Racial Disparities in Opioid Analgesia Administration Among Adult Emergency Department Patients with Abdominal Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Racial disparities in pain management have been reported among emergency department (ED) patients. In this study we evaluated the association between patients' self-identified race/ethnicity and the administration of opioid analgesia among ED patients with abdominal pain, the most common chief complaint for ED presentations in the United States. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult (age ≥18 years) patients who presented to the ED of a single center with abdominal pain from January 1, 2019-December 31, 2020. We collected demographic and clinical information, including patients' race and ethnicity, from the electronic health record. The primary outcome was the ED administration of any opioid analgesic (binary). Secondary outcomes included the administration of non-opioid analgesia (binary) and administration of any analgesia (binary). We used logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (OR) of the association between a patient's race/ethnicity and analgesia administration. Covariates included age, sex, initial pain score, Emergency Severity Index, and ED visits in the prior 30 days. Subgroup analyses were performed in non-pregnant patients, those who underwent any imaging study, were admitted to the hospital, and who underwent surgery within 24 hours of ED arrival. RESULTS: We studied 7,367 patients: 45% (3,314) were non-Hispanic (NH) White; 28% (2,092) were Hispanic/Latinx; 19% (1,384) were NH Black, and 8% (577) were Asian. Overall, 44% (3,207) of patients received opioid analgesia. In multivariable regression models, non-White patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesia compared with White patients (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.83 for Hispanic/Latinx patients; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.72 for Black patients; and OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.78 for Asian patients). Black patients were also less likely to receive non-opioid analgesia, and Black and Hispanic/Latinx patients were less likely than White patients to receive any analgesia. The associations were similar across subgroups; however, the association was attenuated among patients who underwent surgery within 24 hours of ED arrival. CONCLUSION: Hispanic/Latinx, Black, and Asian patients were significantly less likely to receive opioid analgesia than White patients when presenting to the ED with abdominal pain. Black patients were also less likely than White patients to receive non-opioid analgesia.

A 70-Year-Old Woman With Refractory Hypoxemia.

CASE PRESENTATION: A 70-year-old woman was transferred to our ED from an outside ED for hypoxemia. Three weeks earlier, an inpatient evaluation for syncope revealed a right intraventricular filling defect, multiple pulmonary nodules, pulmonary emboli, and a left breast mass. She underwent breast biopsy, was started on rivaroxaban, and was discharged with outpatient follow-up. She experienced progressively worsening dyspnea, prompting a return to the outside ED, where she was found to be severely hypoxemic and was intubated. Her medical history included diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, COPD, hypothyroidism, diastolic heart failure, and a 40+ pack-year smoking history.

Comparing the Timeliness of Treatment in Younger vs. Older Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Multi-Center Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) predominantly affects older adults. Lower incidence among younger patients may challenge diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that among patients ≤ 50 years old, emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI is delayed when compared with patients aged > 50 years. METHODS: This 3-year, 10-center retrospective cohort study included emergency department (ED) STEMI patients ≥ 18 years of age treated with emergent PCI. We excluded patients with an electrocardiogram (ECG) completed prior to ED arrival or a nondiagnostic initial ECG. Our primary outcome was door-to-balloon (D2B) time. We compared characteristics and outcomes among younger vs. older STEMI patients, and among age subgroups. RESULTS: There were 576 ED STEMI PCI patients, of whom 100 were ≤ 50 years old and 476 were > 50 years old. Median age was 44 years in the younger cohort (interquartile range [IQR] 41-47) vs. 62 years (IQR 57-70) among older patients. Median D2B time for the younger cohort was 76.5 min (IQR 67.5-102.5) vs. 81.0 min (IQR 65.0-105.5) in the older cohort (p = 0.91). This outcome did not change when ages 40 or 45 years were used to demarcate younger vs. older. The younger cohort had a higher prevalence of nonwhite races (38% vs. 21%; p < 0.001) and those currently smoking (36% vs. 23%; p = 0.005). The very young (≤30 years; 6/576) and very old (>80 years; 45/576) had 5.51 and 2.2 greater odds of delays. CONCLUSION: We found no statistically significant difference in D2B times between patients ≤ 50 years old and those > 50 years old. Nonwhite patients and those who smoke were disproportionately represented within the younger population. The very young and very old had higher odds of D2B times > 90 min.

Screening for Victims of Sex Trafficking in the Emergency Department: A Pilot Program.

INTRODUCTION: Estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of sex trafficking victims live in the United States. Several screening tools for healthcare professionals to identify sex trafficking victims have been proposed, but the effectiveness of these tools in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Our primary objective in this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a screening survey to identify adult victims of sex trafficking in the ED. We also compared the sensitivity of emergency physician concern and a screening survey for identifying sex trafficking victims in the ED and determined the most effective question(s) for identifying adult victims of sex trafficking. METHODS: We enrolled a convenience sample of medically stable female ED patients, age 18-40 years. Patients completed a 14-question survey. Physician concern for sex trafficking was documented prior to informing the physician of the survey results. A "yes" answer to any question or physician concern was considered a positive screen, and the patient was offered social work consultation. We defined a "true positive" as a patient admission for or social work documentation of sex trafficking. Demographic and clinical information were collected from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: We enrolled 143 patients, and of those 39 (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [20%-35%]) screened positive, including 10 (25%, 95% CI [13%-41%]) ultimately identified as victims of sex trafficking. Sensitivity of the screening survey (100%, 95% CI [74%-100%]) was better than physician concern (40%, 95% CI [12%-74%]) for identifying victims of sex trafficking, difference 60%, 95% CI [30%-90%]. Physician specificity (91%, 95% CI [85%-95%]), however, was slightly better than the screening survey (78%, 95% CI [70%-85%]), difference 13%, 95% CI [4%-21%]. All 10 (100%, 95%CI [74%-100%]) "true positive" cases answered "yes" to the screening question regarding abuse. CONCLUSION: Identifying adult victims of sex trafficking in the ED is feasible. A screening survey appears to have greater sensitivity than physician concern, and a single screening question may be sufficient to identify all adult victims of sex trafficking in the ED.

Less encouraging lessons from the front lines: barriers to implementation of an emergency department-based HIV screening program.

OBJECTIVE: We describe barriers to, and discuss recommendations for, implementing a limited emergency department (ED)-based HIV screening program. METHODS: A pilot program was designed to study the feasibility of integrating HIV screening into ED care among patients aged 18 to 64 years at an urban academic emergency department with an annual census of 50,000 patients. RESULTS: During the first 12 weeks of the pilot program, 395 patients were screened. Of those, 2 (0.5%; 95% confidence interval 0.06% to 1.8%) received a positive test result for HIV. Both were contacted by telephone, and one was seen for result notification, posttest counseling, and further care in the local health department. Of the patients who received a negative test result, 98% were contacted about their results. We encountered numerous barriers to implementation, which we categorized as departmental, public health, legal, institutional, test limitations, and infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Understanding potential barriers and making plans for dealing with them are critical to the successful implementation of an HIV screening program in the ED.

Sex bias in cardiovascular testing: the contribution of patient preference.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Women with potential acute coronary syndromes are less likely to receive cardiac catheterization or revascularization than men. We hypothesize that this may be due to different diagnostic test preferences of female and male patients. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study at 4 emergency departments enrolling patients who presented with symptoms of potential acute coronary syndromes. After hearing the potential benefits and harms of each test, subjects completed a 21-item survey assessing their preference for noninvasive testing versus cardiac catheterization. Based on hypothetical test results, similar questions about medical versus interventional management were asked. Subjects were also queried about likelihood of following physician recommendation for each test or intervention. Actual 30-day testing and interventions were recorded. The main outcome was patient preference about each procedure and the likelihood of patient saying they would accept the physician recommendation. RESULTS: One thousand eighty patients enrolled; 652 (60%) were admitted to the hospital. With regard to diagnostic test preference, both women and men preferred stress test to catheterization (women 58% versus men 52%; difference 6% [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.06% to 12%]), and the proportion of women and men who would accept the physician recommendation for stress tests was similar (85% for both); however, the stated acceptance rate for cardiac catheterization was lower for women (65% versus 75%; difference -10% [95% CI -15% to -4%]). Women were 6% less likely (67% versus 73%; 95% CI for difference 12% to 0.5%) to accept percutaneous coronary intervention over medical therapy and 7% less likely (61% versus 68%; 95% CI for difference -13% to 1%) to desire coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy. The survey results are consistent with the patients' clinical course. During the initial hospitalization, women were less likely to receive diagnostic testing of any type (38% versus 45%; difference -7%; 95% CI for the difference -13% to -1.5%) and cardiac catheterization (10% versus 17%; difference -7% [95% CI -11% to -2%]). Revascularization was infrequent in both groups (4% versus 6%; difference -2% [95% CI -5% to 0.6%]). CONCLUSION: Although women and men had similar preferences about cardiac diagnostic tests and treatment options, women were less likely than men to say they would accept the physician recommendation for any intervention. Patient preference may partially explain the disparity in cardiovascular testing between women and men.