A randomized trial of behavioral interventions yielding sustained reductions in distracted driving.

Distracted driving is responsible for nearly 1 million crashes each year in the United States alone, and a major source of driver distraction is handheld phone use. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of interventions designed to create sustained reductions in handheld use while driving (NCT04587609). Participants were 1,653 consenting Progressive® Snapshot® usage-based auto insurance customers ages 18 to 77 who averaged at least 2 min/h of handheld use while driving in the month prior to study invitation. They were randomly assigned to one of five arms for a 10-wk intervention period. Arm 1 (control) got education about the risks of handheld phone use, as did the other arms. Arm 2 got a free phone mount to facilitate hands-free use. Arm 3 got the mount plus a commitment exercise and tips for hands-free use. Arm 4 got the mount, commitment, and tips plus weekly goal gamification and social competition. Arm 5 was the same as Arm 4, plus offered behaviorally designed financial incentives. Postintervention, participants were monitored until the end of their insurance rating period, 25 to 65 d more. Outcome differences were measured using fractional logistic regression. Arm 4 participants, who received gamification and competition, reduced their handheld use by 20.5% relative to control (P < 0.001); Arm 5 participants, who additionally received financial incentives, reduced their use by 27.6% (P < 0.001). Both groups sustained these reductions through the end of their insurance rating period.

Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm Injury Rates by Race and Ethnicity in the United States, 2019 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in firearm injury death in the United States are well established. Less is known about the magnitude of nonfatal and total firearm injury. OBJECTIVE: To combine health care data with death certificate data to estimate total firearm injuries in various racial and ethnic groups. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Fatal injury data were collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data on nonfatal injuries were collected from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), a 20% stratified sample of U.S. emergency department visits, weighted to provide national estimates for the United States, 2019 to 2020. PARTICIPANTS: All firearm injuries and deaths in the United States. INTERVENTION: Race and ethnicity were classified into 5 mutually exclusive categories: Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and White. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes were used to classify firearm injury intent. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence of fatal and nonfatal injury in the U.S. population and case-fatality ratios (CFRs). RESULTS: There were 252 376 total firearm injuries, including 84 908 deaths from firearm injures. Of all firearm injuries, 37.8% were unintentional, 37.3% were assault related, 21.0% were self-harm, and 1.3% were law enforcement associated. Self-harm had the highest CFRs (90.9% overall). Unintentional injuries accounted for just 1021 (1.2%) deaths but 94 433 (56.4%) of nonfatal injuries. Rates of self-harm were highest among White persons (11.0 per 100 000 population in 2020) followed by Native Americans (8.6 per 100 000). Rates of assault were highest among Black persons (70.1 per 100 000), as were unintentional injuries (56.1 per 100 000). LIMITATION: Findings are limited by the accuracy of discharge coding in NEDS, particularly regarding injury intent and patient race and ethnicity. CONCLUSION: From 2019 to 2020, the total burden of firearm injuries amounts to an average of 1 injury every 4 minutes and 1 death every 12 minutes in the United States. Racial disparities in firearm injury death are mirrored in nonfatal injury. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Impact of Universal Screening and Automated Clinical Decision Support for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Emergency Departments: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine improves outcomes in patients with opioid use disorder; however, adoption varies widely. To reduce variability, we implemented a nurse-driven triage screening question in the electronic health record to identify patients with opioid use disorder, followed by targeted electronic health record prompts to measure withdrawal and guide next steps in management, including initiation of treatment. Our objective was to assess the impact of screening implementation in 3 urban, academic EDs. METHODS: We conducted a quasiexperimental study of opioid use disorder-related ED visits using electronic health record data from January 2020 to June 2022. The triage protocol was implemented in 3 EDs between March and July 2021, and 2 other EDs in the health system served as controls. We evaluated changes in treatment measures over time and used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare outcomes in the 3 intervention EDs with those in the 2 controls. RESULTS: There were 2,462 visits in the intervention hospitals (1,258 in the preperiod and 1,204 in the postperiod) and 731 in the control hospitals (459 in the preperiod and 272 in the postperiod). Patient characteristics within the intervention and control EDs were similar across the time periods. Compared with the control hospitals, the triage protocol was associated with a 17% greater increase in withdrawal assessment, using the Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) (95% CI 7 to 27). Buprenorphine prescriptions at discharge also increased by 5% (95% CI 0% to 10%), and naloxone prescriptions increased by 12% points (95% CI 1% to 22%) in the intervention EDs relative to controls. CONCLUSION: An ED triage screening and treatment protocol led to increased assessment and treatment of opioid use disorder. Protocols designed to make screening and treatment the default practice have promise in increasing the implementation of evidence-based treatment ED opioid use disorder care.

Variability in opioid use disorder clinical presentations and treatment in the emergency department: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence for emergency department (ED)-initiated treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). However, implementation is variable, and ED management of OUD may differ by clinical presentation. Our aim was to use mixed methods to explore variation in ED-based OUD care by patient clinical presentation and understand barriers and facilitators to ED implementation of OUD treatment across scenarios. METHODS: We analyzed treatment outcomes in OUD-related visits within three urban, academic EDs from 12/2018 to 7/2020 following the implementation of interventions to increase ED-initiated OUD treatment. We assessed differences in treatment with medications for OUD (MOUDs) by clinical presentation (overdose, withdrawal, others). These data were integrated with results from 5 focus groups conducted with 28 ED physicians and nurses January to April 2020 to provide a richer understanding of clinician perspectives on caring for ED patients with OUD. RESULTS: Of the 1339 total opioid-related visits, there were 265 (20%) visits for overdose, 123 (9%) for withdrawal, and 951 (71%) for other OUD-related conditions. 23% of patients received MOUDs during their visit or at discharge. Treatment with MOUDs was least common in overdose presentations (6%) and most common in withdrawal presentations (69%, p < 0.001). Buprenorphine was prescribed at discharge in 15% of visits, including 42% of withdrawal visits, 14% of other OUD-related visits, and 5% of overdose visits (p < 0.001). In focus groups, clinicians highlighted variation in ED presentations among patients with OUD. Clinicians also highlighted key aspects necessary for successful treatment initiation including perceived patient receptivity, provider confidence, and patient clinical readiness. CONCLUSIONS: ED-based treatment of OUD differed by clinical presentation. Clinician focus groups identified several areas where targeted guidance or novel approaches may improve current practices. These results highlight the need for tailored clinical guidance and can inform health system and policy interventions seeking to increase ED-initiated treatment for OUD.

Patient and clinician perspectives of a remote monitoring program for COVID-19 and lessons for future programs.

COVID Watch is a remote patient monitoring program implemented during the pandemic to support home dwelling patients with COVID-19. The program conferred a large survival advantage. We conducted semi-structured interviews of 85 patients and clinicians using COVID Watch to understand how to design such programs even better. Patients and clinicians found COVID Watch to be comforting and beneficial, but both groups desired more clarity about the purpose and timing of enrollment and alternatives to text-messages to adapt to patients' preferences as these may have limited engagement and enrollment among marginalized patient populations. Because inclusiveness and equity are important elements of programmatic success, future programs will need flexible and multi-channel human-to-human communication pathways for complex clinical interactions or for patients who do not desire tech-first approaches.

Comparative Effectiveness of an Automated Text Messaging Service for Monitoring COVID-19 at Home.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection can be safely managed at home, the need for hospitalization can arise suddenly. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether enrollment in an automated remote monitoring service for community-dwelling adults with COVID-19 at home ("COVID Watch") was associated with improved mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Mid-Atlantic academic health system in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 23 March and 30 November 2020. INTERVENTION: The COVID Watch service consists of twice-daily, automated text message check-ins with an option to report worsening symptoms at any time. All escalations were managed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by dedicated telemedicine clinicians. MEASUREMENTS: Thirty- and 60-day outcomes of patients enrolled in COVID Watch were compared with those of patients who were eligible to enroll but received usual care. The primary outcome was death at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Treatment effects were estimated with propensity score-weighted risk adjustment models. RESULTS: A total of 3488 patients enrolled in COVID Watch and 4377 usual care control participants were compared with propensity score weighted models. At 30 days, COVID Watch patients had an odds ratio for death of 0.32 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.72), with 1.8 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (CI, 0.5 to 3.1) (P = 0.005); at 60 days, the difference was 2.5 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (CI, 0.9 to 4.0) (P = 0.002). Patients in COVID Watch had more telemedicine encounters, ED visits, and hospitalizations and presented to the ED sooner (mean, 1.9 days sooner [CI, 0.9 to 2.9 days]; all P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Observational study with the potential for unobserved confounding. CONCLUSION: Enrollment of outpatients with COVID-19 in an automated remote monitoring service was associated with reduced mortality, potentially explained by more frequent telemedicine encounters and more frequent and earlier presentation to the ED. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Sustained Implementation of a Multicomponent Strategy to Increase Emergency Department-Initiated Interventions for Opioid Use Disorder.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There is strong evidence supporting emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, but less is known about how to implement this practice. Our aim was to describe implementation, maintenance, and provider adoption of a multicomponent strategy for opioid use disorder treatment in 3 urban, academic EDs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data for adult patients with opioid use disorder-related visits before (March 2017 to November 2018) and after (December 2018 to July 2020) implementation. We describe patient characteristics, clinical treatment, and process measures over time and conducted an interrupted time series analysis using a patient-level multivariable logistic regression model to assess the association of the interventions with buprenorphine use and other outcomes. Finally, we report provider-level variation in prescribing after implementation. RESULTS: There were 2,665 opioid use disorder-related visits during the study period: 28% for overdose, 8% for withdrawal, and 64% for other conditions. Thirteen percent of patients received medications for opioid use disorder during or after their ED visit overall. Following intervention implementation, there were sustained increases in treatment and process measures, with a net increase in total buprenorphine of 20% in the postperiod (95% confidence interval 16% to 23%). In the adjusted patient-level model, there was an immediate increase in the probability of buprenorphine treatment of 24.5% (95% confidence interval 12.1% to 37.0%) with intervention implementation. Seventy percent of providers wrote at least 1 buprenorphine prescription, but provider-level buprenorphine prescribing ranged from 0% to 61% of opioid use disorder-related encounters. CONCLUSION: A combination of strategies to increase ED-initiated opioid use disorder treatment was associated with sustained increases in treatment and process measures. However, adoption varied widely among providers, suggesting that additional strategies are needed for broader uptake.

Variation in emergency department visit rates for opioid use disorder: Implications for quality improvement initiatives.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency departments (ED) are critical touchpoints for encounters among patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), but implementation of ED initiated treatment and harm reduction programs has lagged. We describe national patient, visit and hospital-level characteristics of ED OUD visits and characterize EDs with high rates of OUD visits in order to inform policies to optimize ED OUD care. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional study with the 2017 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, using diagnostic and mechanism of injury codes from ICD-10 to identify OUD related visits. NEDS weights were applied to generate national estimates. We evaluated ED visit and clinical characteristics of all OUD encounters. We categorized hospitals into quartiles by rate of visits for OUD per 1000 ED visits and described the visit, clinical, and hospital characteristics across the four quartiles. RESULTS: In 2017, the weighted national estimate for OUD visits was 1,507,550. Overdoses accounted for 295,954. (19.6%) of visits. OUD visit rates were over 8× times higher among EDs in the highest quartile of OUD visit rate (22.9 per 1000 total ED visits) compared with EDs in the lowest quartile of OUD visit rate (2.7 per 1000 ED visits). Over three fifths (64.2%) of all OUD visits nationwide were seen by the hospitals in the highest quartile of OUD visit rate. These hospitals were predominantly in metropolitan areas (86.2%), over half were teaching hospitals (51.7%), and less than a quarter (23.3%) were Level 1 or Level 2 trauma centers. CONCLUSION: Targeting initial efforts of OUD care programs to high OUD visit rate EDs could improve care for a large portion of OUD patients utilizing emergency care.

The Impact of Socially Stigmatized Preexisting Conditions on Outcomes After Injury.

BACKGROUND: Socially stigmatized preexisting conditions (SSPECs), including alcohol use disorder (AUD), drug use disorder (DUD), and major psychiatric illness, may lead to provider minimization of patient symptoms and have been associated with negative outcomes. However, the impact of SSPECs on failure to rescue (FTR) has not been evaluated. We hypothesized that SSPEC patients would have increased probability of complications, mortality, and FTR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2015 National Trauma Data Bank, including patients aged ≥18 y and excluding burn victims, patients with Injury Severity Score <9, and non-SSPEC patients with drug or alcohol withdrawal. We defined SSPECs using the National Trauma Data Bank's comorbidity recording codes for AUD, DUD, and major psychiatric illnesses. We built multivariable logistic regression models to determine the relationships between SSPECs and complications, mortality, and FTR. RESULTS: We included 365,801 patients (62% male, 76% White, median age 56 y [interquartile range 35-74], median Injury Severity Score 10 [interquartile range 9-17]). After adjusting for patient and injury characteristics, SSPEC patients were more likely to have complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-1.79), less likely to die (OR 0.43, CI 0.38-0.48), and less likely to have FTR (OR 0.34, CI 0.26-0.43). SSPEC patients had a significantly higher complication rate (12.4% versus 7.2%; P < 0.001). After excluding drug or alcohol withdrawal, the complication rate remained significantly higher for SSPEC patients (9.3% versus 7.2%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although SSPEC patients have lower odds of mortality and FTR, they are at higher probability of complications after injury. Further investigation into the causality behind the higher complications despite lower mortality and FTR is warranted.