). Physicians correctly identified delirium in 13 of the CAM-positive delirious patients (59%). CONCLUSIONS Delirium is relatively frequent and is underdiagnosed by physicians in patients with advanced cancer who are visiting the ED. Further research is needed to identify the optimal screening tool for delirium in ED. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2918–2924. © 2016 American Cancer Society

Purpose: The identification of patients at high risk for poor outcomes may allow for earlier palliative care and prevent futile interventions. We examined the association of presenting symptoms on risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and hospital death among patients with cancer admitted through an emergency department (ED). Methods: We queried MD Anderson Cancer Center databases for all patients who visited the ED in 2010. Presenting symptoms, ICU admissions, and hospital deaths were reviewed; patient data analyzed; and risk factors for ICU admission and hospital mortality identified. Results: The main presenting symptoms were pain, fever, and respiratory distress. Of the patients with cancer who visited the ED, 5,362 (58%) were admitted to the hospital at least once (range, 1 to 13 admissions), 697 (13%) were admitted to the ICU at least once, and 587 (11%) died during hospitalization (31% of 233 patients with hematologic malignancies and 27% of 354 patients with solid tumors died in the ICU; P < .001). In multivariable logistic regression, presenting symptoms of respiratory distress or altered mental status; lung cancer, leukemia, or lymphoma; and nonwhite race were independent predictors of hospital death. Patients who died had a longer median length of hospital stay than patients discharged alive (14 v 6 days for hematologic malignancies and 7 v 5 days for solid tumors; P < .001). Conclusion: Patients with cancer admitted through an ED experience high ICU admission and hospital mortality rates. Patients with advanced cancer and respiratory distress or altered mental status may benefit from palliative care that avoids unnecessary interventions.

To compare pain relief between patients with intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures who received an ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block (USFNB).A multicenter, prospective, randomized, clinical trial.The study was conducted in the emergency departments of 3 academic hospitals located in New York City.Patients aged ≥60 years presenting to the emergency department with hip fracture.A subgroup analysis from a larger data set was conducted of patients with intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures who received an USFNB. We compared pain scores at baseline and then at 2 and 3 hours after the nerve block was performed, and also assessed pain relief at 2 and 3 hours.Seventy-seven patients were randomized to receive USFNB, of which 68 had follow-up data at 2 and 3 hours and were included in the data analysis. Thirty-one were diagnosed with intracapsular and 37 with extracapsular hip fractures. In both groups, reductions in pain scores were clinically and statistically significant. In the intracapsular group, mean pain scores decreased from 6.23 to 3.81 (P.0001) at 2 hours and from 6.23 to 3.87 (P.0001) at 3 hours. In the extracapsular group, mean pain scores decreased from 6.62 to 3.89 (P.0001) at 2 hours and from 6.62 to 3.46 (P.0001) at 3 hours. These differences were similar between the extracapsular and intracapsular groups at 2 hours (P = .92) and at 3 hours (P = .58), thus demonstrating similar reductions in pain in the 2 groups. The differences in pain relief between the intracapsular and extracapsular groups were also similar: 1.61 (confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.08) vs 1.35 (CI, 0.96-1.75) at 2 hours (P = .39) and 1.68 (CI, 1.21-2.15) vs 1.38 (CI, 0.89-1.87) at 3 hours (P = .38).Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block was equally effective in reducing pain for patients with both intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures.

Objectives Pain and depression frequently co-occur in patients with cancer. Although pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) presentation by these patients, depression frequently goes unrecognised during an ED visit. In this study, we assessed the risk for depression in patients with cancer presenting to the ED for uncontrolled pain and assessed the extent to which the risk for depression was associated with survival in this population. Methods Participants were consecutive patients with cancer taking Schedule II opioids (n=209) who presented to the ED of a tertiary cancer centre for uncontrolled pain. Risk for depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), excluding the somatic symptoms. Survival was calculated from date of ED visit to date of death/last follow-up. Results The CES-D was completed by 197 of 209 participants (94.3%); of these, 81 of 197 (41.1%) had high risk for depression (CES-D ≥10). The mean survival time for the entire sample was 318 days (SD=33), with 84 deaths. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling showed that risk for depression and disease stage (CES-D ≥10: HR=1.75, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.78, p=0.016; disease stage: HR=2.52, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.30, p Conclusions Risk for depression was prevalent and associated with survival outcomes in patients with cancer presenting to the ED with uncontrolled pain. Screening for risk for depression in the ED may identify patients who need referral for clinical assessment of depression. Diagnosis and adequate treatment could improve health outcomes and survival rates for these patients.

Background Hospitalization and early anticoagulation therapy remain standard care for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with pulmonary embolism (PE). For PEs discovered incidentally, however, optimal therapeutic strategies are less clear—and all the more so when the patient has cancer, which is associated with a hypercoagulable state that exacerbates the threat of PE. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of a historical cohort of patients with cancer and incidental PE who were referred for assessment to the ED in an institution whose standard of care is outpatient treatment of selected patients and use of low-molecular-weight heparin for anticoagulation. Eligible patients had received a diagnosis of incidental PE upon routine contrast enhanced chest CT for cancer staging. Survival data was collected at 30 days and 90 days from the date of ED presentation and at the end of the study. Results We identified 193 patients, 135 (70%) of whom were discharged and 58 (30%) of whom were admitted to the hospital. The 30-day survival rate was 92% overall, 99% for the discharged patients and 76% for admitted patients. Almost all (189 patients, 98%) commenced anticoagulation therapy in the ED; 170 (90%) of these received low-molecular-weight heparin. Patients with saddle pulmonary artery incidental PEs were more likely to die within 30 days (43%) than were those with main or lobar (11%), segmental (6%), or subsegmental (5%) incidental PEs. In multivariate analysis, Charlson comorbidity index (age unadjusted), hypoxemia, and incidental PE location (P = 0.004, relative risk 33.5 (95% CI 3.1–357.4, comparing saddle versus subsegmental PE) were significantly associated with 30-day survival. Age, comorbidity, race, cancer stage, tachycardia, hypoxemia, and incidental PE location were significantly associated with hospital admission. Conclusions Selected cancer patients presenting to the ED with incidental PE can be treated with low-molecular-weight heparin anticoagulation and safely discharged. Avoidance of unnecessary hospitalization may decrease in-hospital infections and death, reduce healthcare costs, and improve patient quality of life. Because the natural history and optimal management of this condition is not well described, information supporting the creation of straightforward evidence-based practice guidelines for ED teams treating this specialized patient population is needed.

Survival outcomes in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) vary by extent of disease, behavioral factors, and socioeconomic factors. We assessed the extent to which pretreatment pain influences survival in 2,340 newly diagnosed patients with HNSCC, adjusting for disease stage, symptoms, pain medications, comorbidities, smoking, alcohol consumption, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Patients rated their pain at presentation to the cancer center (0 = "no pain" and 10 = "pain as bad as you can imagine"). Survival time was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of death of any cause or last follow-up. Five-year overall survival was calculated for all the variables assessed in the study. Severe pain (≥7) was most prevalent among those with oral cancer (20.4%; pharynx = 18.8%; larynx = 16.1%) and significantly varied by tumor stage, fatigue severity, smoking status, comorbid lung disease, and race (all P .05) across cancer diagnoses. Overall 5-year survival varied by pain for oral (severe pain = 31% vs nonsevere pain = 52%; P .001) and pharyngeal cancer (severe pain = 33% vs nonsevere pain = 53%; P .001). Multivariable analyses showed that pain persisted as an independent prognostic factor for survival. Pain reported prior to treatment should be considered in understanding survival outcomes in HNSCC patients.Pretreatment pain was an independent predictor of survival in a large sample of HNSCC patients even after accounting for tumor node metastasis stage, fatigue, age, race/ethnicity, smoking, and alcohol intake. Therefore, symptoms at presentation and before cancer treatment are important factors to be considered in understanding survival outcomes in HNSCC patients.

Emergency medical service (EMS) is frequently called to care for a seriously ill patient with a life-threatening or life-limiting illness. The seriously ill include both the acutely injured patients (for example in mass casualty events) and those who suffer from advanced stages of a chronic disease (for example severe malignant pain). EMS therefore plays an important role in delivering realistic, appropriate, and timely care that is consistent with the patient's wishes and in treating distressing symptoms in those who are seriously ill. The purpose of this article is to; 1) review four case scenarios that relate to palliative care and may be commonly encountered in the out-of-hospital setting and 2) provide a road map by suggesting four things to do to start an EMS-palliative care initiative in order to optimize out-of-hospital care of the seriously ill and increase preparedness of EMS providers in these difficult situations. Key Words: Collaboration; emergency medical service; integration; out of...

On January 10, 2013, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a set of recommendations intended to guide opioid analgesic prescribing in New York City emergency departments. The intent and scope of these guidelines are discussed through an interview by an emergency medicine fellow with an expert in emergency medicine pain management and one of the authors of the guidelines. The guidelines are appended to the commentary.

The current epidemic of opioid toxicity and deaths has led clinicians and policy-makers to explore alternatives to opioids for management of moderate to severe pain. One environment in which opioid use has been questioned is the emergency department (ED). This commentary addresses the proposal for “opioid-free EDs” and discusses the risk-to-benefit ratios of opioid and alternative pharmacotherapy for acutely injured patients requiring analgesia. The authors recognize that a truly opioid-free ED is not practical and that alternative analgesic approaches also carry risks. Innovations in managing pain in the ED are needed. But excessive restriction on opioid pharmacotherapy in emergency medicine carries the risk of replacing overprescribing with underprescribing of opioids. The commentary supports the need to establish a core of evidence to support efforts to increase the use of nonopioid and nonpharmacologic modalities for those suffering from pain.

Objective:Approximately 75% of prescription opioid abusers obtain the drug from an acquaintance, which may be a consequence of improper opioid storage, use, disposal, and lack of patient education. We aimed to determine the opioid storage, use, and disposal patterns in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of a comprehensive cancer center.Method:We surveyed 113 patients receiving opioids for at least 2 months upon presenting to the ED and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal. Unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight, and unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids.Results:The median age was 53 years, 55% were female, 64% were white, and 86% had advanced cancer. Of those surveyed, 36% stored opioids in plain sight, 53% kept them hidden but unlocked, and only 15% locked their opioids. However, 73% agreed that they would use a lockbox if given one. Patients who reported that others had asked them for their pain medications (p= 0.004) and those who would use a lockbox if given one (p= 0.019) were more likely to keep them locked. Some 13 patients (12%) used opioids unsafely by either sharing (5%) or losing (8%) them. Patients who reported being prescribed more pain pills than required (p= 0.032) were more likely to practice unsafe use. Most (78%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, 6% believed they were prescribed more medication than required, and 67% had unused opioids at home. Only 13% previously received education about safe disposal of opioids. Overall, 77% (87) of patients reported unsafe storage, unsafe use, or possessed unused opioids at home.Significance of Results:Many cancer patients presenting to the ED improperly and unsafely store, use, or dispose of opioids, thus highlighting a need to investigate the impact of patient education on such practices.

Although visiting the emergency departments (EDs) is considered poor quality of cancer care, there are indications these visits are increasing. Similarly, there is growing interest in providing palliative care (PC) to cancer patients in EDs. However, this integration is not without major challenges. In this article, we review the literature on why cancer patients visit EDs, the rates of hospitalization and mortality for these patients, and the models for integrating PC in EDs. We discuss opportunities such integration will bring to the quality of cancer care, and resource utilization of resources. We also discuss barriers faced by this integration. We found that the most common reasons for ED visits by cancer patients are pain, fever, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms. The majority of the patients are admitted to hospitals, about 13% of the admitted patients die during hospitalization, and some patients die in ED. Patients who receive PC at an ED have shorter hospitalization and lower resource utilization. Models based solely on increasing PC provision in EDs by PC specialists have had modest success, while very limited ED-based PC provision has had slightly higher impact. However, details of these programs are lacking, and coordination between ED based PC and hospital-wide PC is not clear. In some studies, the objectives were to improve care in the communities and reduce ED visits and hospitalizations. We conclude that as more patients receive cancer therapy late in their disease trajectory, more cancer patients will visit EDs. Integration of PC with emergency medicine will require active participation of ED physicians in providing PC to cancer patients. PC specialist should play an active role in educating ED physicians about PC, and provide timely consultations. The impact of integrating PC in EDs on quality and cost of cancer care should be studied.

Objectives. We have described national trends for the 5 leading external causes of injury mortality. Methods. We used negative binomial regression and annual underlying cause-of-death data for US residents for 2000 through 2009. Results. Mortality rates for unintentional poisoning, unintentional falls, and suicide increased by 128%, 71%, and 15%, respectively. The unintentional motor vehicle traffic crash mortality rate declined 25%. Suicide ranked first as a cause of injury mortality, followed by motor vehicle traffic crashes, poisoning, falls, and homicide. Females had a lower injury mortality rate than did males. The adjusted fall mortality rate displayed a positive age gradient. Blacks and Hispanics had lower adjusted motor vehicle traffic crash and suicide mortality rates and higher adjusted homicide rates than did Whites, and a lower unadjusted total injury mortality rate. Conclusions. Mortality rates for suicide, poisoning, and falls rose substantially over the past decade. Suicide has surpassed motor vehicle traffic crashes as the leading cause of injury mortality. Comprehensive traffic safety measures have successfully reduced the national motor vehicle traffic crash mortality rate. Similar efforts will be required to diminish the burden of other injury.

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:848–858 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Abstract Objectives: A decision support tool may guide emergency clinicians in recognizing assessment, analgesic and overall management, and health service delivery needs for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to identify data and process elements important in making decisions regarding evaluation and management of adult patients in the ED with painful episodes of SCD. Methods: Qualitative methods using a series of focus groups and grounded theory were used. Eligible participants included adult clients with SCD and emergency physicians and nurses with a minimum of 1 year of experience providing care to patients with SCD in the ED. Patients were recruited in conjunction with annual SCD meetings, and providers included clinicians who were and were not affiliated with sickle cell centers. Groups were conducted until saturation was reached and included a total of two patient groups, three physician groups, and two nurse groups. Focus groups were held in New York, Durham, Chicago, New Orleans, and Denver. Clinician participants were asked the following three questions to guide the discussion: 1) what information would be important to know about patients with SCD in the ED setting to effectively care for them and help you identify patient analgesic, treatment, and referral needs? 2) What treatment decisions would you make with this information? and 3) What characteristics would a decision support tool need to have to make it meaningful and useful? Client participants were asked the same questions with rewording to reflect what they believed providers should know to provide the best care and what they should do with the information. All focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed. The constant comparative method was used to analyze the data. Two coders independently coded participant responses and identified focal themes based on the key questions. An investigator and assistant independently reviewed the transcripts and met until the final coding structure was determined. Results: Forty-seven individuals participated (14 persons with SCD, 16 physicians, and 17 nurses) in a total of seven different groups. Two major themes emerged: acute management and health care utilization. Major subthemes included the following: physiologic findings, diagnostics, assessment and treatment of acute painful episodes, and disposition. The most common minor subthemes that emerged included past medical history, presence of a medical home (physician or clinic), individualized analgesic treatment plan for treatment of painful episodes, history of present illness, medical home follow-up available, patient-reported analgesic treatment that works, and availability of analgesic prescription at discharge. Additional important elements in treatment of acute pain episodes included the use of a standard analgesic protocol, need for fluids and nonpharmacologic interventions, and the assessment of typicality of pain presentation. The patients’ interpretation of the need for hospital admission also ranked high. Conclusions: Participants identified several areas that are important in the assessment, management, and disposition decisions that may help guide best practices for SCD patients in the ED setting.

INTRODUCTION In what has become a near-weekly ritual, one of us (K.H.T.) receives an emotionally laden call about the plight of a loved one, colleague, or acquaintance with cancer who needs our help to navigate the labyrinth of emergency care. The patient may receive care at our comprehensive cancer center but become “stranded” in an emergency department (ED) outside the often rigid borders between our center and other health care systems. They may be only a few blocks away, or in another town, state, or country. Usually, after a flurry of calls or e-mails, the patient is accepted into one of our clinics. At times, the patient must sign out against medical advice to come directly to our ED. These exercises often end with the caller’s tremendous expressions of gratitude, thanking us for being “miracle workers.” However, it shouldn’t take a miracle to communicate and deliver high-quality patient-centered care in the ED. Every year, between 1 and 3 million US ED visits are related to cancer. The visits may be the index presentation leading to an eventual cancer diagnosis. More commonly, such visits are prompted by symptoms resulting from cancer progression, treatment toxicities, or complications of surgery. These visits weigh heavy on our patients and often portend a worsening prognosis. Because cancer is commonly a disease of aging, US EDs should expect to see increasing numbers of cancer patients and survivors as the population ages. Given projected shortages of cancer care providers, it is increasingly important for the emergency care community to better understand and expertly manage cancer emergencies. To fulfill the Triple Aim (improved patient experience, improved population health, and reduced health care costs) and effectively manage limited resources, we must foster transparent communication and collaboration between emergency physicians and the multiple professionals who participate in cancer care and research. It is vital that

Each patient's pain experience is uniquely his or her own. Standardized pain assessment methodologies and procedures provide a window to this experience and constitute a necessary first step to our understanding of pain, in both clinical and research settings. All too often, emergency department pain assessment is cursory--performed more to satisfy regulatory requirements than to guide our therapies or evaluate our practices. This article provides information on a number of assessment techniques that are appropriate for clinical and research use. Their use should inform our practice and lead to continuous improvements in our management of pain.

761 Pain is the single most common reason patients seek care in the emergency department.1 Given the prevalence of pain as a presenting complaint, one might expect emergency physicians to assign its treatment a high priority; however, pain is often seemingly invisible to the emergency physician. Multiple research studies have documented that the undertreatment of pain, or oligoanalgesia, is a frequent occurrence.2 Pain that is not acknowledged and managed appropriately causes dissatisfaction with medical care, hostility toward the physician, unscheduled returns to the emergency department, delayed return to full function, and potentially, an increased risk of litigation. Failure to recognize and treat pain may result in anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, increased oxygen demands with the potential for end organ ischemia, and decreased movement with an increased risk of venous thrombosis. Given this state affairs, we should examine the barriers that serve to block the adequate recognition and treatment of pain in emergency departments, as well as other healthcare delivery settings. One of these barriers is the physician’s fear of being “duped” by patients who fabricate pain symptoms in order to obtain controlled substances for recreational use or diversion. This article will focus on the problem of substance abuse, and the perceptions of healthcare providers regarding substance abuse, as they relate to patients who present to the emergency department with complaints of pain.

Patients presenting to the emergency department with heart failure are evaluated based on the subjective sensation of dyspnea. In this study, the authors sought to determine the change in dyspnea, measured by a visual analog scale (VAS), which is associated with a meaningful change in the patient's perception and the effect of dyspnea severity on the VAS. In this prospective, observational study the authors defined a meaningful change in VAS dyspnea as the difference between VAS scores when patients reported "a little less difficulty breathing" or "a little more difficulty breathing." Seventy-four patients were evaluated, and the mean for a meaningful change in VAS was 21.1 mm (95% confidence interval, 12.3-29.9 mm). Patients that recorded higher index VAS scores had a significantly greater change in VAS. VAS scores and the changes with treatment provide the treating physician with another means to assess the effects of their interventions.

Background Despite evidence supporting an association between ambient air pollutants and cardiovascular disease (CVD), the roles of the physicochemical components of particulate matter (PM) and copollutants are not fully understood. This time-series study examined the relation between ambient air pollution and cardiovascular conditions using ambient air quality data and emergency department visit data in Atlanta, Georgia, from January 1, 1993, to August 31, 2000. Methods Outcome data on 4,407,535 emergency department visits were compiled from 31 hospitals in Atlanta. The air quality data included measurements of criteria pollutants for the entire study period, as well as detailed measurements of mass concentrations for the fine and coarse fractions of PM and several physical and chemical characteristics of PM for the final 25 months of the study. Emergency department visits for CVD and for cardiovascular subgroups were assessed in relation to daily measures of air pollutants using Poisson generalized linear models controlling for long-term temporal trends and meteorologic conditions with cubic splines. Results Using an a priori 3-day moving average in single-pollutant models, CVD visits were associated with NO2, CO, PM2.5, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and oxygenated hydrocarbons. Secondary analyses suggested that these associations tended to be strongest with same-day pollution levels. Conclusions These findings provide evidence for an association between CVD visits and several correlated pollutants, including gases, PM2.5, and PM2.5 components.

Background Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after cardiac arrest is utilized indiscriminately among unselected populations. Cancer patients have particularly low rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital discharge after CPR. Our study determines rates of ROSC and survival to hospital discharge among cancer patients undergoing CPR in our cancer center. We examined whether these rates have changed over the past decade. Methods This IRB-approved retrospective observational study was conducted in our cancer center. The ED and cancer center provide medical care for ≥ 115,000 patients annually. Cases of CPR presenting to the cancer center for years 2003–2012 were identified using Institutional CPR and Administrative Data for Resuscitation and Billing databases. Age, gender, ethnicity, ROSC and Discharge Alive using a modified Utsein template was used to compare proportions achieving ROSC and survival to hospital discharge for two time periods: 2003–2007 (Group 1) and 2008–2012 (Group 2), using traditional Pearson chi-square statistics. Results One hundred twenty-six cancer center patients received CPR from 2003–2012. Group 1 (N = 64) and Group 2 (N = 62) were similar; age (60 vs. 60 years), gender (63% vs. 58% male), and race/ethnicity (67% vs. 56% White). Proportions achieving ROSC were similar in the two time periods (36% Group 1 vs. 45% Group 2, OR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.72 - 3.00) as was survival to hospital discharge (11% Group 1 vs. 10% Group 2, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.28 - 2.76). Conclusions ROSC after CPR in cancer patients and survival to hospital discharge did not change over time.

Substantial evidence supports an association of particulate matter (PM) with cardiorespiratory illnesses, but little is known regarding characteristics of PM that might contribute to this association and the mechanisms of action. The Atlanta superstation sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute as part of the Aerosol Research and Inhalation Epidemiology Study (ARIES) study is monitoring chemical composition of ambient particles by size fraction, as well as a comprehensive suite of other pollutants, at a site in downtown Atlanta during the 25-month period, August 1, 1998-August 31, 2000. Our investigative team is making use of this unique resource in several morbidity studies, called the "Study of Particulates and Health in Atlanta (SOPHIA)". The study includes the following components: (1) a time series investigation of emergency department (ED) visits for the period during which the superstation is operating; (2) a time series investigation of ED visits during the 5 years prior to implementation of the superstation; and (3) a study of arrhythmic events in patients equipped with automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (AICDs) for the period January 1, 1993-August 31, 2000. Thirty-three of 39 Atlanta area EDs are participating in the ED studies, comprising over a million annual ED visits. In this paper, we present initial analyses of data from 18 of the 33 participating EDs. The preliminary data set includes 1,662,713 ED visits during the pre-superstation time period and 559,480 visits during the superstation time period. Visits for four case groupings--asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dysrhythmia, and all cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) combined--have been assessed relative to daily air quality indices, controlling for long-term temporal trends and meteorologic variables, using general linear models, generalized estimating equations and generalized additive models. Single-pollutant models predicting case visitation rates using moving averages of 0-, 1-, and 2-day lagged air quality variables were run. For the pre-superstation period, PM10 (24-h), ozone (8-h), SO2 (1-h), NO2 (1-h) and CO (1-h) were studied. For the first 12 months of superstation operation, the following air quality variables of a priori interest were available: ozone (8-h), NO2 (1-h), SO2 (1-h), CO (1-h), and 24-h measurements of PM10, coarse PM (PM 2.5-10 microm), PM2.5, polar VOCs, 10-100 nm particulate count and surface area, and in the PM2.5 fraction: sulfates, acidity, water-soluble metals, organic matter (OM), and elemental carbon (EC). During the pre-superstation time period, statistically significant, positive associations were observed for adult asthma with ozone, and for COPD with ozone, NO2 and PM10. During the superstation time period, the following statistically significant, positive associations were observed: dysrhythmia with CO, coarse PM, and PM2.5 EC; and all CVDs with CO, PM2.5 EC and PM2.5 OM. While covariation of many of the air quality indices limits the informativeness of this analysis, the study provides one of the first assessments of PM components in relation to ED visits.

Study objective: Chest pain and myocardial infarction following the use of cocaine have been well documented. We assessed the prevalence of cocaine use in patients who presented to the emergency department with chest pain of possibly ischemic origin. Design: During times of research assistant availability, consecutive adults with the chief complaint of chest pain unexplained by trauma or radiographic abnormality were questioned about cocaine use in the preceding week. Urine was tested for the presence of cocaine or cocaine metabolites with a highly accurate bedside urine test kit (specificity, 100%; sensitivity 98%). Anonymous unlinked data-collection methods were used. Therefore we could not determine whether the patients who used cocaine had sustained myocardial infarctions. Setting: One suburban and three urban EDs. Results: We enrolled 359 patients with a mean age of 51 years, 8% of whom sustained myocardial infarctions. Sixty patients (17%) had cocaine or cocaine metabolites in urine. The likelihood of testing positive for cocaine varied by age group: 18 to 30 years, 29%; 31 to 40 years, 48%; 41 to 50 years, 18%; 51 to 60 years, 3%; 61 years or older, 0% ( P Conclusion: Many ED patients with chest pain have recently used cocaine. Because the recent use of cocaine is not uncommon in patients with chest pain up to 60 years old, such patients should be questioned about cocaine use. When treatment or disposition may be altered, consideration should be given to objective assessment of cocaine use because patient self-report does not appear reliable. [Hollander JE, Todd KH, Green G, Heilpern KL, Karras DJ, Singer AJ, Brogan GX, Funk JP, Strahan JB: Chest pain associated with cocaine: An assessment of prevalence in suburban and urban emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med December 1995;26:671-676.]

Background Emergency department (ED) providers commonly care for seriously ill patients who suffer from advanced, chronic, life-limiting illnesses in addition to those that are acutely ill or injured. Both the chronically ill and those who present in extremis may benefit from application of palliative care principles. Case report We present a case highlighting the opportunities and need for better integration of emergency medicine and palliative care. Discussion We offer practical guidelines to the ED faculty/administrators who seek to enhance the quality of patient care in their own unique ED setting by starting an initiative that better integrates palliative principles into daily practice. Specifically, we outline four things to do to jumpstart this collaborative effort. Conclusion The Improving Palliative Care in Emergency Medicine project sponsored by the Center to Advance Palliative Care is a resource that assists ED health care providers with the process and structure needed to integrate palliative care into the ED setting.

Background Hip fractures are a painful condition commonly encountered in the emergency department (ED). Older adults in pain often receive suboptimal doses of analgesics, particularly in crowded EDs. Nerve blocks have been utilized by anesthesiologists to help control pain from hip fractures postoperatively. The use of nerve stimulator with ultrasonographic guidance has increased the safety of this procedure. Objectives We instituted a pilot study to assess the ability of Emergency Medicine (EM) resident physicians to effectively perform this procedure after a didactic and demonstration session. Methods First-year EM residents from three urban training programs underwent a 1-h didactic and hands-on training session on the femoral nerve block (FNB) procedure. A written pretest was used to assess baseline knowledge; it was administered again (with test items randomized) at 1 and 3 months post training session. A critical actions checklist (direct observation of procedure steps via simulated patient encounter) was used to assess the residents after the training session and again at 3 months. Results A total of 38 EM residents were initially evaluated. Thirty-three successfully completed 1-month and 3-month written test evaluations; 30 completed all written and direct observation evaluations. The mean written pretest scores were 66% (SD 9); post-test 92% (SD 5), 1-month 74% (SD 8), and 3-month 75% (SD 9). After initial training, 37 of 38 (97%) residents demonstrated competency (completing ≥ 15 of 19 critical actions) in the FNB procedure determined via direct observation. At 3 months, 25 of 30 residents (83%) continued to retain 85% of their initial critical action skills, and 3 of 30 (10%) saw an improvement in their proficiency. Conclusion A 1-h training and demonstration module yielded high competency rates in residents performing critical actions related to the FNB; these skills were well maintained at 3 months. An ongoing study will attempt to correlate this competency with procedures performed on patients.

Cholecystectomy remains the principal treatment for gallstones. Many gallstone patients do not undergo surgery within 6 months of diagnosis. To determine factors associated with cholecystectomy, treated and untreated patients were compared with respect to clinical and sociodemographic factors. The study population was comprised of outpatients of a public system evaluated in an emergency room or at a community health center. All were interviewed in English or Spanish before completing imaging studies. Of 121 found to have gallstones, 75 underwent early cholecystectomy. Patients reporting episodes of prolonged abdominal pain more often had surgery (p0.003). Patients evaluated in the emergency room underwent surgery more often than those from the community health center (p0.04). Patient ethnicity was unrelated to treatment, but Mexican Americans who requested interviews in Spanish were less likely to undergo cholecystectomy (p0.05). After logistic regression, prolonged abdominal pain was the only significant predictor of surgical management, although relationships with language use and site of diagnosis persisted. It was concluded that clinical presentation largely determines surgical treatment for gallstones but site of diagnosis is also a factor. Patients with poor English language skills undergo cholecystectomy less often. This may be due to poor doctor-patient communication, or it may be a reflection of cultural factors linked to language use.

1. IntroductionEvidence of the efficacy of analgesic treatments is typicallybased on double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conductedin patients with a specific pain diagnosis, disease, or condition[1,2,9–11,40]. The results of these RCTs provide evidence of effi-cacy in the specific condition investigated, especially when thereis replication of the results. However, little attention has been de-voted to considering whether evidence of efficacy in one particularconditioncan be extrapolatedto otherswith a reasonabledegreeofconfidence that the treatment will be efficacious. For example, canit be assumed that the results of RCTs demonstrating that a medi-cation is efficacious for knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain indicate thatthis medication would also be efficacious for hip OA pain, or thatefficacy in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) predicts efficacy in painfuldiabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN)? In considering such gener-alization of efficacy, it would be important to specify the bound-aries of extrapolation, especially between pain conditions withdifferent neurobiological mechanisms, for example, neuropathicand musculoskeletal pain.The extrapolation of analgesic treatment efficacy to unstudiedconditions has broad implications. Most importantly, if efficacy isextrapolated to conditions in which treatments are truly not effec-tive, patients will be exposed to ineffective treatments that may beassociated with undesirable side effects, safety risks, and financialcosts. Conversely, if efficacy is not extrapolated to conditions inwhich treatments are truly efficacious but have not yet beenstudied, patients may be denied effective treatments that couldprovide meaningful relief. This is an important concern becausemany efficacious analgesics have been studied in relatively fewconditions, and there are numerous acute and chronic pain condi-tions for which effective treatments have not been identified.The United States Food and Drug Administration convened aworkshop to initiate discussion of the issues involved in consider-ingthe extrapolationof analgesic efficacy.The meetingincluded16pain specialists representing diverse disciplines and medical spe-cialties, all of whom are authors of this article. Participants wereasked to discuss the types of evidence that could provide the basisfor extrapolating efficacy to pain conditionsin which the treatmenthas not been studied. These discussions did not address the extrap-olation of safety, and also did not consider migraine headachegiven distinct regulatory and research design issues involving itsprevention and acute treatment [25].This article summarizes the conclusions from the workshop—which was held on December 2, 2009—and subsequent discussionsamong the participants. The considerations contained in thisarticle are not intended to serve as ‘‘consensus recommendations’’or to represent the views of the Food and Drug Administration orany other public or private agency or organization. Mostimportantly, given the major limitations of the evidence base forconsidering the extrapolation of analgesic efficacy, the material

Study objective The Institute of Medicine Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System (2003) identified a need to enhance the research base for emergency care. As a result, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Task Force on Research in Emergency Medicine was formed to enhance NIH support for emergency care research. Members of the NIH Task Force and academic leaders in emergency care participated in 3 Roundtable discussions to prioritize current opportunities for enhancing and conducting emergency care research. We identify key research questions essential to advancing the science of emergency care and discuss the barriers and strategies to advance research by exploring the collaboration between NIH and the emergency care community. Methods Experts from emergency medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and public health assembled to review critical areas in need of investigation, current gaps in knowledge, barriers, and opportunities. Neurologic emergencies included cerebral resuscitation, pain, stroke, syncope, traumatic brain injury, and pregnancy. Mental health topics included suicide, agitation and delirium, substances, posttraumatic stress, violence, and bereavement. Results Presentations and group discussion firmly established the need for translational research to bring basic science concepts into the clinical arena. A coordinated continuum of the health care system that ensures rapid identification and stabilization and extends through discharge is necessary to maximize overall patient outcomes. There is a paucity of well-designed, focused research on diagnostic testing, clinical decisionmaking, and treatments in the emergency setting. Barriers include the limited number of experienced researchers in emergency medicine, limited dedicated research funding, and difficulties of conducting research in chaotic emergency environments stressed by crowding and limited resources. Several themes emerged during the course of the roundtable discussion, including the need for development of (1) a research infrastructure for the rapid identification, consent, and tracking of research subjects that incorporates innovative informatics technologies, essential for future research; (2) diagnostic strategies and tools necessary to understand key populations and the process of medical decisionmaking, including the investigation of the pathobiology of symptoms and symptom-oriented therapies; (3) collaborative research networks to provide unique opportunities to form partnerships, leverage patient cohorts and clinical and financial resources, and share data; (4) formal research training programs integral for creating new knowledge and advancing the science and practice of emergency medicine; and (5) recognition that emergency care is part of an integrated system from emergency medical services dispatch to discharge. The NIH Roundtable "Opportunities to Advance Research on Neurological and Psychiatric Emergencies" created a framework to guide future emergency medicine–based research initiatives. Conclusion Emergency departments provide the portal of access to the health care system for most patients with acute neurologic and psychiatric illness. Emergency physicians and colleagues are primed to investigate neurologic and psychiatric emergencies that will directly improve the delivery of care and patient outcomes.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Child safety seat distribution: What works? Ann Emerg Med September 1999;34:403-404.]

Patients with gallstones who have recently experienced biliary tract pain are likely to develop recurrent symptoms in the near future. As a consequence, most symptomatic patients are offered specific treatment. However, disagreement persists regarding which symptoms and signs truly represent symptomatic cholelithiasis. We re-examined the relation of gastrointestinal complaints and physical findings to the presence of gallstones in a clinical population.Over a 2-year period, we identified outpatients of a public teaching hospital for whom diagnostic studies of the gallbladder had been ordered. Patients were interviewed and examined by research personnel prior to completion of the studies. Gastrointestinal symptoms and physical examination findings in 122 patients found to have gallstones were contrasted with those of 178 gallstone-free patients.In comparison to control subjects, patients with gallstones more often reported epigastric pain lasting at least 30 minutes (64.2% versus 45.1%, p less than 0.004). The latter patients infrequently complained of lower abdominal pain (12.3% versus 29.9%, p less than 0.002), but more often described pain radiating to the upper back. Gallstone-associated pain usually occurred more than 1 hour after meals, persisted from 1 to 24 hours, and was steady in quality. Although these differences were statistically significant, likelihood ratio analysis indicated that clinical symptoms and signs were relatively weak discriminators of gallbladder disease.Upper abdominal pain is the symptom most closely associated with gallstone disease. Radiation to the upper back, a steady quality, duration between 1 and 24 hours, and onset more than an hour after meals support the diagnosis. Nevertheless, gallstone-associated symptoms are non-specific, and accurate diagnosis cannot rely on the clinical assessment alone. Careful clinical evaluation can guide patient selection for diagnostic imaging and the appropriate management of those found to harbor stones.

184 Background: Approximately 75% of prescription opioid abusers obtain the drug from an acquaintance. Improper opioid storage, use, and disposal along with lack of patient education may lead to increased availability of the drug for abuse by others. Our aim was to determine the opioid storage, use, and disposal patterns in patients presenting to the emergency center (EC) of a comprehensive cancer center. Methods: We surveyed 113 cancer patients receiving opioids for at least 2 months and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal. Unsafe storage was defined as storing the opioids in plain sight and sharing or losing their opioids was defined as unsafe use. Results: The median age was 53 years, 55% were female, and 64% were white and 86% had advanced cancer. 19% of the patients had history of illicit drug use and 24% reported that drug abuse is prevalent in their neighborhood. 59% obtained the opioid from their oncologist and 6% believed they were prescribed more medication than required. Of the 113 respondents, 36% stored opioids in plain sight, 53% kept them hidden but unlocked, and only 15% locked their opioids. 73% agreed that they would use a lockbox to store their opioids if given one, 78% were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, and 67% had unused opioids at home. Only 13% previously received education about safe disposal of opioids. Patients who reported that others have asked them for their pain medications (P = .004) and those who would use a lockbox if given one (P = .019) were more likely to keep them locked. 13 patients (12%) used opioids unsafely by either sharing (5%) or losing (8%) them. Patients who reported to being prescribed more pain pills than required (P = .032), others having asked them for their pain pills (P = .06), being unemployed (P = .07), and those who were unaware of drug take-back programs (P = .06) were more likely to participate in unsafe use. Overall, 77% (87) of the patients reported unsafe storage, unsafe use, or possessed unused opioids at home. Conclusions: A large number of cancer patients improperly and unsafely store, use, or dispose of opioids. More research is needed to determine whether patient education has an effect on minimizing prescription opioid abuse.

217 Background: The exact frequency of delirium among patients with advanced cancer presenting to emergency departments (EDs) is unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of delirium among patients with advanced cancer who present to the ED at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Methods: The exact frequency of delirium among patients with advanced cancer presenting to emergency departments (EDs) is unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of delirium among patients with advanced cancer who present to the ED at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Results: A total of 624 patients were screen for this study, and 243 patients were enrolled. The main reasons for exclusion were: 1) cancer was not advanced, 2) the patient had been in the ED for over 12 hours and 3) the patient was non-English speaking. The median age for all patients enrolled was 62 years (range 19 – 89 years), 167 (69%) were white, and 120(49.4) were female. CAM was positive in 22(9%) of patients. The median MDAS score of CAM positive patients was 14 (range 9 – 22 out of 30). Ten (10%)of 99 patients aged 65 and older were delirious as compared to 12 (8%) of 144 patients younger than 65 years (p = 0.6). Physician correctly predicted delirium in 13 patients (59%). Among the patients who were CAM positive 18 (82%) were admitted to the hospital as compared to 115 (52%) of patients without delirium (p = 0.012). Patients with delirium had higher hospital, and six months mortality rate. Conclusions: Delirium was identified in 9% of patients with advanced cancer visiting an ED, and is associated with more hospitalization and poor survival.

e20720 Background: Prescription opioid abuse is on the rise in the U.S. It is reported that 75% of the abusers obtain the drug from an acquaintance. Improper opioid storage, use, and disposal may l...