Comparison of Length of Stay Between Children Admitted to an Observation Versus Inpatient Unit.

OBJECTIVES: Many children who require hospitalization are ideal candidates for care in pediatric observation units (POUs) rather than inpatient pediatric units. Differences in outcomes between children cared for in these 2 practice settings have not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, children aged 0 to 18 years admitted to a POU at a community hospital or inpatient unit at a children's hospital were enrolled if they met specific clinical criteria. Information regarding the current illness, medical history, and hospital course was collected. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was analyzed as the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included conversion to inpatient care for the POU group and return to pediatric emergency department within 7 days. Subgroup analysis was conducted on children presenting with respiratory illnesses. Propensity scores were used as a predictor in the final model. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one admissions, 92 to POU and 89 to an inpatient unit, were analyzed. Mean LOS was 24.4 hours (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.7-27.1) for observation and 43.2 hours (95% CI, 37.8-48.6) for inpatient (P < 0.01). Among the 126 children admitted for respiratory illnesses, the mean LOS was 32.3 hours (95% CI, 26.0-38.6) for observation and 48.1 hours (95% CI, 42.2-54.0) for inpatient (P < 0.01). Survival analysis demonstrated a 1.61 (95% CI, 1.07-2.42) fold shorter time to discharge among children admitted to observation compared with inpatient (P = 0.02) and a 1.70 (95% CI, 1.07-2.71) fold shorter time to discharge from observation compared with inpatient for respiratory illnesses (P = 0.03). Within 7 days of discharge, 2 (2%) patients from the observation group and 1 (1%) from the inpatient group returned to the pediatric emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that POU may provide the means toward efficient care for children in community settings with illnesses requiring brief hospitalizations. Future work including prospective investigations is needed to ascertain the generalizability of these findings.

Testing a persuasive health communication intervention (PHCI) for emergency department patients who declined rapid HIV/HCV screening: a randomised controlled trial study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown that substantial percentages of emergency department (ED) patients in the USA recommended for HIV or hepatitis C (HCV) decline testing. Evidence-based and cost-effective interventions to improve HIV/HCV testing uptake are needed, particularly for people who inject drugs (PWIDs) (currently or formerly), who comprise a group at higher risk for these infections. We developed a brief persuasive health communication intervention (PHCI) designed to convince ED patients who had declined HIV/HCV testing to agree to be tested. In this investigation, we will determine if the PHCI is more efficacious in convincing ED patients to be tested for HIV/HCV when delivered by a video or in person, and whether efficacy is similar among individuals who currently, previously or never injected drugs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a multisite, randomised controlled trial comparing PHCIs delivered by video versus in person by a health educator to determine which delivery method convinces more ED patients who had declined HIV/HCV testing instead to be tested. We will stratify randomisation by PWID status (current, former or never/non-PWID) to permit analyses comparing the PHCI delivery method by injection-drug use history. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the interventions compared with current practice, examining the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the two interventions for the ED population overall and within individual strata of PWID. As an exploratory analysis, we will assess if a PHCI video with captions confers increased or decreased acceptance of HIV/HCV testing, as compared with a PHCI video without captions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the institutional review board of the Icahn School of Medicine. The results will be disseminated at international conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05968573.

Extended-Release 7-Day Injectable Buprenorphine for Patients With Minimal to Mild Opioid Withdrawal.

Importance: Buprenorphine is an effective yet underused treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Objective: To evaluate the feasibility (acceptability, tolerability, and safety) of 7-day injectable extended-release buprenorphine in patients with minimal to mild opioid withdrawal. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized trial comprising 4 emergency departments in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and Pacific geographic areas of the US included adults aged 18 years or older with moderate to severe OUD and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores less than 8 (minimal to mild), in which scores range from 0 to 7, with higher scores indicating increasing withdrawal. Exclusion criteria included methadone-positive urine, pregnancy, overdose, or required admission. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, daily for 7 days by telephone surveys, and in person at 7 days. Patient recruitment occurred between July 13, 2020, and May 25, 2023. Intervention: Injection of a 24-mg dose of a weekly extended-release formulation of buprenorphine (CAM2038) and referral for ongoing OUD care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary feasibility outcomes included the number of patients who (1) experienced a 5-point or greater increase in the COWS score or (2) transitioned to moderate or greater withdrawal (COWS score ≥13) within 4 hours of extended-release buprenorphine or (3) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 1 hour of extended-release buprenorphine. Secondary outcomes included injection pain, satisfaction, craving, use of nonprescribed opioids, adverse events, and engagement in OUD treatment. Results: A total of 100 adult patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 36.5 [8.7] years; 72% male). Among the patients, 10 (10.0% [95% CI, 4.9%-17.6%]) experienced a 5-point or greater increase in COWS and 7 (7.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-13.9%]) transitioned to moderate or greater withdrawal within 4 hours, and 2 (2.0% [95% CI, 0.2%-7.0%]) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 1 hour of extended-release buprenorphine. A total of 7 patients (7.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-13.9%]) experienced precipitated withdrawal within 4 hours of extended-release buprenorphine, which included 2 of 63 (3.2%) with a COWS score of 4 to 7 and 5 of 37 (13.5%) with a COWS score of 0 to 3. Site pain scores (based on a total pain score of 10, in which 0 indicated no pain and 10 was the worst possible pain) after injection were low immediately (median, 2.0; range, 0-10.0) and after 4 hours (median, 0; range, 0-10.0). On any given day among those who responded, between 29 (33%) and 31 (43%) patients reported no cravings and between 59 (78%) and 75 (85%) reported no use of opioids; 57 patients (60%) reported no days of opioid use. Improving privacy (62%) and not requiring daily medication (67%) were deemed extremely important. Seventy-three patients (73%) were engaged in OUD treatment on day 7. Five serious adverse events occurred that required hospitalization, of which 2 were associated with medication. Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized trial of the feasibility of a 7-day buprenorphine injectable in patients with minimal to mild opioid withdrawal (COWS scores, 0-7) found the formulation to be acceptable, well tolerated, and safe in those with COWS scores of 4 to 7. This new medication formulation could substantially increase the number of patients with OUD receiving buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04225598.