Analgesic prescribing for patients who are discharged from an emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Among patients who arrive at an emergency department (ED) with pain, over half remain in moderate or severe pain at ED discharge. Our objectives were to identify ED physicians' prescribing patterns when discharging patients with common musculoskeletal conditions and to determine if disparities in opioid prescribing exist. DESIGN: Five-year retrospective investigation. SETTING: An urban, academic ED with approximately 100,000 annual visits, where physicians write discharge prescriptions, including over-the-counter medications, using a computerized order entry system. PATIENTS: Adult patients who were discharged home from an ED with fractures (clavicle or long bone fractures) or non-fracture musculoskeletal diagnoses (sprains, strains, sciatica, or back pain). OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient demographics and pain medications prescribed for use at home. RESULTS: The study sample included 13,335 patients with a mean age of 39 years. Half were female; 52% were white; 39% were black; and 7% were Hispanic. Among fracture patients, 77% received an opioid prescription, 2% received a non-opioid prescription, and 21% received no analgesic prescription. The percentages for patients with non-fracture diagnoses were 65% (opioids), 18% (non-opioid analgesics), and 17% (no analgesic). Patients aged 80 years and older were significantly less likely to receive opioid prescriptions. Although prescribing by race for fractures was similar, significantly fewer black and Hispanic patients with non-fracture diagnoses received opioid prescriptions, compared with white patients. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one fifth of patients in the fracture and non-fracture groups did not receive an analgesic prescription. Age greater than 80 years and minority race/ethnic status were associated with lower rates of opioid prescribing.

The future of emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: The specialty of emergency medicine (EM) continues to experience a significant workforce shortage in the face of increasing demand for emergency care. SUMMARY: In July 2009, representatives of the leading EM organizations met in Dallas for the Future of Emergency Medicine Summit. Attendees at the Future of Emergency Medicine Summit agreed on the following: 1) Emergency medical care is an essential community service that should be available to all; 2) An insufficient emergency physician workforce also represents a potential threat to patient safety; 3) Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education/American Osteopathic Association (AOA)-accredited EM residency training and American Board of Medical Specialties/AOA EM board certification is the recognized standard for physician providers currently entering a career in emergency care; 4) Physician supply shortages in all fields contribute to-and will continue to contribute to-a situation in which providers with other levels of training may be a necessary part of the workforce for the foreseeable future; 5) A maldistribution of EM residency-trained physicians persists, with few pursuing practice in small hospital or rural settings; 6) Assuring that the public receives high quality emergency care while continuing to produce highly skilled EM specialists through EM training programs is the challenge for EM's future; 7) It is important that all providers of emergency care receive continuing postgraduate education.

The future of emergency medicine.

Physician shortages are being projected for most medical specialties. The specialty of emergency medicine continues to experience a significant workforce shortage in the face of increasing demand for emergency care. The limited supply of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, and other resources is creating an urgent, untenable patient care problem. In July 2009, representatives of the leading emergency medicine organizations met in Dallas, TX, for the Future of Emergency Medicine Summit. This consensus document, agreed to and cowritten by all participating organizations, describes the substantive issues discussed and provides a foundation for the future of the specialty.

Impact of emergency medicine faculty and an airway protocol on airway management.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of emergency medicine (EM) faculty presence and an airway management protocol on success rates of tracheal intubation in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data on rates of successful intubations between June 1997 and December 2001 in the ED of a large urban teaching hospital. The authors compared success rates of the first attempt at intubation and times to intubation prior to and after EM faculty presence and the institution of an airway management protocol. RESULTS: Prior to EM faculty presence and the airway management protocol, tracheal intubation was achieved on the first attempt 46% of the time; more than six attempts were required 2.9% of the time. The mean time to intubation was 9.2 minutes (+/-13.2 SD). Following EM faculty presence and the airway protocol, the success rate on the first attempt was 62%, more than six attempts were required 1.1% of the time, and the mean time to intubation was 4.6 minutes (+/-6.2 SD). CONCLUSIONS: First-attempt intubation success rates and decreased mean time to successful intubation improved following EM faculty presence and the introduction of an airway management protocol.

Impact of emergency medicine faculty on door to thrombolytic time.

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of Emergency Medicine (EM) faculty presence on timely thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction in the Emergency Department (ED). We performed a retrospective study of data regarding acute myocardial infarction patients in the ED of a large urban teaching hospital. Data were collected from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1999 when EM faculty were not present in the ED and from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002 when they were. We compared median time from patient arrival to thrombolytics, percent of patients receiving thrombolytics within 30 min of arrival, and percent of patients with indications for primary revascularization who received it before and after EM faculty presence. The results indicate that EM faculty presence resulted in a decrease in median time from arrival to thrombolytic administration of 17 min (95% CI: 9, 28). Before EM faculty presence, the median time was 44 min as compared to 24 min post-EM faculty presence. Patients received thrombolytic therapy within 30 min 25.8% of the time before EM faculty presence as compared to 65.4% with EM faculty presence; an absolute increase of 39.6% (95% CI: 23.0%, 56.3%). Primary revascularization occurred in 56.9% of eligible patients pre-EM faculty presence and 81.4% post-EM faculty presence; an increase of 24.5% (95% CI: 13.6%, 35.4%). We conclude that the introduction of Emergency Medicine faculty significantly improved the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction patients in a large urban Emergency Department.