Mpox Surveillance Based on Rash Characteristics - 13 Emergency Departments, United States, June-December 2023.

In 2022, a global mpox outbreak occurred, primarily affecting gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (GBMSM). To screen for mpox's reemergence and investigate potentially unsuspected cases among non-GBMSM, prospective surveillance of patients aged ≥3 months with an mpox-compatible rash (vesicular, pustular, ulcerated, or crusted) was conducted at 13 U.S. emergency departments (EDs) during June-December 2023. Demographic, historical, and illness characteristics were collected using questionnaires and electronic health records. Lesions were tested for monkeypox virus using polymerase chain reaction. Among 196 enrolled persons, the median age was 37.5 years (IQR = 21.0-53.5 years); 39 (19.9%) were aged <16 years, and 108 (55.1%) were male. Among all enrollees, 13 (6.6%) were GBMSM. Overall, approximately one half (46.4%) and one quarter (23.5%) of enrolled persons were non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black or African American, respectively, and 38.8% reported Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) ethnicity. Unstable housing was reported by 21 (10.7%) enrollees, and 24 (12.2%) lacked health insurance. The prevalence of mpox among ED patients evaluated for an mpox-compatible rash was 1.5% (95% CI = 0.3%-4.4%); all persons with a confirmed mpox diagnosis identified as GBMSM and reported being HIV-negative, not being vaccinated against mpox, and having engaged in sex with one or more partners met through smartphone dating applications. No cases were identified among women, children, or unhoused persons. Clinicians should remain vigilant for mpox and educate persons at risk for mpox about modifying behaviors that increase risk and the importance of receiving 2 appropriately spaced doses of JYNNEOS vaccine to prevent mpox.

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Undocumented Latinx Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

This cross-sectional study examines COVID-19 infection status, vaccination uptake, and perceptions about the vaccine among Latinx patients presenting to the emergency department in California.

Facemasks: Perceptions and use in an ED population during COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Facemask use is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most surveys assessing perceptions and practices of mask use miss the most vulnerable racial, ethnic, and socio-economic populations. These same populations have suffered disproportionate impacts from the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, access, and practices of mask wearing across 15 urban emergency department (ED) populations. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of ED patients from December 2020 to March 2021 at 15 geographically diverse, safety net EDs across the US. The primary outcome was frequency of mask use outside the home and around others. Other outcome measures included having enough masks and difficulty obtaining them. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89%) agreed to participate; nine had missing data pertaining to the primary outcome, leaving 2,292 included in the final analysis. A total of 79% of respondents reported wearing masks "all of the time" and 96% reported wearing masks over half the time. Subjects with PCPs were more likely to report wearing masks over half the time compared to those without PCPs (97% vs 92%). Individuals experiencing homelessness were less likely to wear a mask over half the time compared to those who were housed (81% vs 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Study participants reported high rates of facemask use. Respondents who did not have PCPs and those who were homeless were less likely to report wearing a mask over half the time and more likely to report barriers in obtaining masks. The ED may serve a critical role in education regarding, and provision of, masks for vulnerable populations.

The Rapid Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination in Emergency Departments for Underserved Patients Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSION: ED 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.

Anti-immigrant Rhetoric and the Experiences of Latino Immigrants in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Anti-immigrant rhetoric and increased enforcement of immigration laws have induced worry and safety concerns among undocumented Latino immigrants (UDLI) and legal Latino residents/citizens (LLRC), with some delaying the time to care. In this study, we conducted a qualitative analysis of statements made by emergency department (ED) patients - a majority of whom were UDLI and LLRC - participating in a study to better understand their experiences and fears with regard to anti-immigrant rhetoric, immigration enforcement, and ED utilization. METHODS: We conducted a multi-site study, surveying patients in three California safety-net EDs serving large immigrant populations from June 2017-December 2018. Of 1684 patients approached, 1337 (79.4%) agreed to participate; when given the option to provide open-ended comments, 260 participants provided perspectives about their experiences during the years immediately following the 2016 United States presidential election. We analyzed these qualitative data using constructivist grounded theory. RESULTS: We analyzed comments from 260 individuals. Among ED patients who provided qualitative data, 59% were women and their median age was 45 years (Interquartile range 33-57 years). Undocumented Latino immigrants comprised 49%, 31% were LLRC, and 20% were non-Latino legal residents. As their primary language, 68% spoke Spanish. We identified six themes: fear as a barrier to care (especially for UDLI); the negative impact of fear on health and wellness (physical and mental health, delays in care); factors influencing fear (eg, media coverage); and future solutions, including the need for increased communication about rights. CONCLUSION: Anti-immigrant rhetoric during the 2016 US presidential campaign contributed to fear and safety concerns among UDLI and LLRC accessing healthcare. This is one of the few studies that captured firsthand experiences of UDLI in the ED. Our findings revealed fear-based barriers to accessing emergency care, protective and contributing factors to fear, and the negative impact of fear. There is a need for increased culturally informed patient communication about rights and resources, strategic media campaigns, and improved access to healthcare for undocumented individuals.

Fear of discovery as a deterrent to undocumented Latinx immigrants' reporting of crimes and the effects of political rhetoric.

OBJECTIVES: Comparing undocumented Latinx immigrants (UDLI), Latinx citizens/residents (LCR), and non-Latinx citizens/residents (NLCR), we sought to assess rates of crime victimization, fear of reporting crimes, causes of this fear, and whether political rhetoric from the U.S. President had changed the reporting of crimes. METHODS: From October 2018 to February 2020, we conducted this in-person survey study, enrolling similar numbers of UDLI, LCR, and NLCR patients at two urban county hospital emergency departments (EDs) in San Francisco and Oakland, California. Our primary outcomes were responses to key survey questions regarding crime victimization, fear of reporting crimes and the effects of anti-immigrant rhetoric on reporting crimes. RESULTS: Of 667 patients approached, 531 (80%) participated and six participants were excluded: 165 (31.3%) were UDLI, 183 (34.7%) were LCR, and 177 (33.6%) were NLCR. Similar percentages of UDLI (34%), LCR (32%), and NLCR (39%) knew of someone (themselves, friends, or family) who was a victim of a crime. Similar percentages of UDLI (41%), LCR (46%), and NLCR (41%) stated that these victims were afraid to report this crime to the police. The primary reason for this fear in UDLI was fear of discovery and deportation (30%). Similar percentages of UDLI (63%), LCR (58%), and NLCR (46%) ultimately reported the crime to the police. Most (85%) respondents had heard the U.S. President's statements about measures against immigrants; 54% reported that they believe that because of these statements, people are more afraid to report a crime to the police. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of reporting crimes is common in ED patients. The most common fear in UDLI is fear of discovery and deportation. Political rhetoric against immigrants contributes to this fear.

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Text Message-Based Intervention to Reduce Overuse of Alcohol in Emergency Department Patients: Controlled Proof-of-Concept Trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) patients have high rates of risky alcohol use, and an ED visit offers an opportunity to intervene. ED-based screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) reduces alcohol use and health care costs. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may expand the impact of SBIRTs but are understudied in low-resource ED populations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of and patient satisfaction with a text-based mHealth extension of an ED screening program to reduce risky alcohol use in low-income, urban patients. METHODS: Research assistants screened a convenience sample of ED patients in person for risky alcohol use via the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Patients who reported AUDIT scores ≥8 and <20 were informed of their AUDIT score and risk. RAs invited patients with SMS text message-capable phones to receive mROAD (mobilizing to Reduce Overuse of Alcohol in the ED), an SMS text message-based extension of the ED screening program. mROAD is a 7-day program of twice-daily SMS text messages based on the National Institutes of Health's Rethinking Drinking campaign. Participants were allocated to a control group (daily sham text messages without specific guidance on behaviors, such as "Thanks for taking part!") or to the mROAD intervention group. Patients were interviewed at 30 days to assess acceptability, satisfaction, and changes in drinking behavior. Satisfaction was examined descriptively. Pre and post measurements of drinking behaviors and motivation were compared, as were differences in change scores between the intervention arms. RESULTS: Of 1028 patients screened, 95 (9.2%) exhibited risky alcohol use based on AUDIT, and 23/95 (24%) of those patients did not own an SMS text messaging-capable phone; this left 72/95 (76%) eligible patients. Among eligible participants, 48/72 (67%) agreed to enroll; 31/48 (65%) achieved follow-up (18/24 (75%) in the intervention group and 13/24 (55%) in the control group). Participants who completed follow-up reported high satisfaction. Changes in behavior were similar between the arms. Overall, the number of drinking days reported in the prior 30 days decreased by 5.0 (95% CI 1.7-8.3; P=.004), and the number of heavy drinking days decreased by 4.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 7.15, P=.01). Patients reported an 11-point increase (95% CI 2.6-20, P=.01, 10% overall increase) in motivation to change alcohol use via the Change Questionnaire. The were no statistical differences in drinking days, heavy drinking days, or motivation to change between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: The mROAD trial was feasible. Over three-quarters of ED patients with risky alcohol use owned a text message-capable phone, and two-thirds of these patients were willing to participate; only 1 patient opted out of the intervention. Although 35% of patients were lost to follow-up at 30 days, those patients who did follow up had favorable impressions of the program; more than 90% reported that SMS text messages were a "good way to teach," and 89% of intervention arm participants enjoyed the program and found that the messages were motivating. Both the mROAD and sham message groups showed promising changes in alcohol use and motivation to change. mROAD is a feasible intervention that may reduce rates of risky alcohol use in ED patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02158949; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02158949.

Declared impact of the US President's statements and campaign statements on Latino populations' perceptions of safety and emergency care access.

Statements about building walls, deportation and denying services to undocumented immigrants made during President Trump's presidential campaign and presidency may induce fear in Latino populations and create barriers to their health care access. To assess how these statements relate to undocumented Latino immigrants' (UDLI) and Latino legal residents/citizens' (LLRC) perceptions of safety and their presentations for emergency care, we conducted surveys of adult patients at three county emergency departments (EDs) in California from June 2017 to December 2018. Of 1,684 patients approached, 1,337 (79.4%) agreed to participate: 34.3% UDLI, 36.9% LLRC, and 29.8% non-Latino legal residents/citizens (NLRC). The vast majority of UDLI (95%), LLRC (94%) and NLRC (85%) had heard statements about immigrants. Most UDLI (89%), LLRC (88%) and NLRC (87%) either thought that these measures were being enacted now or will be enacted in the future. Most UDLI and half of LLRC reported that these statements made them feel unsafe living in the US, 75% (95% CI 70-80%) and 51% (95% CI 47-56%), respectively. More UDLI reported that these statements made them afraid to come to the ED (24%, 95% CI 20-28%) vs LLRC (4.4%, 95% CI 3-7%) and NLRC (3.5%, 95% CI 2-6%); 55% of UDLI with this fear stated it caused them to delay coming to the ED (median delay 2-3 days). The vast majority of patients in our California EDs have heard statements during the 2016 presidential campaign or from President Trump about measures against undocumented immigrants, which have induced worry and safety concerns in both UDLI and LLRC patients. Exposure to these statements was also associated with fear of accessing emergency care in some UDLIs. Given California's sanctuary state status, these safety concerns and ED access fears may be greater in a nationwide population of Latinos.

Fear of discovery among Latino immigrants presenting to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Recent legislation mandating reporting of undocumented immigrants may instill fear of discovery when they access emergency department (ED) services. The objectives of this study were to: 1) characterize the knowledge and beliefs of undocumented Latino immigrants (UDLI) about health care workers' reporting (or nonreporting) of illegal immigrants in the ED, 2) determine whether UDLI fear discovery when presenting to the ED, and 3) determine the nature and sources of this fear. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of UDLI and two comparison groups conducted in two California county EDs, from November 2009 to August 2010. The authors interviewed a convenience sample of adult UDLI, Latino legal residents (LLR), and non-Latino legal residents (NLLR) using a structured instrument in their native language. The main outcome was fear of discovery among UDLI and the sources of that fear. RESULTS: Of 1,224 patients approached, 1,007 (82.3%) were interviewed: 314 UDLI, 373 LLR, and 320 NLLR. The median age was 43 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 31 to 55 years), and 51% were male. UDLIs were less likely to speak English (14%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10% to 18%), have health insurance (39%, 95% CI 32% to 44%), or have a regular primary care provider (PCP; 39%, 95% CI = 34% to 45%), compared to LLR (English 56%, 95% CI = 51% to 61%; health insurance 50%, 95% CI = 45% to 55%; regular PCP 51%, 95% = CI 46% to 57%) and NLLR (English 95%, 95% CI = 92% to 97%; health insurance 49%, 95% CI = 43% to 54%; regular PCP 51%, 95% CI = 45% to 56%). Of the 16% of UDLI who stated that nurses and doctors treat undocumented immigrant patients differently than citizens, 41% (95% CI = 29% to 54%) reported less respect given to UDLI by staff. Thirty-two percent of UDLI had heard of Proposition 187, 13% believed hospital staff reported UDLI to immigration authorities, and 9% said they were asked about their citizenship status. Fear of coming to the hospital because of discovery was expressed by 12% (95% CI = 9% to 16%) of UDLI, with 42% (95% CI = 28% to 58%) citing discussions with friends/family, 32% (95% CI = 19% to 47%) citing media and 16% (95% CI = 7% to 30%) citing both as sources of this fear. CONCLUSIONS: One in eight of UDLI presenting to the ED express fear of discovery and consequent deportation. Belief that medical staff report UDLI and recent immigration are risk factors for this fear. Family, friends, and media are the primary sources of these concerns.