Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities Evident in Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections is a common source of low-value care in the emergency department (ED). Racial and socioeconomic disparities have been noted in episodes of low-value care, particularly in children. We evaluated whether prescribing rates for acute respiratory tract infections when antibiotics would be inappropriate by guidelines differed by race and socioeconomics. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of adult and pediatric patient encounters in the emergency department (ED) between 2015 and 2023 at 5 hospitals for acute respiratory tract infections that did not require antibiotics by guidelines. Multivariable regression was used to calculate the risk ratio between race, ethnicity, and area deprivation index and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, controlling for patient age, sex, and relevant comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 147,401 ED encounters (55% pediatric, 45% adult) were included. At arrival, 4% patients identified as Asian, 50% as Black, 5% as Hispanic, and 23% as White. Inappropriate prescribing was noted in 7.6% of overall encounters, 8% for Asian patients, 6% for Black patients, 5% for Hispanic patients, and 12% for White patients. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and area deprivation index, White patients had a 1.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 1.38) higher likelihood of receiving a prescription compared with Black patients. Patients residing in areas of greater socioeconomic deprivation, regardless of race and ethnicity, had a 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 0.78) lower likelihood of receiving a prescription. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that although overall inappropriate prescribing was relatively low, White patients and patients from wealthier areas were more likely to receive an inappropriate antibiotic prescription.

Evaluation of a pilot emergency department linkage to care program for patients previously diagnosed with Hepatitis C.

There is a significant number of Emergency Department (ED) patients with known chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who have not been treated with directly acting antivirals. We implemented a pilot ED-based linkage-to-care program to address this need and evaluated the impact of the program using the HCV Care Continuum metrics. Between March 2015 and May 2016, dedicated patient care navigators identified HCV RNA-positive patients in an urban ED and offered expedited appointments with the on-site viral hepatitis clinic. Patient demographics and care continuum outcomes were abstracted from the EMR and analysed to determine significant factors influencing linkage-to-care (LTC) and treatment initiation rates. The ED linkage-to-care program achieved a 43% linkage-to-care rate (165/384), 22% treatment rate (84/384) and 16% sustained virologic response rate (63/384). Significant associations were found between linkage-to-care and increasing age (OR = 1.03), Medicare insurance (OR = 2.21) and having a primary care physician (PCP) (OR = 4.03). For patients who were linked, the odds of initiating treatment were also positively significantly associated with increasing age (OR = 1.04) and having a PCP (OR = 2.77). For patients who initiated treatment, the odds of sustained virologic response were marginally associated with having a PCP (OR = 4.92).Our ED linkage-to-care program utilized care coordination to successfully link nearly half of approached HCV RNA-positive patients to care. This design can be feasibly replicated by other EDs given limited non-clinical training required for linkage-to-care staff. Adoption of similar programs in other EDs may improve the rates of LTC and treatment initiation for previously diagnosed HCV patients.

Do Words Matter? Stigmatizing Language and the Transmission of Bias in the Medical Record.

BACKGROUND: Clinician bias contributes to healthcare disparities, and the language used to describe a patient may reflect that bias. Although medical records are an integral method of communicating about patients, no studies have evaluated patient records as a means of transmitting bias from one clinician to another. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether stigmatizing language written in a patient medical record is associated with a subsequent physician-in-training's attitudes towards the patient and clinical decision-making. DESIGN: Randomized vignette study of two chart notes employing stigmatizing versus neutral language to describe the same hypothetical patient, a 28-year-old man with sickle cell disease. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 413 physicians-in-training: medical students and residents in internal and emergency medicine programs at an urban academic medical center (54% response rate). MAIN MEASURES: Attitudes towards the hypothetical patient using the previously validated Positive Attitudes towards Sickle Cell Patients Scale (range 7-35) and pain management decisions (residents only) using two multiple-choice questions (composite range 2-7 representing intensity of pain treatment). KEY RESULTS: Exposure to the stigmatizing language note was associated with more negative attitudes towards the patient (20.6 stigmatizing vs. 25.6 neutral, p < 0.001). Furthermore, reading the stigmatizing language note was associated with less aggressive management of the patient's pain (5.56 stigmatizing vs. 6.22 neutral, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Stigmatizing language used in medical records to describe patients can influence subsequent physicians-in-training in terms of their attitudes towards the patient and their medication prescribing behavior. This is an important and overlooked pathway by which bias can be propagated from one clinician to another. Attention to the language used in medical records may help to promote patient-centered care and to reduce healthcare disparities for stigmatized populations.

Categorical Risk Perception Drives Variability in Antibiotic Prescribing in the Emergency Department: A Mixed Methods Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to evidence-based antibiotic therapy guidelines for treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) varies widely among clinicians. Understanding this variability is key for reducing inappropriate prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To measure how emergency department (ED) clinicians' perceptions of antibiotic prescribing risks affect their decision-making. DESIGN: Clinician survey based on fuzzy-trace theory, a theory of medical decision-making, combined with retrospective data on prescribing outcomes for URI/pneumonia visits in two EDs. The survey predicts the categorical meanings, or gists, that individuals derive from given information. PARTICIPANTS: ED physicians, residents, and physician assistants (PAs) who completed surveys and treated patients with URI/pneumonia diagnoses between August 2014 and December 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Gists derived from survey responses and their association with rates of antibiotic prescribing per visit. KEY RESULTS: Of 4474 URI/pneumonia visits, 2874 (64.2%) had an antibiotic prescription. However, prescribing rates varied from 7% to 91% for the 69 clinicians surveyed (65.2% response rate). Clinicians who framed therapy-prescribing decisions as a categorical choice between continued illness and possibly beneficial treatment ("why not take a risk?" gist, which assumes antibiotic therapy is essentially harmless) had higher rates of prescribing (OR 1.28 [95% CI, 1.06-1.54]). Greater agreement with the "antibiotics may be harmful" gist was associated with lower prescribing rates (OR 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that clinicians who perceive prescribing as a categorical choice between patients remaining ill or possibly improving from therapy are more likely to prescribe antibiotics. However, this strategy assumes that antibiotics are essentially harmless. Clinicians who framed decision-making as a choice between potential harms from therapy and continued patient illness (e.g., increased appreciation of potential harms) had lower prescribing rates. These results suggest that interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing should emphasize the non-negligible possibility of serious side effects.

Novel Emergency Department Risk Score Discriminates Acute Coronary Syndrome Among Chest Pain Patients With Known Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with known coronary artery disease presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain are often admitted, yet may not be having an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: We assessed whether the use of a novel risk score and a modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score obtained in the ED could discriminate which of these high-risk patients have ACS. Chart review was performed on a cohort of 285 patients with known coronary artery disease presenting to the ED with chest pain thought to be of ischemic origin and admitted to the hospital. The ED variables were assessed with logistic regression for their association with eventual ACS diagnosis at hospital discharge. ACS was diagnosed in 74 (26%) of the patients. RESULTS: Non-ACS patients had a 2-day median length of stay and $6875 median inpatient (post ED) hospital charges (not including physician fees), totaling 566 hospital bed days and $1,871,250 for the 211 (74%) non-ACS patients. A novel risk score, including (1) history of prior revascularization, (2) comorbid chronic kidney disease, (3) onset of chest discomfort at rest, (4) dynamic electrocardiogram changes in the ED, (5) elevated troponin I (>0.05 ng/mL) in the ED, and (6) associated illness at presentation, discriminated ACS and non-ACS with a c statistic of 0.767; the c statistic for a modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score was 0.712. CONCLUSIONS: Application of these risk scores may reduce the number of potentially avoidable admissions and their associated hazards and costs.