Evaluation of Children after Caregiver Intimate Partner Violence: A Qualitative Study of Barriers, Facilitators, and Trauma- and Violence-Informed Care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators of evaluating children exposed to caregiver intimate partner violence (IPV) and develop a strategy to optimize the evaluation. STUDY DESIGN: Using the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment) framework, we conducted qualitative interviews of 49 stakeholders, including emergency department clinicians (n = 18), child abuse pediatricians (n = 15), child protective services staff (n = 12), and caregivers who experienced IPV (n = 4), and reviewed meeting minutes of a family violence community advisory board (CAB). Researchers coded and analyzed interviews and CAB minutes using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. Codes were expanded and revised until a final structure emerged. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: (1) benefits of evaluation, including the opportunity to assess children for physical abuse and to engage caregivers; (2) barriers, including limited evidence about the risk of abuse in these children, burdening a resource-limited system, and the complexity of IPV; (3) facilitators, including collaboration between medical and IPV providers; and (4) recommendations for trauma- and violence-informed care (TVIC) in which a child's evaluation is leveraged to link caregivers with an IPV advocate to address the caregiver's needs. CONCLUSIONS: Routine evaluation of IPV-exposed children may lead to the detection of physical abuse and linkage to services for the child and the caregiver. Collaboration, improved data on the risk of child physical abuse in the context of IPV and implementation of TVIC may improve outcomes for families experiencing IPV.

Reflections on New Evidence on Crisis Standards of Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Crisis standards of care have been widely developed by healthcare systems and states in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in some rare cases have actually been used to allocate medical resources. All publicly available U.S. crisis standards of care with a mechanism for allocating scarce resources make use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in hopes of assigning scarce resources to those patients who are more likely to survive. We reflect on the growing body of evidence suggesting that the SOFA score has limited accuracy in predicting mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and that the SOFA score systematically disfavors Black patients. Use of the SOFA score for allocating scarce resources may therefore result in Black patients with equal likelihood of survival being deprived of life-saving medical resources. There is also a risk of injustice for patients with non-COVID-19 diagnoses, for whom the SOFA score may be a more accurate prognostic score, but who might nevertheless be unfairly (de)prioritized when assessed alongside COVID-19 patients using the same scoring system. For these reasons we recommend that the SOFA score not be used for triage purposes during the COVID pandemic, and that a national effort be made to develop and empirically test crisis standards of care in advance of the next public health emergency.

Developing a Triage Protocol for the COVID-19 Pandemic: Allocating Scarce Medical Resources in a Public Health Emergency.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has caused shortages of life-sustaining medical resources, and future waves of the virus may cause further scarcity. The Yale New Haven Health System developed a triage protocol to allocate scarce medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the primary goal of saving the most lives possible, and a secondary goal of making triage assessments and decisions consistent, transparent, and fair. We outline the process of developing the triage protocol, summarize the protocol itself, and discuss the major ethical challenges encountered, along with our answers to these challenges. These challenges include (1) the role of age and chronic comorbidities; (2) evaluating children and pregnant patients; (3) racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health; (4) prioritization of healthcare workers; and (5) balancing clinical judgment versus protocolized assessments. We conclude with a review of the limitations of our protocol and the lessons learned. We hope that a robust public discussion of such protocols and the ethical challenges that they raise will result in the fairest possible processes, less need for triage, and more lives saved during future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar public health emergencies.

Multiple Fentanyl Overdoses - New Haven, Connecticut, June 23, 2016.

On the evening of June 23, 2016, a white powder advertised as cocaine was purchased off the streets from multiple sources and used by an unknown number of persons in New Haven, Connecticut. During a period of less than 8 hours, 12 patients were brought to the emergency department (ED) at Yale New Haven Hospital, experiencing signs and symptoms consistent with opioid overdose. The route of intoxication was not known, but presumed to be insufflation ("snorting") in most cases. Some patients required doses of the opioid antidote naloxone exceeding 4 mg (usual initial dose = 0.1-0.2 mg intravenously), and several patients who were alert after receiving naloxone subsequently developed respiratory failure. Nine patients were admitted to the hospital, including four to the intensive care unit (ICU); three required endotracheal intubation, and one required continuous naloxone infusion. Three patients died. The white powder was determined to be fentanyl, a drug 50 times more potent than heroin, and it included trace amounts of cocaine. The episode triggered rapid notification of public health and law enforcement agencies, interviews of patients and their family members to trace and limit further use or distribution of the fentanyl, immediate naloxone resupply and augmentation for emergency medical services (EMS) crews, public health alerts, and plans to accelerate naloxone distribution to opioid users and their friends and families. Effective communication and timely, coordinated, collaborative actions of community partners reduced the harm caused by this event and prevented potential subsequent episodes.

Implementing a third-year emergency medicine medical student curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medicine (EM) is commonly introduced in the fourth year of medical school because of a perceived need to have more experienced students in the complex and dynamic environment of the emergency department. However, there is no evidence supporting the optimal time or duration for an EM rotation, and a number of institutions offer third-year rotations. OBJECTIVE: A recently published syllabus provides areas of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that third-year EM rotation directors can use to develop curricula. This article expands on that syllabus by providing a comprehensive curricular guide for the third-year medical student rotation with a focus on implementation. DISCUSSION: Included are consensus-derived learning objectives, discussion of educational methods, considerations for implementation, and information on feedback and evaluation as proposed by the Clerkship Directors in Emergency Medicine Third-Year Curriculum Work Group. External validation results, derived from a survey of third-year rotation directors, are provided in the form of a content validity index for each content area. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus-derived curricular guide can be used by faculty who are developing or revising a third-year EM medical student rotation and provide guidance for implementing this curriculum at their institution.

SOFA score performs worse than age for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19.

The use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, originally developed to describe disease morbidity, is commonly used to predict in-hospital mortality. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many protocols for crisis standards of care used the SOFA score to select patients to be deprioritized due to a low likelihood of survival. A prior study found that age outperformed the SOFA score for mortality prediction in patients with COVID-19, but was limited to a small cohort of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and did not address whether their findings were unique to patients with COVID-19. Moreover, it is not known how well these measures perform across races. In this retrospective study, we compare the performance of age and SOFA score in predicting in-hospital mortality across two cohorts: a cohort of 2,648 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were admitted to a large academic health system in the northeastern United States over a 4-month period in 2020 and a cohort of 75,601 patients admitted to one of 335 ICUs in the eICU database between 2014 and 2015. We used age and the maximum SOFA score as predictor variables in separate univariate logistic regression models for in-hospital mortality and calculated area under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AU-ROCs) and area under precision-recall curves (AU-PRCs) for each predictor in both cohorts. Among the COVID-19 cohort, age (AU-ROC 0.795, 95% CI 0.762, 0.828) had a significantly better discrimination than SOFA score (AU-ROC 0.679, 95% CI 0.638, 0.721) for mortality prediction. Conversely, age (AU-ROC 0.628 95% CI 0.608, 0.628) underperformed compared to SOFA score (AU-ROC 0.735, 95% CI 0.726, 0.745) in non-COVID-19 ICU patients in the eICU database. There was no difference between Black and White COVID-19 patients in performance of either age or SOFA Score. Our findings bring into question the utility of SOFA score-based resource allocation in COVID-19 crisis standards of care.

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA and viable virus contamination of hospital emergency department surfaces and association with patient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) status and aerosol-generating procedures.

Emergency departments are high-risk settings for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) surface contamination. Environmental surface samples were obtained in rooms with patients suspected of having COVID-19 who did or did not undergo aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). SARS-CoV-2 RNA surface contamination was most frequent in rooms occupied by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients who received no AGPs.

The revolving hospital door: hospital readmissions among patients who are homeless.

BACKGROUND: National attention is increasingly focused on hospital readmissions. Little prior research has examined readmissions among patients who are homeless. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine 30-day hospital readmission rates among patients who are homeless and examine factors associated with hospital readmissions in this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who were homeless and hospitalized at a single urban hospital from May-August 2012. Homelessness was identified by an electronic medical record flag and confirmed by manual chart review. The primary outcome was all-cause hospital readmission to the study hospital within 30 days of hospital discharge. Patient-level and hospitalization-level factors associated with risk for readmission were examined using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: There were 113 unique patients who were homeless and admitted to the hospital a total of 266 times during the study period. The mean age was 49 years, 27.4% of patients were women, and 75.2% had Medicaid. Half (50.8%) of all hospitalizations resulted in a 30-day hospital inpatient readmission and 70.3% resulted in either an inpatient readmission, observation status stay, or emergency department visit within 30 days of hospital discharge. Most readmissions occurred early after hospital discharge (53.9% within 1 week, 74.8% within 2 weeks). Discharge to the streets or shelter versus other living situations was associated with increased risk for readmission in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were homeless had strikingly high 30-day hospital readmission rates. These findings suggest the urgent need for further research and interventions to improve postdischarge care for patients who are homeless.

Intimate partner violence screening during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency Department (ED) screening for intimate partner violence (IPV) is typically nursing-initiated, often with visitors present. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen both an increase in societal stress, a known exacerbator of IPV, and the implementation of visitor restriction policies. This combination presents the need for enhanced IPV screening and the opportunity to perform screening in a controlled, patient-only environment. Our goal was to evaluate the frequency of nurse-initiated screening for IPV prior to and during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the frequency of positive screens for IPV. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study evaluating all adults (age >18 years) presenting to a tertiary care center ED. Patients were identified as presenting prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (June 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019) and after the COVID-19 visitor restriction policies (June 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020). Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square and t-tests compared the demographic variables. Chi-square was used for a bivariate analysis of our primary outcomes (IPV screening performed and screening positive for IPV). Further analysis was done using a binary logistic regression model adjusting for the demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Both the odds of nursing-initiated IPV screening and the odds of verbally screening positive for IPV significantly increased (OR 1.509, 95% CI 1.432-1.600) and (OR 1.375, 95% CI 1.126-1.681) respectively following the implementation of COVID-19 visitor restriction policies. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that nurse-initiated IPV screening should continue to be performed with the patient privately, even after COVID-19 related ED visitor restrictions are removed. These findings also support the hypothesis that the stress related to COVID-19 is contributing to a rise in IPV.

Child safety assessments during a caregiver's evaluation in emergency departments after intimate partner violence.

BACKGROUND: Physical abuse of children is reported to occur in 30%-60% of homes with intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV in adult victims presenting to emergency departments (EDs) represents a critical opportunity to evaluate for child safety. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine the frequency of child safety assessments (CSAs), defined as any documented inquiry about the presence of children in the household, when adults presented to EDs for IPV. The secondary aims were to assess (1) the impact of demographic factors, ED type, and social work (SW) involvement on the likelihood of CSAs; (2) the nature of children's exposure; and (3) the frequency of child protective services (CPS) reports. METHODS: We performed a chart review of encounters with ICD-10-CM codes for patients aged 18-60 with IPV presenting to three EDs in Connecticut from 2017 through 2019. RESULTS: CSAs were completed in 179/277 encounters (78.9%) and were more likely to be completed in encounters with SW involvement than without (162/171 [94.7%] vs. 17/56 [30.3%], p < 0.001). A total of 143 children lived in the home at the time of the incident; of the 107 children for whom the nature of exposure was known, 10 (9.3%) were physically involved and 26 (24.2%) were direct witnesses to the violence. CPS reports were made in 52.4% of the encounters in which children lived in the home. CONCLUSIONS: CSAs were omitted in one-fifth of encounters for IPV. Given the high prevalence of children involved in IPV episodes, ED encounters for IPV represent an opportunity to improve the safety of children.

Mapping the future for research in emergency medicine palliative care: A research roadmap.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of emergency medicine (EM) and palliative care (PC) has been recognized as an essential area of focus, with evidence suggesting that increased integration improves outcomes. This has resulted in increased research in EM PC. No current framework exists to help guide investigation and innovation. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to convene a working group to develop a roadmap that would help provide focus and prioritization for future research. METHODS: Participants were identified based on clinical, operation, policy, and research expertise in both EM and PC and spanned physician, nursing, social work, and patient perspectives. The research roadmap setting process consisted of three distinct phases that were time staggered over 12 months and facilitated through three live video convenings, asynchronous input via an online document, and a series of smaller video convenings of work groups focused on specific topics. RESULTS: Gaps in the literature were identified and informed the four key areas for future research. Consensus was reached on these domains and the associated research questions in each domain to help guide future study. The key domains included work focused on the value imperative for PC in the emergency setting, models of care delivery, disparities, and measurement of impact and efficacy. Additionally, the group identified key methodological considerations for doing work at the intersection of EM and PC. CONCLUSIONS: There are several key domains and associated questions that can help guide future research in ED PC. Focus on these areas, and answering these questions, offers the potential to improve the emergency care of patients with PC needs.

Development and usability evaluation of VOICES: A digital health tool to identify elder mistreatment.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: A major barrier for society in overcoming elder mistreatment is an inability to accurately identify victims. There are several barriers to self-reporting elder mistreatment, including fear of nursing home placement or losing autonomy or a caregiver. Existing strategies to identify elder mistreatment neglect to empower those who experience it with tools for self-reporting. In this project, we developed and evaluated the usability of VOICES, a self-administrated digital health tool that screens, educates, and motivates older adults to self-report elder mistreatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with User-Centered Design (UCD) approach. SETTING: Yale School of Medicine and the Agency on Aging of South-Central Connecticut. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty eight community-dwelling and cognitively intact older adults aged 60 years and older, caregivers, clinicians, and social workers. INTERVENTION: A tablet-based self-administrated digital health tool that screens, educates, and motivates older adults to self-report elder mistreatment. MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained from: (1) focus groups participants including: feedback from open-ended discussion, demographics, and a post-session survey; (2) usability evaluation including: demographics, usability measures, comfortability with technology, emotional state, and open-ended feedback. RESULTS: Focus group participants (n = 24) generally favored using a tablet-based tool to screen for elder mistreatment and expressed comfort answering questions on elder mistreatment using tablets. Usability evaluation participants (n = 14) overall scored VOICES a mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score of 86.6 (median = 88.8), higher than the benchmark SUS score of 68, indicating excellent ease of use. In addition, 93% stated that they would recommend the VOICES tool to others and 100% indicated understanding of VOICES' information and content. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that older adults are capable, willing, and comfortable with using the innovative and self-administrated digital tool for elder mistreatment screening. Our future plan is to conduct a feasibility study to evaluate the use of VOICES in identifying suspicion of mistreatment.

Perceptions of older adults and health professionals about digital screening tools for elder mistreatment in the emergency department.

Background: Healthcare settings represent a missed opportunity to systematically identify and address mistreatment. Objective: Our objective was to obtain perspectives of older adults, caregivers, and emergency care providers regarding screening and intervention for elder mistreatment in the emergency department (ED) with a focus on utilizing digital health tools to facilitate the process. These findings will inform the development of a Web-based, digital health tool optimized for a tablet device to educate, screen, and facilitate reporting of elder mistreatment among patients presenting to the ED. Method: We conducted a qualitative study utilizing three in-person focus groups (N=31) with older adults from the community, caregivers for older adults, and clinicians and social workers who worked in the ED. Using a semi-structured interview guide, we identified attitudes about the process of divulging abuse, attitudes towards the ED as the location for screening and information delivery, and perceptions of digital tools for screening and information. Results: Participants identified numerous challenges to the disclosure of mistreatment, including feelings of vulnerability and concerns about losing their homes, social supports, and connection to caregivers. In contrast, they were uncertain about the benefits of disclosure. Digital tools were seen as helpful in terms of overcoming numerous challenges to screening, but participants suggested maintaining a human element to interactions. Conclusion: While challenges to elder mistreatment screening were identified, participants had recommendations for optimizing such efforts and responded positively to digital health tools as a means of screening.

The potential impact of triage protocols on racial disparities in clinical outcomes among COVID-positive patients in a large academic healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact in the United States, particularly for Black populations, and has heavily burdened the healthcare system. Hospitals have created protocols to allocate limited resources, but there is concern that these protocols will exacerbate disparities. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score is a tool often used in triage protocols. In these protocols, patients with higher SOFA scores are denied resources based on the assumption that they have worse clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess whether using SOFA score as a triage tool among COVID-positive patients would exacerbate racial disparities in clinical outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed data from a retrospective cohort of hospitalized COVID-positive patients in the Yale-New Haven Health System. We examined associations between race/ethnicity and peak overall/24-hour SOFA score, in-hospital mortality, and ICU admission. Other predictors of interest were age, sex, primary language, and insurance status. We used one-way ANOVA and chi-square tests to assess differences in SOFA score across racial/ethnic groups and linear and logistic regression to assess differences in clinical outcomes by sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Our final sample included 2,554 patients. Black patients had higher SOFA scores compared to patients of other races. However, Black patients did not have significantly greater in-hospital mortality or ICU admission compared to patients of other races. CONCLUSION: While Black patients in this sample of hospitalized COVID-positive patients had higher SOFA scores compared to patients of other races, this did not translate to higher in-hospital mortality or ICU admission. Results demonstrate that if SOFA score had been used to allocate care, Black COVID patients would have been denied care despite having similar clinical outcomes to white patients. Therefore, using SOFA score to allocate resources has the potential to exacerbate racial inequities by disproportionately denying care to Black patients and should not be used to determine access to care. Healthcare systems must develop and use COVID-19 triage protocols that prioritize equity.

Miscarriage determination in first trimester based on alpha-fetoprotein extracted from sanitary pads.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if high alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level in vaginal blood collected on a sanitary pad can assist with detecting an active miscarriage. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENT(S): Five groups were evaluated: women with active miscarriage, pregnancy of unknown location, completed miscarriage or extrauterine pregnancy (EUP), ongoing pregnancy, and undergoing elective dilation and curettage (D&C). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): For each patient, AFP level in the vaginal blood collected on a sanitary pad was quantified. RESULT(S): The vaginal blood AFP median levels (and their ranges) were 3.7 IU/mL (0.5-739.2) and 4,542 IU/mL (15.6-100,000) in the active miscarriage (n = 16) and the elective D&C (n = 24) groups, respectively. Alpha-fetoprotein was detected in all elective D&C and active miscarriage cases except in 1 case. In the ongoing pregnancy group (n = 35), only 2 of 35 specimens showed detectable AFP levels. In the pregnancy of unknown location (n = 12) and the completed miscarriage or EUP (n = 10) groups, no AFP was detected. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated 93.7% sensitivity and 97.8% specificity for the detection of an active miscarriage (cutoff 0.61 IU/mL; area under the curve 0.96). CONCLUSION(S): Alpha-fetoprotein can be extracted from vaginal blood collected on sanitary pads. A high level of vaginal AFP can assist with the same-day detection of an active miscarriage. This novel test is useful in differentiating active miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies, completed miscarriages, and EUPs and, therefore, it reduces uncertainty, anxiety level, and number of repeat office visits.

Racial disparities in the SOFA score among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score predicts probability of in-hospital mortality. Many crisis standards of care suggest the use of SOFA scores to allocate medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are SOFA scores elevated among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared to Non-Hispanic White patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study conducted in Yale New Haven Health System, including 5 hospitals with total of 2681 beds. Study population drawn from consecutive patients aged ≥18 admitted with COVID-19 from March 29th to August 1st, 2020. Patients excluded from the analysis if not their first admission with COVID-19, if they did not have SOFA score recorded within 24 hours of admission, if race and ethnicity data were not Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic White, or Hispanic, or if they had other missing data. The primary outcome was SOFA score, with peak score within 24 hours of admission dichotomized as <6 or ≥6. RESULTS: Of 2982 patients admitted with COVID-19, 2320 met inclusion criteria and were analyzed, of whom 1058 (45.6%) were Non-Hispanic White, 645 (27.8%) were Hispanic, and 617 (26.6%) were Non-Hispanic Black. Median age was 65.0 and 1226 (52.8%) were female. In univariate logistic screen and in full multivariate model, Non-Hispanic Black patients but not Hispanic patients had greater odds of an elevated SOFA score ≥6 when compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.11-1.99). INTERPRETATION: Given current unequal patterns in social determinants of health, US crisis standards of care utilizing the SOFA score to allocate medical resources would be more likely to deny these resources to Non-Hispanic Black patients.

Is palliative care cost-effective in low-income and middle-income countries? A mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Of the 40 million people globally in need of palliative care (PC), just 14% receive it, predominantly in high-income countries. Within fragile health systems that lack PC, incurable illness is often marked by pain and suffering, as well as burdensome costs. In high-income settings, PC decreases healthcare utilisation, thus enhancing value. Similar cost-effectiveness models are lacking in low-income and middle-income countries and with them, the impetus and funding to expand PC delivery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of seven databases to gather evidence of the cost-effectiveness of PC in low-income and middle-income countries. We extracted and synthesised palliative outcomes and economic data from original research studies occurring in low-income and middle-income countries. This review adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and includes a quality appraisal. RESULTS: Our search identified 10 eligible papers that included palliative and economic outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries. Four provided true cost-effectiveness analyses in comparing the costs of PC versus alternative care, with PC offering cost savings, favourable palliative outcomes and positive patient-reported and family-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small number of included studies, wide variety of study types and lack of high-quality studies, several patterns emerged: (1) low-cost PC delivery in low-income and middle-income countries is possible, (2) patient-reported outcomes are favourable and (3) PC is less costly than the alternative. This review highlights the extraordinary need for robust cost-effectiveness analysis of PC in low-income and middle-income countries in order to develop health economic models for the delivery of PC, direct resource allocation and guide healthcare policy for PC delivery in low-income and middle-income countries.