Disparities Associated With Electronic Behavioral Alerts for Safety and Violence Concerns in the Emergency Department.

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although electronic behavioral alerts are placed as an alert flag in the electronic health record to notify staff of previous behavioral and/or violent incidents in emergency departments (EDs), they have the potential to reinforce negative perceptions of patients and contribute to bias. We provide characterization of ED electronic behavioral alerts using electronic health record data across a large, regional health care system. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of adult patients presenting to 10 adult EDs within a Northeastern United States health care system from 2013 to 2022. Electronic behavioral alerts were manually screened for safety concerns and then categorized by the type of concern. In our patient-level analyses, we included patient data at the time of the first ED visit where an electronic behavioral alert was triggered or, if a patient had no electronic behavioral alerts, the earliest visit in the study period. We performed a mixed-effects regression analysis to identify patient-level risk factors associated with safety-related electronic behavioral alert deployment. RESULTS: Of the 2,932,870 ED visits, 6,775 (0.2%) had associated electronic behavioral alerts across 789 unique patients and 1,364 unique electronic behavioral alerts. Of the encounters with electronic behavioral alerts, 5,945 (88%) were adjudicated as having a safety concern involving 653 patients. In our patient-level analysis, the median age for patients with safety-related electronic behavioral alerts was 44 years (interquartile range 33 to 55 years), 66% were men, and 37% were Black. Visits with safety-related electronic behavioral alerts had higher rates of discontinuance of care (7.8% vs 1.5% with no alert; P<.001) as defined by the patient-directed discharge, left-without-being-seen, or elopement-type dispositions. The most common topics in the electronic behavioral alerts were physical (41%) or verbal (36%) incidents with staff or other patients. In the mixed-effects logistic analysis, Black non-Hispanic patients (vs White non-Hispanic patients adjusted odds ratio 2.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.13 to 3.17), aged younger than 45 (vs aged 45-64 years adjusted odds ratio 1.41; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.70), male (vs female adjusted odds ratio 2.09; 95% CI 1.76 to 2.49), and publicly insured patients (Medicaid adjusted odds ratio 6.18; 95% CI 4.58 to 8.36; Medicare adjusted odds ratio 5.63; 95% CI 3.96 to 8.00 vs commercial) were associated with a higher risk of a patient having at least 1 safety-related electronic behavioral alert deployment during the study period. CONCLUSION: In our analysis, younger, Black non-Hispanic, publicly insured, and male patients were at a higher risk of having an ED electronic behavioral alert. Although our study is not designed to reflect causality, electronic behavioral alerts may disproportionately affect care delivery and medical decisions for historically marginalized populations presenting to the ED, contribute to structural racism, and perpetuate systemic inequities.