Concordance Between Electronic Health Record-Recorded Race and Ethnicity and Patient Report in Emergency Department Patients.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the concordance of patient-reported race and ethnicity for emergency department (ED) patients compared with what was recorded in the electronic health record. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, observational study of 744 ED patients (English- and/or Spanish-speaking), asking them to describe their race and ethnicity. We compared the distributions of ethnicity and race between patient-reported and electronic health record data using McNemar's test. We calculated percent agreement and Cohen's kappa, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), for the concordance of patient-reported race and ethnicity with electronic health record data. RESULTS: Of 744 ED patients, 731 participants who completed the survey reported their ethnicity, resulting in 98.2% of electronic health records obtained ethnicities matched self-reported data (kappa = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). For those who self-reported as Hispanic, only 92.3% agreement was observed between the self-reported and electronic health record values. For all patients who had race recorded, 85.4% agreement was observed (kappa = 0.75; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.79). High rates of agreement were observed for Black or African American patients (98.7%) and White patients (96.6%), with low rates for those who identified as "More than one race" (22.9%) or "Other" race (1.8%). In the subset of Hispanic patients, low rates of agreement (25.0%) were observed for race (kappa = 0.10; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Documentation discordance regarding race and ethnicity exists between electronic health records and self-reported data for our ED patients, particularly for ethnically Hispanic and Latino/a patients. Future efforts should focus on ensuring that demographic information in the electronic health record is accurately collected.

Current gaps in emergency medicine core content education for oncologic emergencies: A targeted needs assessment.

Objective: The core content of emergency medicine (EM) residency training includes the management of oncologic emergencies; however, documented knowledge gaps continue to exist in this subtopic. This study represents a targeted needs assessment as indicated by Step 2 of Kern's curriculum design to determine the specific training gaps to be addressed within the oncologic EM curriculum. Methods: A multi-institutional cross-sectional survey of oncologists (surgical and medical) and emergency physicians (attendings and residents) was conducted during 2023 at five institutions. The voluntary survey consisted of general and specialty-specific questions exploring gaps in oncologic emergency-specific training/education topics. Descriptive statistics reported responses as frequencies and percentages. Results: Of the 833 surveys sent across the five sites, 302 (36.3%) were accessed by link; of these, 271 (89.7%) surveys were completed. There were no differences in the responses between early and later respondents and no differences in the characteristics of respondents between sites. A vast majority of the oncologist and EM groups (91.2% and 83.0%, respectively) reported a belief that emergency physicians would benefit from additional oncologic emergency training. Our survey identified 16 important topics for inclusion in an oncologic EM curriculum, including five topics not present on the 2022 Model of Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine. Conclusions: Based on this needs assessment, an oncologic EM curriculum should include the topics listed under oncologic emergencies in the 2022 Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine along with our respondent-identified topics of radiation therapy adverse effects, stem cell transplant complications, and the management of cancer-specific postsurgical complications, pain, and common diseases in patients with cancer.

Emergency department involvement in the diagnosis of cancer among older adults: a SEER-Medicare study.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, 20% to 50% of cancer is diagnosed through emergency presentation, which is associated with lower survival, poor patient experience, and socioeconomic disparities, but population-based evidence about emergency diagnosis in the United States is limited. We estimated emergency department (ED) involvement in the diagnosis of cancer in a nationally representative population of older US adults, and its association with sociodemographic, clinical, and tumor characteristics. METHODS: We analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare data for Medicare beneficiaries (≥66 years old) with a diagnosis of female breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers (2008-2017), defining their earliest cancer-related claim as their index date, and patients who visited the ED 0 to 30 days before their index date to have "ED involvement" in their diagnosis, with stratification as 0 to 7 or 8 to 30 days. We estimated covariate-adjusted associations of patient age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, comorbidity score, tumor stage, year of diagnosis, rurality, and census-tract poverty with ED involvement using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Among 614 748 patients, 23% had ED involvement, with 18% visiting the ED in the 0 to 7 days before their index date. This rate varied greatly by tumor site, with breast cancer at 8%, colorectal cancer at 39%, lung cancer at 40%, and prostate cancer at 7%. In adjusted models, older age, female sex, non-Hispanic Black and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander race, being unmarried, recent year of diagnosis, later-stage disease, comorbidities, and poverty were associated with ED involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The ED may be involved in the initial identification of cancer for 1 in 5 patients. Earlier, system-level identification of cancer in non-ED settings should be prioritized, especially among underserved populations.

Pilot intervention to increase uptake of lung cancer screening through the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of referring patients for lung cancer screening (LCS) from the emergency department (ED) as a method to increase the uptake of LCS. METHODS: This is a single-arm pilot study at a large safety-net ED. ED LCS-eligible patients were offered a referral to our LCS clinic upon ED discharge. The primary outcome was the frequency at which patients connected with the LCS clinic. RESULTS: During the study period, 105 patients were approached; 26 (24.8%) participated. Reasons for non-enrollment include 29 (27.6%) who were not interested in research, 10 (9.5%) who did not speak English, and 40 (38.1%) who did not meet the pack-years criteria. Seventeen patients (65.4%, 17/26) connected with the LCS clinic, with 10 (38.5%) having been seen in the clinic and received a low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan. Of the 17 that were connected with the clinic, 7 (26.9%) had a non-LDCT chest CT scan in the past year. Of those that were not seen in the clinic (n = 9), 4 (44.4%) were unreachable via 3 phone calls and a post-marked letter, and 3 (33.3%) did not attend the scheduled appointment, and 2 (22.2%) were delayed due to COVID-19. Of those that had CT scans over the study period (n = 17), 0 scans were normal, one patient (5.9%) had asymptomatic lung cancer, 7 (41.2%) had pulmonary nodules, 11 (64.7%) had emphysema, and 9 (52.9%) had coronary artery disease. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests the feasibility and suggests initial indications of the efficacy of referring ED patients for LCS.

Perspectives of emergency department physicians and nurses on reasons for preventable emergency department visits by patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer frequently visit the emergency department (ED) for medical care, yet approximately half of ED visits for patients with cancer are thought to be preventable. Preventable ED visits are associated with increased healthcare costs and poor patient experiences and outcomes. The voices of ED providers who work with patients with cancer in their everyday practices have not been solicited as it pertains to preventable visits. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to describe the perspectives of ED physicians and nurses on reasons for preventable ED visits by patients with cancer. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design guided the study. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with ED physicians and nurses to query them about their perspectives on the reasons for preventable ED visits by patients with cancer. Content analysis was conducted to list and describe the reasons they discussed. RESULTS: Participants identified five "medical" and five "non-medical" causes of preventable ED visits. Medical reasons included uncontrolled cancer pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, anemia, fever, and on-going undiagnosed signs and symptoms. Non-medical reasons include patient hesitancy to contact primary care providers, lack of availability or responsiveness of primary providers, lack of access, lack of care coordination, and fears about diagnosis and treatment. CONCLUSION: The voices of ED providers should be included in discussions about the problem of preventable ED visits by patients with cancer. The reasons supplied by the participants suggest that solutions to the problem will need to occur at the patient, provider, system, and societal levels.

Retrospective review of patients with lung cancer presenting emergently.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of lung cancer patients receive their diagnosis as part of an emergency presentation (EPs) to emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe EPs of lung cancer at a safety-net hospital system. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with lung cancer at a safety-net ED. EP was defined as a diagnosis of lung cancer due to an acute presentation with symptoms of undiagnosed lung cancer (e.g., cough, hemoptysis, shortness of breath). Non-EPs were the result of either incidental findings (trauma pan-scan) or as part of lung cancer screening. RESULTS: A total of 333 patient charts were reviewed who had lung cancer. Of those, 248 (74.5%) were defined as having an EP. EPs were more likely stage IV than non-EPs (50.4% vs 32.9%). The percent mortality was higher for EP versus non-EP, 60.0% vs 49.4%. which is driven by a high mortality rate for stage IV EPs (77.5%). Most patients with an EP were seen in the ED (177, 71.4%) as the location of initial visit that had a workup concerning for lung cancer. Most of the EPs were admitted for completion of either their diagnostic work up and/or for symptom management (117, 66.5%). Logistic regression identified significant predictors for an EP including stage IV at diagnosis (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.39-4.48) and lack of primary care (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.009-0.53). CONCLUSION: Most patients with lung cancer present acutely as an EP with advanced stage in a safety-net health care setting. The ED plays an important role in the initial diagnosis of lung cancer and coordinating subsequent cancer care.

Brief training in ultrasound equips novice clinicians to accurately and reliably measure jugular venous pressure in obese patients.

Introduction/Purpose: Measurement of jugular venous pressure (JVP) by novice clinicians can be unreliable, particularly when evaluating obese patients. Measurement of JVP using ultrasound (uJVP) is simple to perform and provides accurate measurements. This study evaluated whether students and residents inexperienced with ultrasound could rapidly be taught to measure JVP using ultrasound in obese patients with the same accuracy as cardiologists measuring JVP via physical examination. Additionally, this study also evaluated the correlation between qualitative and quantitative JVP assessment. Methods: This prospective, blinded study compared uJVP measurements performed by novice clinicians after brief training to JVP measurements performed by cardiologists (cJVP) on physical examination. Association between uJVP and cJVP was assessed using linear correlation, agreement and bias were assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis and inter-rater reliability of uJVP was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The association between qualitative and quantitative JVP assessment was assessed using linear correlation. Results: Novice clinicians (n = 16) obtained 34 measurements from 26 patients (mean BMI 35.5) and reported moderate-to-high confidence in all measurements. uJVP correlated well with cJVP (r = 0.73) with an average error of 0.06 cm. The estimated uJVP ICC was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.44, 0.96). Qualitative uJVP had only a moderate correlation (r = 0.63) to quantitative uJVP. Discussion: Novice clinicians often have difficulty assessing JVP on physical examination, particularly in obese patients. Our findings show a high degree of correlation between JVP measurements performed by novice clinicians using ultrasound compared with JVP measurements made by experienced cardiologists on physical examination. Furthermore, novice clinicians were able to be trained quickly, their measurements were determined to be accurate and precise and they expressed moderate-to-high confidence in their results. Conclusions: After brief training, novice clinicians were able to accurately assess JVP in obese patients as compared to measurements made by experienced cardiologists on physical examination. Results suggest that ultrasound may greatly improve novice clinicians' JVP assessment accuracy, particularly in obese patients.

Worsened outcomes of newly diagnosed cancer in patients with recent emergency care visits: A retrospective cohort study of 3699 adults in a safety net health system.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients receive a suspected diagnosis of cancer through an emergency department (ED) visit. Time to treatment for a new diagnosis of cancer is directly associated with improved outcomes with little no describing the ED utilization prior to the diagnosis of cancer. We hypothesize that patients that have an ED visit in proximity to a diagnosis of cancer will have worse outcomes, including mortality. METHODS: This study is a retrospective cohort study of all patients with cancer diagnosed at Eskenazi Health (Indiana) between 2016 and 2019. Individual health characteristics, ED utilization, cancer types, and mortality were studied. We compared those patients seen in the ED within 6 months prior to their diagnosis (cases) to patients not seen in the ED (controls). RESULTS: A total of 3699 patients with cancer were included, with 1239 cases (33.50%). Patients of black race had higher frequencies in the cases vs. controls (46.57% vs. 40.68%). Lung cancer was the most frequently observed cancer among cases vs. controls (11.70% vs. 5.57%). For the cases, 232 patients were deceased (18.72%) compared with 247 patients among the controls (10.04%, p < 0.0001, OR 2.06 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-2.51). An ED visit in past 6 months (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.38-2.18) and Medicaid insurance type (versus commercial, OR = 4.16, 95% CI 2.45-7.07) were associated with of mortality. Female gender (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.88), tobacco use (OR = 1.62, 95% CI 138-1.90), and Medicaid insurance type (versus commercial, OR = 2.56, 95% CI 2.07-3.47) were associated with prior ED use. CONCLUSIONS: Over one third of patients with cancer were seen in the ED within 6 months prior to their cancer diagnosis. Higher mortality rates were observed for those seen in the ED. Future studies are needed to investigate the association and impact that the ED has on eventual cancer diagnoses and outcomes.

Low Rates of Lung and Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Among a Safety-net Emergency Department Population.

INTRODUCTION: A suspected diagnosis of cancer through an emergency department (ED) visit is associated with poor clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore the rate at which ED patients attend cancer screenings for lung, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancers based on national guidelines set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Patients were randomly approached in the Eskenazi Hospital ED between August 2019-February 2020 and were surveyed to determine whether they would be eligible and had attended lung, CRC, and breast cancer screenings, as well as their awareness of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Patients who were English-speaking and ≥18 years old, and who were not critically ill or intoxicated or being seen for acute decompensated psychiatric illness were offered enrollment. Enrolled subjects were surveyed to determine eligibility for lung, colorectal, and breast cancer screenings based on guidelines set by the USPSTF. No cancer screenings were actually done during the ED visit. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients were enrolled in this study. More participants were female (54.4%), and a majority were Black (53.0%). Most participants had both insurance (80.2%) and access to primary care (62.8%). Among the entire cohort, 63.0% identified as smokers, and 62.2% (140/225) of the 50- to 80-year-old participants qualified for lung cancer screening. No patients were screened for lung cancer in this cohort (0/225). Only 0.6% (3/500) were aware that LDCT was the preferred method for screening. Based on pack years, 35.5% (32/90) of the patients who were 40-49 years old and 6.7% (6/90) of those 30-39 years old would eventually qualify for screening. Regarding CRC screening, 43.6% (218/500) of the entire cohort was eligible. However, of those patients only 54% (118/218) had been screened. Comparatively, 77.7% (87/112) of the eligible females had been screened for breast cancer, but only 54.5% (61/112) had been screened in the prior two years. CONCLUSION: Many ED patients are not screened for lung/colorectal/breast cancers even though many are eligible and have reported access to primary care. This study demonstrates an opportunity and a need to address cancer screening in the ED.

Recognizing the emergency department's role in oncologic care: a review of the literature on unplanned acute care.

Background: The global prevalence of cancer is rapidly increasing and will increase the acute care needs of patients with cancer, including emergency department (ED) care. Patients with cancer present to the ED across the cancer care continuum from diagnosis through treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life. This article describes the characteristics and determinants of ED visits, as well as challenges in the effort to define preventable ED visits in this population. Findings: The most recent population-based estimates suggest 4% of all ED visits are cancer-related and roughly two thirds of these ED visits result in hospitalization-a 4-fold higher ED hospitalization rate than the general population. Approximately 44% of cancer patients visit the ED within 1 year of diagnosis, and more often have repeat ED visits within a short time frame, though there is substantial variability across cancer types. Similar patterns of cancer-related ED use are observed internationally across a range of different national payment and health system settings. ED use for patients with cancer likely reflects a complex interaction of individual and contextual factors-including provider behavior, health system characteristics, and health policies-that warrants greater attention in the literature. Conclusions: Given the amount and complexity of cancer care delivered in the emergency setting, future research is recommended to examine specific symptoms associated with cancer-related ED visits, the contextual determinants of ED use, and definitions of preventable ED use specific to patients with cancer.

Oncologic emergencies and urgencies: A comprehensive review.

Patients with advanced cancer generate 4 million visits annually to emergency departments (EDs) and other dedicated, high-acuity oncology urgent care centers. Because of both the increasing complexity of systemic treatments overall and the higher rates of active therapy in the geriatric population, many patients experiencing acute decompensations are frail and acutely ill. This article comprehensively reviews the spectrum of oncologic emergencies and urgencies typically encountered in acute care settings. Presentation, underlying etiology, and up-to-date clinical pathways are discussed. Criteria for either a safe discharge to home or a transition of care to the inpatient oncology hospitalist team are emphasized. This review extends beyond familiar conditions such as febrile neutropenia, hypercalcemia, tumor lysis syndrome, malignant spinal cord compression, mechanical bowel obstruction, and breakthrough pain crises to include a broader spectrum of topics encompassing the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, venous thromboembolism and malignant effusions, as well as chemotherapy-induced mucositis, cardiomyopathy, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Emergent and urgent complications associated with targeted therapeutics, including small molecules, naked and drug-conjugated monoclonal antibodies, as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cells, are summarized. Finally, strategies for facilitating same-day direct admission to hospice from the ED are discussed. This article not only can serve as a point-of-care reference for the ED physician but also can assist outpatient oncologists as well as inpatient hospitalists in coordinating care around the ED visit.

Disparities in outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer in proximity to an emergency department visit.

A suspected diagnosis of cancer in the emergency department (ED) may be associated with poor outcomes, related to health disparities, however data are limited. This is a retrospective observational cohort of the Indiana State Department of Health Cancer Registry, and the Indiana Network for Patient Care. First time cancer diagnoses appearing in the registry between January 2013 and December 2017 were included. Cases identified as patients who had an ED visit in the 6 months before their cancer diagnosis; controls had no preceding ED visits. The primary outcome was mortality, comparing ED-associated mortality to non-ED-associated. 134,761 first-time cancer patients were identified, including 15,432 (11.5%) cases. The mean age was same at 65, more of the cases were Black than the controls (12.4% vs 7.4%, P < .0001) and more were low income (36.4%. vs 29.3%). The top 3 ED-associated cancer diagnoses were lung (18.4%), breast (8.9%), and colorectal cancers (8.9%), whereas the controls were breast (17%), lung (14.9%), and prostate cancers (10.1%). Cases observed an over three-fold higher mortality, with cumulative death rate of 32.9% for cases vs 9.0% for controls (P < .0001). Regression analysis predicting mortality, controlling for many confounders produced an odds ratio of 4.12 (95% CI 3.72-4.56 for cases). This study found that an ED visit within 6 months prior to the first time of ICD-coded cancer is associated with Black race, low income and an overall three-fold increased adjusted risk of death. The mortality rates for ED-associated cancers are uniformly worse for all cancer types. These data suggest that additional work is needed to reduce disparities among ED-associated cancer diagnoses.

Use of Adhesive Tape to Facilitate Optimal Mask Positioning and Use in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that placing a piece of surgical tape at the bridge of the nose over the mask will improve proper mask use among emergency department patients by creating a physical deterrent to mask removal. METHODS: This study was an open-label single-center randomized controlled trial of a simple intervention to improve mask use performed at Eskenazi Hospital between April 2020 and October 2020. We permitted participants to either use their own mask or the surgical/cloth mask that we provided. We then randomized the participants to either the control group (no tape over the mask/nose) or to the intervention group (tape placed over the face mask at the bridge of the nose). The primary outcome of this study was the frequency at which participants correctly wore their masks upon reevaluation at 60 minutes. A subgroup analysis based on the mask type compared adherence in those with a hospital-provided mask versus in those with a patient-supplied mask. RESULTS: We enrolled 123 participants in this trial. At 60 minutes, 100% of the intervention group participants were correctly wearing their masks versus 69% of control participants (absolute risk reduction, 31%; 95% CI, 19% to 43%; number needed to treat=3.2 patients). Subjects who were observed wearing their masks incorrectly exhibited some combination of either their mask removed or their nose and/or mouth exposed. Hospital-provided masks were not more likely to be worn correctly (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% CI, 0.9 to 12.3). CONCLUSION: Applying a piece of tape to a mask on the bridge of the nose affords a simple, low-cost, and low-risk solution that resulted in 100% of patients wearing their masks correctly at a 60-minute reevaluation.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults: A case in a previously healthy adult.

A 25-year-old previously healthy female presented to the emergency department (ED) with 5 days of rash, fevers, shortness of breath, and generalized weakness. She had presented to another ED 4 days previously and noted that her rash had improved, but her other symptoms were worsening. She had recovered from COVID-19, confirmed by positive antigen test 5 weeks prior. On ED arrival, she was afebrile and persistently tachycardic to a rate of 120 beats per minute, despite aggressive fluid resuscitation with 3L of IV crystalloid. She was found to have a troponin elevated to 0.06 ng/mL in addition to a d-dimer elevated to 1.42 mcg/mL FEU. She was admitted to the hospital where she developed hypotension requiring vasopressor support and was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed a newly reduced ejection fraction of 31%. She was diagnosed with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A). The patient received intravenous immunoglobulin and methylprednisolone 60 mg Q12 hours while admitted. She was discharged on hospital day 3 with a prednisone taper and is currently doing well at her most recent follow-up with infectious disease.

Multicenter Study of Outcomes Among Persons With HIV Who Presented to US Emergency Departments With Suspected SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to characterize patients with HIV with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SETTING: Multicenter registry of patients from 116 emergency departments in 27 US states. METHODS: Planned secondary analysis of patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2, with (n = 415) and without (n = 25,306) HIV. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient information and clinical characteristics by SARS-CoV-2 and HIV status. Unadjusted and multivariable models were used to explore factors associated with death, intubation, and hospital length of stay. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate survival by SARS-CoV-2 and HIV infection status. RESULTS: Patients with both SARS-CoV-2 and HIV and patients with SARS-CoV-2 but without HIV had similar admission rates (62.7% versus 58.6%, P = 0.24), hospitalization characteristics [eg, rates of admission to the intensive care unit from the emergency department (5.0% versus 6.3%, P = 0.45) and intubation (10% versus 13.3%, P = 0.17)], and rates of death (13.9% versus 15.1%, P = 0.65). They also had a similar cumulative risk of death (log-rank P = 0.72). However, patients with both HIV and SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with patients with HIV but without SAR-CoV-2 had worsened outcomes, including increased mortality (13.9% versus 5.1%, P < 0.01, log-rank P < 0.0001) and their deaths occurred sooner (median 11.5 versus 34 days, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among emergency department patients with HIV, clinical outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection are not worse when compared with patients without HIV, but SARS-CoV-2 infection increased the risk of death in patients with HIV.

Retrospective review of patients with lung cancer identified in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency department (ED) visit is associated with poor outcomes and advanced stage. Limited data is available from EDs in the United States. We describe a cohort of patients that obtained a diagnosis of lung cancer because of an ED visit. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective cohort of patients with lung cancer who presented to the ED between December 2016 and December 2019. We investigated demographics, access to primary care, previous cancer screening, cancer type/stage, mortality, and imaging study that suggested cancer. The primary outcome is the percentage of lung cancer diagnoses over a 4-year period that resulted from an ED visit. RESULTS: Among the 268 patients with lung cancer, 152 patients (57.6%) had presented to the ED with a workup that was concerning for lung cancer. Patients were generally elderly (median 62-years old), African American (n = 77, 51%), and smokers (n = 145, 95.4%) with a median smoking pack years of 40. Only 24 patients (15.8%) had seen a primary care physician within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 8 patients were appropriately screened for lung cancer. The most common type of cancer was non-small-cell carcinoma (111, 73.0%), with 61.3% of those being adenocarcinoma (n = 68). Patients were most likely to be stage IV (n = 86, 56.6%), and the overall mortality was 53.3% (n = 81, 1 year follow-up). Most patients (88/152, 57.9%) of patients were admitted to the hospital, and Medicare patients (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.37-5.23) and patients with stage IV disease (OR 2.22, 95% CI1.15-4.29) were more likely to be admitted. Patients were more likely to have a concerning finding on computed tomography (CT) versus chest x-ray (55.9% versus 36.8%, respectively). CT scan reports were more likely to mention malignancy (OR 5.9, 95% CI 2.5-14.0) or metastasis (OR 30, 95% CI 7.1-127.1) than chest x-ray. CONCLUSION: Patients that have lung cancer diagnosed through the ED are more likely to be advanced stage at time of diagnosis and are more likely to have CT scans demonstrate concerning findings. Given the lack of previous cancer screening, the advanced stage at presentation of lung cancer to the ED, and high mortality rates, the ED may serve a public health role in addressing lung cancer screening.