Search

Fentanyl-mixed and substituted heroin is well-documented, but less is known about unintentional fentanyl use among people using stimulants. To determine the prevalence of and racial and ethnic disparities in unintentional fentanyl use among people experiencing a medically attended opioid overdose, we reviewed 448 suspected non-fatal overdose cases attended by a community paramedic overdose response team in San Francisco from June to September 2022. We applied a case definition for opioid overdose to paramedic records and abstracted data on intended substance use prior to overdose. Among events meeting case criteria with data on intended substance use, intentional opioid use was reported by 57.3%, 98.0% of whom intended to use fentanyl. No intentional opioid use was reported by 42.7%, with most intending to use stimulants (72.6%), including methamphetamine and cocaine. No intentional opioid use was reported by 58.5% of Black, 52.4% of Latinx, and 28.8% of White individuals (p = 0.021), and by 57.6% of women and 39.5% of men (p = 0.061). These findings suggest that unintentional fentanyl use among people without opioid tolerance may cause a significant proportion of opioid overdoses in San Francisco. While intentional fentanyl use might be underreported, the magnitude of self-reported unintentional use merits further investigation to confirm this phenomenon, explore mechanisms of use and disparities by race and ethnicity, and deploy targeted overdose prevention interventions.

Introduction: The Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) is an emergency medicine (EM)-specific assessment designed to help EM residency programs differentiate applicants. We became interested in SLOE-narrative language referencing personality when we observed less enthusiasm for applicants described as “quiet” in their SLOEs. In this study our objective was to compare how quiet-labeled, EM-bound applicants were ranked compared to their non-quiet peers in the global assessment (GA) and anticipated rank list (ARL) categories in the SLOE.Methods: We conducted a planned subgroup analysis of a retrospective cohort study of all core EM clerkship SLOEs submitted to one, four-year academic EM residency program in the 2016-2017 recruitment cycle. We compared SLOEs of applicants who were described as “quiet,” “shy,” and/or “reserved” — collectively referred to as “quiet” — to SLOEs from all other applicants, referred to as “non-quiet.” We compared frequencies of quiet to non-quiet students in GA and ARL categories using chi-square goodness-of-fit tests with a rejection criteria (alpha) of 0.05.Results: We reviewed 1,582 SLOEs from 696 applicants. Of these, 120 SLOEs described quiet applicants. The distributions of quiet and non-quiet applicants across GA and ARL categories were significantly different (P < 0.001). Quiet applicants were less likely than non-quiet applicants to be ranked in the top 10% and top one-third GA categories combined (31% vs 60%) and more likely to be in the middle one-third category (58% vs 32%). For ARL, quiet applicants were also less likely to be ranked in the top 10% and top one-third categories combined (33% vs 58%) and more likely to be in the middle one-third category (50% vs 31%).Conclusion: Emergency medicine-bound students described as quiet in their SLOEs were less likely to be ranked in the top GA and ARL categories compared to non-quiet students. More research is needed to determine the cause of these ranking disparities and address potential biases in teaching and assessment practices.

Study objectiveEmergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt.ResultsOf 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED.ConclusionED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.