Promotion of Influenza Vaccination in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccine uptake is low among underserved populations whose primary health care access occurs in emergency departments. We sought to determine whether implementation of two interventions would increase 30-day influenza vaccine uptake in unvaccinated patients in the emergency department. METHODS: This three-group, prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial compared two interventions with a control group in noncritically ill, adult patients in the emergency department who were not vaccinated for influenza in the current vaccine season. The unit of randomization was individual calendar days. Participants received either Intervention M (an influenza vaccine messaging platform consisting of a video, one-page flyer, and scripted message, followed by a vaccine acceptance question and provider notification if participants indicated vaccine acceptance), Intervention Q (no messaging but the vaccine acceptance question and provider notification), or control (usual care/no intervention). The primary outcome was receipt of an influenza vaccine at 30 days ascertained by electronic health record review and telephone follow-up, comparing the Intervention M group with the control group. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of 30-day vaccine uptake in Intervention Q versus control and Intervention M versus Intervention Q. RESULTS: Between October 2022 and February 2023, a total of 767 trial participants were enrolled at six emergency departments in five U.S. cities. Median age was 46 years; 353 (46%) participants were female, 274 (36%) were African American, and 158 (21%) were Latinx; 126 (16%) lacked health insurance, and 244 (32%) lacked primary care. The Intervention M, Intervention Q, and control groups had 30-day vaccine uptakes of 41%, 32%, and 15%, respectively (P<0.0001 for Intervention M vs. control). Comparing Intervention M versus Intervention Q, the adjusted difference in 30-day vaccine uptake was 8.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 17.6 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of influenza vaccine messaging platforms (video clips, printed materials, and verbal scripts) improved 30-day vaccine uptake among unvaccinated patients in the emergency department. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05836818.).

Racial Disparities in Emergency Department Physical Restraint Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Recent studies have demonstrated that people of color are more likely to be restrained in emergency department (ED) settings compared with other patients, but many of these studies are based at a single site or health care system, limiting their generalizability. Objective: To synthesize existing literature on risk of physical restraint use in adult EDs, specifically in reference to patients of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Data Sources: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL was performed from database inception to February 8, 2022. Study Selection: Included peer-reviewed studies met 3 criteria: (1) published in English, (2) original human participants research performed in an adult ED, and (3) reported an outcome of physical restraint use by patient race or ethnicity. Studies were excluded if they were conducted outside of the US, or if full text was unavailable. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Four independent reviewers (V.E., M.M., D.D., and A.H.) abstracted data from selected articles following Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess quality. A meta-analysis of restraint outcomes among minoritized racial and ethnic groups was performed using a random-effects model in 2022. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Risk of physical restraint use in adult ED patients by racial and ethnic background. Results: The search yielded 1597 articles, of which 10 met inclusion criteria (0.63%). These studies represented 2 557 983 patient encounters and 24 030 events of physical restraint (0.94%). In the meta-analysis, Black patients were more likely to be restrained compared with White patients (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.19-1.43) and to all non-Black patients (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.31). With respect to ethnicity, Hispanic patients were less likely to be restrained compared with non-Hispanic patients (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89). Conclusions and Relevance: Physical restraint was uncommon, occurring in less than 1% of encounters, but adult Black patients experienced a significantly higher risk of physical restraint in ED settings compared with other racial groups. Hispanic patients were less likely to be restrained compared with non-Hispanic patients, though this observation may have occurred if Black patients, with a higher risk of restraint, were included in the non-Hispanic group. Further work, including qualitative studies, to explore and address mechanisms of racism at the interpersonal, institutional, and structural levels are needed.

Assessing Implementation of Social Screening Within US Health Care Settings: A Systematic Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Though a growing crop of health care reforms aims to encourage health care-based social screening, no literature has synthesized existing social screening implementation research to inform screening practice and policymaking. METHODS: Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed literature on social screening implementation published 1/1/2011-2/17/2022. We applied a 2-concept search (health care-based screening; social risk factors) to PubMed and Embase. Studies had to explore the implementation of health care-based multi-domain social screening and describe 1+ outcome related to the reach, adoption, implementation, and/or maintenance of screening. Two reviewers extracted data related to key study elements, including sample, setting, and implementation outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-two articles met inclusion criteria. Reach (n = 7): We found differences in screening rates by patient race/ethnicity; findings varied across studies. Patients who preferred Spanish had lower screening rates than English-preferring patients. Adoption (n = 13): Workforce education and dedicated quality improvement projects increased screening adoption. Implementation (n = 32): Time was the most cited barrier to screening; administration time differed by tool/workforce/modality. Use of standardized screening tools/workflows improved screening integration. Use of community health workers and/or technology improved risk disclosure and facilitated screening in resource-limited settings. Maintenance (n = 1): Only 1 study reported on maintenance; results showed a drop in screening over 21 months. CONCLUSIONS: Critical evidence gaps in social screening implementation persist. These include gaps in knowledge about effective strategies for integrating social screening into clinical workflows and ways to maximize screening equity. Future research should leverage the rapidly increasing number of screening initiatives to elevate and scale best practices.

COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Hesitancy in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Little is known about COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. We sought to determine the uptake of booster vaccines, as well as the prevalence of and reasons for booster hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey study of adult patients at 5 safety-net hospital EDs in 4 US cities from mid-January to mid-July 2022. Participants were fluent in English or Spanish and had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine. We assessed the following parameters: (1) the prevalence of nonboosted status and reasons for not getting a booster; (2) the prevalence of booster vaccine hesitancy and reasons for hesitancy; and (3) the association of hesitancy with demographic variables. RESULTS: Of 802 participants, 373 (47%) were women, 478 (60%) were non-White, 182 (23%) lacked primary care, 110 (14%) primarily spoke Spanish, and 370 (46%) were publicly insured. Of the 771 participants who completed their primary series, 316 (41%) had not received a booster vaccine; the primary reason for nonreceipt was lack of opportunity (38%). Of the nonboosted participants, 179 (57%) expressed hesitancy, citing need for more information (25%), concerns about side effects (24%), and the belief that a booster was unnecessary after the initial series (20%). In the multivariable analysis, Asian participants were less likely to be booster hesitant than White participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.93), non-English-speaking participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than English-speaking participants (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.71), and Republican participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than Democrat participants (aOR 6.07, 95% CI 4.21 to 8.75). CONCLUSION: Of almost half of this urban ED population who had not received a COVID-19 booster vaccine, more than one third stated that lack of opportunity to receive one was the primary reason. Furthermore, more than half of the nonboosted participants were booster hesitant, with many expressing concerns or a desire for more information that may be addressed with booster vaccine education.

Patient and Patient Caregiver Perspectives on Social Screening: A Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Health care policy and practice-level enthusiasm around social screening has emerged in the absence of a clear appreciation for how patients feel about these activities. Yet patient and caregiver perspectives should be used to establish the rationale and inform the design and implementation of social screening initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a systematic scoping review to better understand patient and patient caregiver perspectives regarding multidomain social screening in US health care settings. RESULTS: We identified 16 articles. Thirteen studies assessed the perspectives of patients; a partially overlapping 9 studies assessed the perspectives of adult patient caregivers. Most articles assessing the acceptability of social screening reported that patients and patient caregivers generally found it to be acceptable. Notably, there was some variation by screening approach and prior experiences in health care settings, as well as mixed findings by race/ethnicity and gender. Participants from several articles raised concerns regarding data documentation and sharing, highlighting the potential for social data to contribute to provider bias. CONCLUSION: The themes emerging in this diverse set of largely descriptive studies warrant deeper and more rigorous exploration as social screening initiatives expand in health care settings across the United States.

Social Risk Factor Documentation in Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Social Z codes are International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes that provide one way of documenting social risk factors in electronic health records. Despite the utility and availability of these codes, no study has examined social Z code documentation prevalence in emergency department (ED) settings. METHODS: In this descriptive, cross-sectional study of all ED visits included in the 2018 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, we estimated the prevalence of social Z code documentation and used logistic regression to examine the association between documentation and patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Of more than 35.8 million adult and pediatric ED visits, there was a 1.21% weighted prevalence (n=452,499) of at least 1 documented social Z code. Social Z codes were significantly more likely to be documented in ED visits among patients aged 35 to 64 compared to patients aged 18 to 34 (18.6/1000 [16.9 to 20.4] versus 12.7/1000 [11.5 to 14.0], odds ratio (OR) 1.47 [1.42 to 1.53]), male patients (16.6/1000 [15.1 to 18.2] versus female 8.5/1000 [7.8 to 9.2], OR 1.97 [1.89 to 2.06]), patients with Medicaid compared to patients with private insurance (15.9/1000 [14.4 to 17.6] versus (6.6/1000 [6.0 to 7.2], OR 2.45 [1.30 to 1.63]), and patients who had a Charlson Comorbidity Index≥1 compared to those with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 (ranges 15.0 to 16.6/1000 versus 10.6/1000 [9.6 to 11.7], ORs ranging 1.43 to 1.58). ED visits with a primary diagnosis of mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental illness had the strongest positive association with social Z code documentation (85.6/1000 [78.4 to 93.4], OR 10.75 [9.88 to 11.70]) compared to ED visits without this primary diagnosis. CONCLUSION: We found a very low prevalence of social Z code documentation in ED visits nationwide. More systematic social Z code documentation could support targeted social interventions, social risk payment adjustments, and future policy reforms.

Contingency management to promote smoking cessation in people experiencing homelessness: Leveraging the electronic health record in a pilot, pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is disproportionately high among people experiencing homelessness (PEH). Contingency management (CM) is a strategy that has shown considerable efficacy for smoking cessation and has been used in short-term studies of smoking abstinence in PEH. We describe a pilot, pragmatic randomized controlled trial protocol, which leverages an electronic health record (EHR) infrastructure to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an extended CM intervention to improve long-term abstinence in PEH. METHODS: We will conduct the study at three safety-net clinics in San Francisco among 90 adults experiencing homelessness who smoke cigarettes currently and have a desire to quit. We will encourage all participants to receive smoking cessation services that include behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy through their clinics. We will randomly assign participants to an extended CM intervention group with escalating incentives contingent on abstinence or to a control group with fixed incentives for attending study visits. We will use the EHR to recruit participants, track receipt of counseling and pharmacotherapy during clinical care, and communicate with providers on participants' progress. CM participants will get escalating incentives for demonstration of carbon monoxide-verified abstinence over 6 months, with a total possible earnings of $475. Control participants will receive a fixed incentive of $5 for attending study visits, totaling $125. We will conduct the carbon-monoxide verified abstinence assessments-which will determine CM incentive amounts-daily during week 1, bi-weekly through week 4, weekly through week 13, and monthly through week 24. Measures of feasibility and acceptability, both quantitative and qualitative, will include assessments of screening and recruitment, adherence to study visits, engagement in smoking cessation clinical care, retention, and participant satisfaction. One of the primary clinical outcomes will be biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6 months. We will measure secondary outcomes, which will include 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 2 weeks, 3 and 12 months. DISCUSSION: This trial will allow us to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a CM cessation intervention among PEH. The protocol's clinical setting and use of EHRs gives it significant potential for scalability. If found to be feasible, acceptable, and subsequently efficacious in a larger trial, the intervention could reduce tobacco-related health disparities by increasing long-term smoking abstinence among this vulnerable population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04982952. Registered on July 29, 2021.

2021 SAEM Consensus Conference Proceedings: Research Priorities for Developing Emergency Department Screening Tools for Social Risks and Needs.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Department (ED) acts as a safety net for our healthcare system. While studies have shown increased prevalence of social risks and needs among ED patients, there are many outstanding questions about the validity and use of social risks and needs screening tools in the ED setting. METHODS: In this paper, we present research gaps and priorities pertaining to social risks and needs screening tools used in the ED, identified through a consensus approach informed by literature review and external expert feedback as part of the 2021 SAEM Consensus Conference -- From Bedside to Policy: Advancing Social Emergency Medicine and Population Health. RESULTS: Four overarching research gaps were identified: (1) Defining the purpose and ethical implications of ED-based screening; (2) Identifying domains of social risks and needs; (3) Developing and validating screening tools; and (4) Defining the patient population and type of screening performed. Furthermore, the following research questions were determined to be of highest priority: (1) What screening tools should be used to identify social risks and needs? (2) Should individual EDs use a national standard screening tools or customized screening tools? (3) What are the most prevalent social risks and needs in the ED? and (4) Which social risks and needs are most amenable to intervention in the ED setting? CONCLUSION: Answering these research questions will facilitate the use of evidence-based social risks and needs screening tools that address knowledge gaps and improve the health of our communities by better understanding the underlying determinants contributing to their presentation and health outcomes.

Analysis of Emergency Department Encounters Among High Users of Health Care and Social Service Systems Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Although the general US population had fewer emergency department (ED) visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, patterns of use among high users are unknown. Objectives: To examine natural trends in ED visits among high users of health and social services during an extended period and assess whether these trends differed during COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study combined data from 9 unique cohorts, 1 for each fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) from 2012 to 2021, and used mixed-effects, negative binomial regression to model ED visits over time and assess ED use among the top 5% of high users of multiple systems during COVID-19. Data were obtained from the Coordinated Care Management System, a San Francisco Department of Public Health platform that integrates medical and social information with service use. Exposures: Fiscal year 2020 was defined as the COVID-19 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measured variables were age, gender, language, race and ethnicity, homelessness, insurance status, jail health encounters, mental health and substance use diagnoses, and mortality. The main outcome was annual mean ED visit counts. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were used to describe changes in ED visit rates both over time and in COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19 years. Results: Of the 8967 participants, 3289 (36.7%) identified as White, 3005 (33.5%) as Black, and 1513 (16.9%) as Latinx; and 7932 (88.5%) preferred English. The mean (SD) age was 46.7 (14.2) years, 6071 (67.7%) identified as men, and 7042 (78.5%) had experienced homelessness. A statistically significant decrease was found in annual mean ED visits among high users for every year of follow-up until year 8, with the largest decrease occurring in the first year of follow-up (IRR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.40-0.43). However, during the pandemic, ED visits decreased 25% beyond the mean reduction seen in prepandemic years (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.79). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, multiple cohorts of the top 5% of high users of multiple health care systems in San Francisco had sustained annual decreases in ED visits from 2012 to 2021, with significantly greater decreases during COVID-19. Further research is needed to elucidate pandemic-specific factors associated with these findings and understand how this change in use was associated with health outcomes.

New-Onset Pediatric Diabetes Complicated By Diabetic Ketoacidosis and Invasive Rhinocerebral Mucormycosis With Internal Carotid Artery Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) has increased in prevalence in the emergency department (ED) in recent years. The complications of DKA are life threatening and necessitate rapid identification and management. Pediatric complications include cerebral edema, venous thrombosis, acute kidney injury, and severe infections including necrotizing fasciitis and mucormycosis. Rhinocerebral mucormycosis carries a high mortality rate and requires early treatment with antifungals and surgical debridement. CASE REPORT: A 16-year-old boy with no significant past medical history presented to the ED with new-onset DKA complicated by hypothermia, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, cerebral edema, and multifactorial shock. During a complicated pediatric intensive care unit admission, he was found to have fatal invasive rhinocerebral mucormycosis, causing internal carotid artery occlusion with evidence of both direct and hematogenous spread into his brain. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Early identification of shock and appropriate management with intravenous fluids, vasopressors, and reversal of the underlying process is key in hypotensive children. In pediatric DKA, the emergency physician must consider cerebral edema, appropriate fluid resuscitation, and identify the likely precipitants leading to the onset of DKA. Thorough workup for potential precipitants should be initiated in the ED, searching for etiologies including infection, intoxication, insulin deficiency, inflammation, and ischemia. We must remember that pediatric patients, especially those with new DKA, are susceptible to life-threatening infection, including mucormycosis. Mucormycosis is a rare diagnosis, and management includes antifungal therapies and involvement of otorhinolaryngology.

Applying crisis standards of care to critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Does race/ethnicity affect triage scoring?

OBJECTIVE: Given the variability in crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated the racial and ethnic differences in prioritization between 3 different CSC triage policies (New York, Massachusetts, USA), as well as a first come, first served (FCFS) approach, using a single patient population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with intensive care unit (ICU) needs at a tertiary hospital on its peak COVID-19 ICU census day. We used medical record data to calculate a CSC score under 3 criteria: New York, Massachusetts with full comorbidity list (Massachusetts1), and MA with a modified comorbidity list (Massachusetts2). The CSC scores, as well as FCFS, determined which patients were eligible to receive critical care under 2 scarcity scenarios: 50 versus 100 ICU bed capacity. We assessed the association between race/ethnicity and eligibility for critical care with logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 211 patients, 139 (66%) were male, 95 (45%) were Hispanic, 23 (11%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 69 (33%) were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic patients had the fewest comorbidities. Assuming a 50 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had significantly higher odds of receiving critical care services across all CSC guidelines, except FCFS. However, assuming a 100 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had greater odds of receiving critical care services under only the Massachusetts2 guidelines (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.85). CONCLUSION: Varying CSC guidelines differentially affect racial and ethnic minority groups with regard to risk stratification. The equity implications of CSC guidelines require thorough investigation before CSC guidelines are implemented.

Prevalence of Emergency Department Social Risk and Social Needs.

INTRODUCTION: Social risks, or adverse social conditions associated with poor health, are prevalent in emergency department (ED) patients, but little is known about how the prevalence of social risk compares to a patient's reported social need, which incorporates patient preference for intervention. The goal of this study was to describe the relationship between social risk and social need, and identify factors associated with differential responses to social risk and social need questions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study with 48 hours of time-shift sampling in a large urban ED. Consenting patients completed a demographic questionnaire and assessments of social risk and social need. We applied descriptive statistics to the prevalence of social risk and social need, and multivariable logistic regression to assess factors associated with social risk, social need, or both. RESULTS: Of the 269 participants, 100 (37%) reported social risk, 83 (31%) reported social need, and 169 (63%) reported neither social risk nor social need. Although social risk and social need were significantly associated (p < 0.01), they incompletely overlapped. Over 50% in each category screened positive in more than one domain (eg, housing instability, food insecurity). In multivariable models, those with higher education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.44 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.24-0.80]) and private insurance (aOR 0.50 [95% CI, 0.29-0.88]) were less likely to report social risk compared to those with lower education and state/public insurance, respectively. Spanish-speakers (aOR 4.07 [95% CI, 1.17-14.10]) and non-Hispanic Black patients (aOR 5.00 [95% CI, 1.91-13.12]) were more likely to report social need, while those with private insurance were less likely to report social need (private vs state/public: aOR 0.13 [95% CI, 0.07-0.26]). CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of patients in a large, urban ED screened positive for at least one social risk or social need, with over half in each category reporting risk/need across multiple domains. Different demographic variables were associated with social risk vs social need, suggesting that individuals with social risks differ from those with social needs, and that screening programs should consider including both assessments.