Race and Sex Are Associated With Variations in Pain Management in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Undifferentiated Abdominal Pain.

BACKGROUND: Pain management is critical to the management of patients in the emergency department (ED). The clinical decision-making process for prescribing medications is complicated by its subjective nature. Historically, racial and ethnic minority groups and women have not had their pain managed as aggressively as White and male patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether race and biological sex affect the pain management process by means of evaluating data from a large hospital system with diverse patient demographic characteristics. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of adult patients who presented an ED within the hospital system and were discharged from the ED with a diagnosis of undifferentiated abdominal pain during a single year. Patient pain was classified as mild, moderate, or severe, and patients were further stratified by race, ethnicity, sex, and insurance status. Pain management was assessed by narcotic vs non-narcotic administration. RESULTS: A total of 32,676 patients were included in the study. Narcotic administration was more likely in White patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain (22%) compared with Black patients (12%; adjusted odds ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.46-0.54). This persists across patient-reported pain scores. In addition, women (16.99%) were prescribed narcotics less often than men (19.41%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although differences in pain management practices have been explored previously, this study provided a large, updated, multifacility assessment that confirmed that race- and sex-based differences in pain management persist, specifically in the decision to treat with narcotics. Further investigation is warranted to determine the root causes of these differences.

Elevated blood urea nitrogen/creatinine ratio is associated with poor outcome in patients with ischemic stroke.

OBJECTIVE: Dehydration may impair cerebral oxygen delivery and worsen clinical outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We evaluated if elevated blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio (BUN/Cr) as a marker of dehydration was associated with poor clinical outcome in emergency department (ED) patients presenting with AIS. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study using a stroke registry enrolling all ED patients with AIS from 10/2007 through 6/2009. Poor clinical outcome was defined as death, placement in a nursing home for purposes other than rehabilitation, or hospice within 30 days of ED presentation. A BUN/Cr ratio of ≥15 was considered elevated. (IQR). Logistic regression was performed adjusted for age >64 years, NIHSS >8, diabetes, prior CVA, and coma at presentation reporting odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: 324 patients had a final diagnosis of AIS. 163 (50%) were female, 19 (6%) died, 44 (14%) received t-PA, and 89 (27%) had a poor clinical outcome. The median NIHSS, BUN and Cr were 4 (IQR 1-9), 14 mg/dL (IQR 11-21), and 1.02 mg/dL (IQR 0.87-1.27) respectively. The median BUN/Cr was 13.9 (IQR 10.6-18.5). The variables associated with a poor clinical outcome were: high NIHSS OR 6.5 (3.6-11.8), age >64 years OR 2.7 (1.5-5.0), and BUN/Cr ratio of ≥15 OR 2.2 (1.2-4.0). CONCLUSION: An elevated BUN/Cr ratio in patients with AIS is associated with poor outcome at 30 days. Further study is needed to see if acutely addressing hydration status in ED patients with AIS can alter outcome.

A novel emergency department dysphagia screen for patients presenting with acute stroke.

OBJECTIVES: Dysphagia is a common complication for emergency department (ED) patients presenting with acute stroke (AS). Recent stroke recommendations have suggested that EDs screen patients with AS for dysphagia prior to administering anything by mouth. This study sought to develop and test a novel ED dysphagia screen to be used in this population. METHODS: A multidisciplinary approach was used to create a novel dysphagia screen performed by ED nurses during the initial evaluation of patients with suspected AS. The screen consists of five questions of which any single affirmative answer signified possible dysphagia. A prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the performance of this screen in detecting dysphagia after AS. Patients were followed for 30 days, and true dysphagia was determined if the patient had an abnormal modified barium swallow study (MBS), had placement of a feeding tube, or was placed on a dysphagia diet after assessment by a speech pathologist. The authors performed a substudy to determine agreement using a blinded kappa (κ) assessment with a convenience sample of 40 patients. RESULTS: Over a 21-month period, 283 patients met eligibility for analysis. The rate of cerebral infarction in this cohort was 245 (87%). The rates for true dysphagia, pneumonia, and death were 91 (32%), 26 (9%), and 18 (6%), respectively. The dysphagia screen had a sensitivity of 95% (95% confidence [CI] = 88% to 98%) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.1 (95% CI = 0.04 to 0.2). The inter-rater agreement assessed by kappa was substantial (0.69, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that this dysphagia screen may be a valuable tool for detecting dysphagia in ED patients presenting with AS. The simple screen can be performed by nursing personnel and appears to perform well with good agreement. Given the overall rate of dysphagia in one-third of AS patients, the use of an ED dysphagia screen appears warranted.