Implementation of Electronic Health Record Integration and Clinical Decision Support to Improve Emergency Department Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S): To evaluate the implementation of 3 electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions to increase prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) use in the emergency department (ED): EHR-PDMP integration, addition of a PDMP risk score, and addition of EHR-based clinical decision support alert to review the PDMP when prescribing an opioid. METHODS: Three intervention stages were implemented using a prospective stepped-wedge design at 5 university-affiliated EDs split into 3 practice groups. The PDMP use and prescribing rates during the 3 stages were compared with baseline before EHR integration and a sustainability stage where the clinical decision support alert was removed, but EHR integration and risk score remained. Generalized linear mixed model with logit link function and a random intercept for clinicians was analyzed. RESULTS: The ED provider PDMP review before opioid prescribing was low in all stages. The highest review rate occurred during interruptive clinical decision support alerts, 23.8% (interquartile range 10.6 to 37.5). Overall, opioid prescribing declined, and PDMP review was not associated with a decrease in opioid prescribing. PDMP review was associated with a reduction in the probability of prescribing an opioid as the number of prior opioid prescriptions increased (odds ratio: 0.92 [95% confidence interval: 0.91 to 0.94] for every additional prescription). CONCLUSION: The EHR-PDMP integration did not increase PDMP use in the ED, but a PDMP risk score and a clinical decision support alert were associated with modest increases in the probability of PDMP review. When the PDMP is reviewed, ED clinicians are less likely to prescribe opioids to patients with a high number of prior opioid prescriptions.

Emergency Department Visits for Nonfatal Opioid Overdose During the COVID-19 Pandemic Across Six US Health Care Systems.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: People with opioid use disorder are vulnerable to disruptions in access to addiction treatment and social support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study objective was to understand changes in emergency department (ED) utilization following a nonfatal opioid overdose during COVID-19 compared to historical controls in 6 healthcare systems across the United States. METHODS: Opioid overdoses were retrospectively identified among adult visits to 25 EDs in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island from January 2018 to December 2020. Overdose visit counts and rates per 100 all-cause ED visits during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared with the levels predicted based on 2018 and 2019 visits using graphical analysis and an epidemiologic outbreak detection cumulative sum algorithm. RESULTS: Overdose visit counts increased by 10.5% (n=3486; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.18% to 17.0%) in 2020 compared with the counts in 2018 and 2019 (n=3020 and n=3285, respectively), despite a 14% decline in all-cause ED visits. Opioid overdose rates increased by 28.5% (95% CI 23.3% to 34.0%) from 0.25 per 100 ED visits in 2018 to 2019 to 0.32 per 100 ED visits in 2020. Although all 6 studied health care systems experienced overdose ED visit rates more than the 95th percentile prediction in 6 or more weeks of 2020 (compared with 2.6 weeks as expected by chance), 2 health care systems experienced sustained outbreaks during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Despite decreases in ED visits for other medical emergencies, the numbers and rates of opioid overdose-related ED visits in 6 health care systems increased during 2020, suggesting a widespread increase in opioid-related complications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanded community- and hospital-based interventions are needed to support people with opioid use disorder and save lives during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Does administration of haloperidol or ketorolac decrease opioid administration for abdominal pain patients? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol and ketorolac have been recommended as therapies that may decrease opioid use for treatment of pain in emergency department patients. The objective of our study is to determine if administration of haloperidol or ketorolac is associated with lower use of i.v. opioids for patients with non-specific abdominal pain. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of adults (Age 18-60) with non-specific abdominal pain presenting to an emergency department in a large healthcare system. Cases were identified using ICD-10 codes and variables were abstracted from electronic health records. The association between administration of haloperidol or ketorolac with 1) any i.v. opioid administration and 2) receiving >1 dose of i.v. opioids were measured using adjusted odds ratios (AOR) from nominal logistic regression. The model included potential confounders related to both opioid and ketorolac or haloperidol administration. RESULTS: Of 11,688 patients 4091 received one or more doses of an i.v. opioid, 240 received haloperidol and 1788 received ketorolac. The majority of patients were women (67%) and the median age was 32 years. Odds ratios were adjusted for variables associated with opioids, ketorolac or haloperidol use. Haloperidol was not associated with decreased i.v. opioid use (AOR for receiving iv opioids 2.0, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.6) or a lower odds of reciving >1 dose of (AOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.1). Ketorolac was associated with a modest decrease in i.v. opioid use (AOR 0.84 95% CI.0.76 to 0.94 for receiving iv opioids) and a modest decrease for receiving multiple dose of iv opioids (AOR 0.79 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol was not associated with decreased i.v. opioid use. Ketorolac was associated with a modest decrease in i.v. opioid use. Providers should consider the use of haloperidol and ketorolac as potentially beneficial in some cases, but there is a need for high quality studies before they can be recommended as standard therapy.

A novel social work approach to emergency department buprenorphine induction and warm hand-off to community providers.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is considered gold standard treatment for persons with an opioid use disorder and can be successfully initiated in emergency departments (EDBUP). Perceived provider barriers to EDBUP adoption include increased provider work, lack of provider knowledge about outpatient MOUD resources, and a lack of viable MOUD treatment options within health systems. We evaluated the feasibility of a novel EDBUP institutional design that utilizes the social work team to drive ED care for patients with OUD and coordinate MOUD referral to existing community resources. METHODS: This is a retrospective, cohort, single-center study describing patient outcomes in a social work driven EDBUP program with referral to community MOUD providers. ED patients with OUD were identified via patient request, standardized nurse screening, or ED provider concern. All identified patients received an urgent social work consult to explore willingness to seek treatment for OUD. Social workers developed individualized follow up plans with participating patients. Clinical data was abstracted from the Electronic Health Record. Social workers tracked continuity with outpatient MOUD services in a clinical care database. RESULTS: From June 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019, 120 patients opted for ED buprenorphine induction. 61% presented to initial outpatient intake appointment and 39% remained engaged in treatment after 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: EDs can effectively utilize the expertise of social workers to drive EDBUP and coordinate outpatient MOUD referrals. Our interdisciplinary EDBUP program structure is feasible and has the potential to yield meaningful reductions in physician workload and ED cost.

The Impact of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs and Prescribing Guidelines on Emergency Department Opioid Prescribing: A Multi-Center Survey.

Objective: Emergency department (ED) providers are high volume but low quantity prescribers of opioid analgesics (OA). Few studies have examined differences in opioid prescribing decisions specifically among ED providers. The aim of this study was to describe OA prescribing decisions of ED providers at geographically diverse centers, including utilization of prescribing guidelines and prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP). Methods: This was a multi-center cross-sectional Web-based survey of ED providers who prescribe OA. Respondents were asked about their OA prescribing decisions, their use of PDMPs, and their use of prescribing guidelines. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests of association were used to assess the relationship between providers' opioid prescribing decisions and independent covariates. Results: The total survey population was 957 individuals and 515 responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 54%. The frequency respondents prescribed different types of pain medication was variable between centers. of respondents were registered to access a PDMP, and were not aware whether their state had a PDMP. Forty percent (172/426) of respondents used OA prescribing guidelines, while 24% (103/426) did not, and 35% (151/426) were unaware of prescribing guidelines. No significant differences in OA prescribing decisions were found between groups either by use of PDMP or by guideline adherence. Conclusions: In this multi-center survey study of ED clinicians, OA prescribing varied between centers The utilization of prescribing guidelines and PDMPs was not associated with differences in OA prescribing decisions.

Consensus-Based Recommendations for an Emergency Medicine Pain Management Curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Increased prescribing of opioid pain medications has paralleled the subsequent rise of prescription medication-related overdoses and deaths. We sought to define key aspects of a pain management curriculum for emergency medicine (EM) residents that achieve the balance between adequate pain control, limiting side effects, and not contributing to the current public health opioid crisis. METHODS: We convened a symposium to discuss pain management education in EM and define the needs and objectives of an EM-specific pain management curriculum. Multiple pertinent topics were identified a priori and presented before consensus work. Subgroups then sought to define perceived gaps and needs, to set a future direction for development of a focused curriculum, and to prioritize the research needed to evaluate and measure the impact of a new curriculum. RESULTS: The group determined that an EM pain management curriculum should include education on both opioid and nonopioid analgesics as well as nonpharmacologic pain strategies. A broad survey is needed to better define current knowledge gaps and needs. To optimize the impact of any curriculum, a modular, multimodal, and primarily case-based approach linked to achieving milestones is best. Subsequent research should focus on the impact of curricular reform on learner knowledge and patient outcomes, not just prescribing changes. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus group offers a path forward to enhance the evidence, knowledge, and practice transformation needed to improve emergency analgesia.

Association of emergency department opioid initiation with recurrent opioid use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute pain complaints are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED). Short courses of opioids are presumed to be safe for acute pain; however, the risk of recurrent opioid use after receipt of an ED opioid prescription is unknown. We describe the risk of recurrent opioid use in patients receiving an opioid prescription from the ED for an acute painful condition. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all patients discharged from an urban academic ED with an acute painful condition during a 5-month period. Clinical information was linked to data from Colorado's prescription drug monitoring program. We compared opioid-naive patients (no opioid prescription during the year before the visit) who filled an opioid prescription or received a prescription but did not fill it to those who did not receive a prescription. The primary outcome was the rate of recurrent opioid use, defined as filling an opioid prescription within 60 days before or after the first anniversary of the ED visit. RESULTS: Four thousand eight hundred one patients were treated for an acute painful condition; of these, 52% were opioid naive and 48% received an opioid prescription. Among all opioid-naive patients, 775 (31%) received and filled an opioid prescription, and 299 (12%) went on to recurrent use. For opioid-naive patients who filled a prescription compared with those who did not receive a prescription, the adjusted odds ratio for recurrent use was 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.3 to 2.3). For opioid-naive patients who received a prescription but did not fill it compared with those who did not receive a prescription, the adjusted odds ratio for recurrent use was 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.3). CONCLUSION: Opioid-naive ED patients prescribed opioids for acute pain are at increased risk for additional opioid use at 1 year.

Opioid Prescribing in a Cross Section of US Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Opioid pain reliever prescribing at emergency department (ED) discharge has increased in the past decade but specific prescription details are lacking. Previous ED opioid pain reliever prescribing estimates relied on national survey extrapolation or prescription databases. The main goal of this study is to use a research consortium to analyze the characteristics of patients and opioid prescriptions, using a national sample of ED patients. We also aim to examine the indications for opioid pain reliever prescribing, characteristics of opioids prescribed both in the ED and at discharge, and characteristics of patients who received opioid pain relievers compared with those who did not. METHODS: This observational, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study assessed opioid pain reliever prescribing to consecutive patients presenting to the consortium EDs during 1 week in October 2012. The consortium study sites consisted of 19 EDs representing 1.4 million annual visits, varied geographically, and were predominantly academic centers. Medical records of all patients aged 18 to 90 years and discharged with an opioid pain reliever (excluding tramadol) were individually abstracted by standardized chart review by investigators for detailed analysis. Descriptive statistics were generated. RESULTS: During the study week, 27,516 patient visits were evaluated in the consortium EDs; 19,321 patients (70.2%) were discharged and 3,284 (11.9% of all patients and 17.0% of discharged patients) received an opioid pain reliever prescription. For patients prescribed an opioid pain reliever, mean age was 41 years (SD 14 years) and 1,694 (51.6%) were women. Mean initial pain score was 7.7 (SD 2.4). The most common diagnoses associated with opioid pain reliever prescribing were back pain (10.2%), abdominal pain (10.1%), and extremity fracture (7.1%) or sprain (6.5%). The most common opioid pain relievers prescribed were oxycodone (52.3%), hydrocodone (40.9%), and codeine (4.8%). Greater than 99% of pain relievers were immediate release and 90.0% were combination preparations, and the mean and median number of pills was 16.6 (SD 7.6) and 15 (interquartile range 12 to 20), respectively. CONCLUSION: In a study of ED patients treated during a single week across the country, 17% of discharged patients were prescribed opioid pain relievers. The majority of the prescriptions had small pill counts and almost exclusively immediate-release formulations.

Accuracy of Electronic Medical Record Medication Reconciliation in Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: Medication history discrepancies have the potential to cause significant adverse clinical effects for patients. More than 40% of medication errors can be traced to inadequate reconciliation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of electronic medical record (EMR)-reconciled medication lists obtained in an academic emergency department (ED). METHODS: Comprehensive research medication ingestion histories for the 48 h preceding ED visit were performed and compared to reconciled EMR medication lists in a convenience sample of ED patients. The reconciled EMR list of prescription, nonprescription, vitamins, herbals, and supplement medications were compared against a structured research medication history tool. We measured the accuracy of the reconciled EMR list vs. the research history for all classes of medications as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Five hundred and two subjects were enrolled. The overall accuracy of EMR-recorded ingestion histories in the preceding 48 h was poor. The EMR was accurate in only 21.9% of cases. Neither age ≥ 65 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-2.6) nor sex (female vs. male: OR = 1.5; 95% CI 0.9-2.5) were predictors of accurate EMR history. In the inaccurate EMRs, prescription lists were more likely to include medications that the subject did not report using (78.9%), while the EMR was more likely not to capture nonprescriptions (76.1%), vitamins (73.0%), supplements (67.3%), and herbals (89.1%) that the subject reported using. CONCLUSIONS: Medication ingestion histories procured through triage EMR reconciliation are often inaccurate, and additional strategies are needed to obtain an accurate list.

Implementation strategies to address the determinants of adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a clinical decision support tool for emergency department buprenorphine initiation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant public health problem. Buprenorphine is an evidence-based treatment for OUD that can be initiated in and prescribed from emergency departments (EDs) and office settings. Adoption of buprenorphine initiation among ED clinicians is low. The EMBED pragmatic clinical trial investigated the effectiveness of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool to promote ED clinicians' behavior related to buprenorphine initiation in the ED. While the CDS intervention was not associated with increased rates of buprenorphine treatment for patients with OUD at intervention ED sites, attending physicians at intervention EDs were more likely to initiate buprenorphine at least once over the duration of the study compared to those in the usual care arms (44.4% vs 34.0%, P = 0.01). This suggests the CDS intervention may be associated with increased adoption of buprenorphine initiation. As a secondary aim, we sought to identify the determinants of CDS adoption, implementation, and maintenance in a variety of ED settings and geographic locations. METHODS: We purposively sampled and conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with clinicians across EMBED trial sites randomized to the intervention arm from five healthcare systems. Interviews elicited clinician experiences regarding buprenorphine initiation and CDS use. Interviews were analyzed using directed content analysis informed by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). We used a hybrid approach (a priori codes informed by PRISM and emergent codes) for codebook development. ATLAS.ti (version 9.0) was used for data management. Coded data were analyzed within individual interview transcripts and across all interviews to identify major themes. This process involved (1) combining, comparing, and making connections between codes; (2) writing analytic memos about observed patterns; and (3) frequent team meetings to discuss emerging patterns. RESULTS: Twenty-eight interviews were conducted. Major themes that influenced the successful adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the EMBED intervention and ED-initiated BUP were organizational culture and commitment, clinician training and support, the ability to connect patients to ongoing treatment, and the ability to tailor implementation to each ED. These findings informed the identification of implementation strategies (framed using PRISM domains) to enhance the ED initiation of buprenorphine. CONCLUSION: The findings from this qualitative analysis can provide guidance to build better systems to promote the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine.

Improving Uptake of Emergency Department-initiated Buprenorphine: Barriers and Solutions.

Emergency departments (ED) are increasingly providing buprenorphine to persons with opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine programs in the ED have strong support from public health leaders and emergency medicine specialty societies and have proven to be clinically effective, cost effective, and feasible. Even so, few ED buprenorphine programs currently exist. Given this imbalance between evidence-based practice and current practice, proven behavior change approaches can be used to guide local efforts to expand ED buprenorphine capacity. In this paper, we use the theory of planned behavior to identify and address the 1) clinician factors, 2) institutional factors, and 3) external factors surrounding ED buprenorphine implementation. By doing so, we seek to provide actionable and pragmatic recommendations to increase ED buprenorphine availability across different practice settings.

User centered clinical decision support to implement initiation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in the emergency department: EMBED pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a user centered clinical decision support tool versus usual care on rates of initiation of buprenorphine in the routine emergency care of individuals with opioid use disorder. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (EMBED). SETTING: 18 emergency department clusters across five healthcare systems in five states representing the north east, south east, and western regions of the US, ranging from community hospitals to tertiary care centers, using either the Epic or Cerner electronic health record platform. PARTICIPANTS: 599 attending emergency physicians caring for 5047 adult patients presenting with opioid use disorder. INTERVENTION: A user centered, physician facing clinical decision support system seamlessly integrated into user workflows in the electronic health record to support initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department by helping clinicians to diagnose opioid use disorder, assess the severity of withdrawal, motivate patients to accept treatment, and complete electronic health record tasks by automating clinical and after visit documentation, order entry, prescribing, and referral. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of initiation of buprenorphine (administration or prescription of buprenorphine) in the emergency department among patients with opioid use disorder. Secondary implementation outcomes were measured with the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework. RESULTS: 1 413 693 visits to the emergency department (775 873 in the intervention arm and 637 820 in the usual care arm) from November 2019 to May 2021 were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 5047 patients with opioid use disorder (2787 intervention arm, 2260 usual care arm) under the care of 599 attending physicians (340 intervention arm, 259 usual care arm) for analysis. Buprenorphine was initiated in 347 (12.5%) patients in the intervention arm and in 271 (12.0%) patients in the usual care arm (adjusted generalized estimating equations odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 2.43, P=0.58). Buprenorphine was initiated at least once by 151 (44.4%) physicians in the intervention arm and by 88 (34.0%) in the usual care arm (1.83, 1.16 to 2.89, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: User centered clinical decision support did not increase patient level rates of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department. Although streamlining and automating electronic health record workflows can potentially increase adoption of complex, unfamiliar evidence based practices, more interventions are needed to look at other barriers to the treatment of addiction and increase the rate of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department in patients with opioid use disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03658642.

Association of Emergency Department Opioid Administration With Ongoing Opioid Use: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Patients With Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Opioids are commonly administered in the emergency department (ED) and prescribed for the treatment of back pain. It is important to understand the unintended consequences of this approach to inform treatment decisions and the consideration of alternative treatments. Recent evidence has shown that ED opioid prescriptions are associated with future opioid use. The objective of this study was to measure the association of opioid administration in the ED to patients treated for back pain with future opioid use. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of opioid-naïve adults discharged from the ED with a diagnosis of back pain. Patients were stratified by opioid therapy (none, ED administration only, prescription only, or ED administration + prescription). Relative risks of ongoing opioid use (filling >90-day supply in 180 days following ED visit as documented in the prescription drug monitoring program) were calculated for each opioid-therapy group and compared to the no-opioid group. RESULTS: We identified 24,487 opioid naïve back pain patients. The median age was 38 years, 55% were female, and 56% were non-Hispanic white. A total of 41% received no opioid, 10% were only administered an opioid in the ED, 18% only received a prescription, and 31% received an opioid in the ED + prescription. The adjusted relative risks of ongoing use compared to the no opioid group were as follows: ED only 1.9, prescription only 2.1, and ED + prescription 2.3. The increased risk persisted for other definitions of ongoing use and after adjustment for baseline pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: For opioid-naïve patients with back pain, both administration of an opioid in the ED and opioid prescriptions are associated with a doubling of the risk of ongoing opioid use compared to patients not treated with opioids. This supports the consideration of minimizing exposure to opioids while treating back pain in the ED.

Trends in Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Admissions in Health Care Systems in 5 States in the First Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.

Importance: As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread throughout the US in the early months of 2020, acute care delivery changed to accommodate an influx of patients with a highly contagious infection about which little was known. Objective: To examine trends in emergency department (ED) visits and visits that led to hospitalizations covering a 4-month period leading up to and during the COVID-19 outbreak in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study of 24 EDs in 5 large health care systems in Colorado (n = 4), Connecticut (n = 5), Massachusetts (n = 5), New York (n = 5), and North Carolina (n = 5) examined daily ED visit and hospital admission rates from January 1 to April 30, 2020, in relation to national and the 5 states' COVID-19 case counts. Exposures: Time (day) as a continuous variable. Main Outcomes and Measures: Daily counts of ED visits, hospital admissions, and COVID-19 cases. Results: A total of 24 EDs were studied. The annual ED volume before the COVID-19 pandemic ranged from 13 000 to 115 000 visits per year; the decrease in ED visits ranged from 41.5% in Colorado to 63.5% in New York. The weeks with the most rapid rates of decrease in visits were in March 2020, which corresponded with national public health messaging about COVID-19. Hospital admission rates from the ED were stable until new COVID-19 case rates began to increase locally; the largest relative increase in admission rates was 149.0% in New York, followed by 51.7% in Massachusetts, 36.2% in Connecticut, 29.4% in Colorado, and 22.0% in North Carolina. Conclusions and Relevance: From January through April 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic intensified in the US, temporal associations were observed with a decrease in ED visits and an increase in hospital admission rates in 5 health care systems in 5 states. These findings suggest that practitioners and public health officials should emphasize the importance of visiting the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic for serious symptoms, illnesses, and injuries that cannot be managed in other settings.

Progress Report on EMBED: A Pragmatic Trial of User-Centered Clinical Decision Support to Implement EMergency Department-Initiated BuprenorphinE for Opioid Use Disorder.

Buprenorphine (BUP) can safely and effectively reduce craving, overdose, and mortality rates in people with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, adoption of ED-initiation of BUP has been slow partly due to physician perception this practice is too complex and disruptive. We report progress of the ongoing EMBED (EMergency department-initiated BuprenorphinE for opioid use Disorder) project. This project is a five-year collaboration across five healthcare systems with the goal to develop, integrate, study, and disseminate user-centered Clinical Decision Support (CDS) to promote the adoption of Emergency Department (ED)-initiation of buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) into routine emergency care. Soon to enter its third year, the project has already completed multiple milestones to achieve its goals including (1) user-centered design of the CDS prototype, (2) integration of the CDS into an automated electronic health record (EHR) workflow, (3) data coordination including derivation and validation of an EHR-based computable phenotype, (4) meeting all ethical and regulatory requirements to achieve a waiver of informed consent, (5) pilot testing of the intervention at a single site, and (6) launching a parallel group-randomized 18-month pragmatic trial in 20 EDs across 5 healthcare systems. Pilot testing of the intervention in a single ED was associated with increased rates of ED-initiated BUP and naloxone prescribing and a doubling of the number of unique physicians adopting the practice. The ongoing multi-center pragmatic trial will assess the intervention's effectiveness, scalability, and generalizability with a goal to shift the emergency care paradigm for OUD towards early identification and treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03658642.

Techniques to Shorten a Screening Tool for Emergency Department Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Screening of patients for opioid risk has been recommended prior to opioid prescribing. Opioids are prescribed frequently in the emergency department (ED) setting, but screening tools are often of significant length and therefore limited in their utility. We describe and evaluate three approaches to shortening a screening tool: creation of a short form; curtailment; and stochastic curtailment. METHODS: To demonstrate the various shortening techniques, this retrospective study used data from two studies of ED patients for whom the provider was considering providing an opioid prescription and who completed the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, a 24-item assessment. High-risk criteria from patients' prescription drug monitoring program data were used as an endpoint. Using real-data simulation, we determined the sensitivity, specificity, and test length of each shortening technique. RESULTS: We included data from 188 ED patients. The original screener had a test length of 24 questions, a sensitivity of 44% and a specificity of 76%. The 12-question short form had a sensitivity of 41% and specificity of 75%. Curtailment and stochastic curtailment reduced the question length (mean test length ranging from 8.1-19.7 questions) with no reduction in sensitivity or specificity. CONCLUSION: In an ED population completing computer-based screening, the techniques of curtailment and stochastic curtailment markedly reduced the screening tool's length but had no effect on test characteristics. These techniques can be applied to improve efficiency of screening patients in the busy ED environment without sacrificing sensitivity or specificity.

Emergency Department Provider Perspectives on Benzodiazepine-Opioid Coprescribing: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Benzodiazepines and opioids are prescribed simultaneously (i.e., "coprescribed") in many clinical settings, despite guidelines advising against this practice and mounting evidence that concomitant use of both medications increases overdose risk. This study sought to characterize the contexts in which benzodiazepine-opioid coprescribing occurs and providers' reasons for coprescribing. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with emergency department (ED) providers (resident and attending physicians, advanced practice providers, and pharmacists) from three hospitals using semistructured interviews to elicit perspectives on benzodiazepine-opioid coprescribing. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed. We performed qualitative content analysis of the resulting transcripts using a consensual qualitative research approach, aiming to identify priority categories that describe the phenomenon of benzodiazepine-opioid coprescribing. RESULTS: Participants acknowledged coprescribing rarely and reluctantly and often provided specific discharge instructions when coprescribing. The decision to coprescribe is multifactorial, often isolated to specific clinical and situational contexts (e.g., low back pain, failed solitary opioid therapy) and strongly influenced by a provider's beliefs about the efficacy of combination therapy. The decision to coprescribe is further influenced by a self-imposed pressure to escalate care or avoid hospital admission. When considering potential interventions to reduce the incidence of coprescribing, participants opposed computerized alerts but were supportive of a pharmacist-assisted intervention. Many providers found the process of participating in peer discussions on prescribing habits to be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: In this qualitative study of ED providers, we found that benzodiazepine-opioid coprescribing occurs in specific clinical and situational contexts, such as the treatment of low back pain or failed solitary opioid therapy. The decision to coprescribe is strongly influenced by a provider's beliefs and by self-imposed pressure to escalate care or avoid admission.