Clinical characteristics and outcomes of adrenal hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Although uncommon, adrenal hemorrhage has multiple etiologies. Because clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with adrenal hemorrhage are inadequately described, we examined the underlying etiology, need for intervention, evolution of imaging characteristics, and adequacy of subsequent evaluation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with adrenal hemorrhage (radiologist-confirmed density consistent with hemorrhage on computed tomography) from 2005 to 2021 at a university-based institution. Demographic characteristics, hemorrhage etiology, and subsequent follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 193 adrenal hemorrhage patients, the mean age was 49.2 ± 18.3 years, and 35% were female. Clinical presentations included trauma (47%), abdominal or flank pain (28%), incidental findings on imaging acquired for other reasons (12%), postoperative complication (8%), or shock (3%). Hemorrhage outside of the gland was present in 62% of patients. Unilateral hemorrhage was more frequent (93%) than bilateral (7%). A total of 12% of patients had nodules, but only 70% of these were identified on initial imaging, and only 43% had hormonal evaluation. Of 7 patients who had adrenalectomy or biopsy, pathology was either benign (57%) or nonadrenal malignancy (43%). No adrenocortical carcinomas were identified. Follow-up imaging was performed in 56% of patients and revealed decreased, stable, resolved, or increased adrenal hemorrhage size in 39%, 19%, 30%, and 12% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Adrenal hemorrhage is secondary to multiple etiologies, most commonly trauma. In the setting of adrenal hemorrhage, many adrenal nodules were not identified on initial imaging. Only a minority of patients with nodules underwent "complete" biochemical evaluation. Follow-up imaging may improve the identification of underlying nodules needing hormonal evaluation.

Implementation of a COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Department Education Program for Underserved Communities.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an opportunity for significant reflection on our public health response as providers. Throughout the past two years, we learned that administration of COVID-19 vaccines, rapidly and widely across all communities, has been key to halting the spread of the virus. One significant challenge in promoting a large-scale immunization program is the threat of vaccine hesitancy. A general mistrust in healthcare providers exists across the country, especially in underrepresented minority (URM) communities. Objective This study aims to determine reasons for vaccine hesitancy in an urban emergency department and to provide targeted education on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines to patients. Methods An interprofessional quality improvement team was assembled to develop an educational intervention addressing COVID-19 vaccine safety for vaccine-eligible patients receiving treatment in the emergency department at an urban community hospital where over 70% of patients identify as URM. A survey was conducted to elucidate patients' concerns surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine. Upon completion of the survey, up-to-date safety information and education targeting their surveyed concerns were provided by trained medical students. A follow-up survey was conducted to assess the impact of education on patients' attitudes toward the vaccine. Surveys were developed using standardized scoring systems from the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (OCEANS) II study and the Kaiser Foundation. Hesitancy scores before and after education were tabulated to assess the effectiveness of targeted education in improving vaccine hesitancy. Results Patients cited a variety of concerns surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine. The three most common reasons for declining vaccines were potential side effects (67.3% were concerned or extremely concerned), the belief that COVID-19 vaccines are neither effective nor safe (64.5% were concerned to extremely concerned), and the risk of developing COVID-19 infection from the vaccine itself (38.8% were concerned to extremely concerned). This information was used to address these concerns directly with patients, answer questions, clarify information, and encourage patients to get vaccinated. Through this education program, vaccine hesitancy scores improved by an average of 29% indicating an increased likelihood of patients who would get vaccinated in the future. Of patients receiving education, 38% agreed to sign up for a vaccine appointment during the intervention. Conclusion The emergency department often serves vulnerable patient populations. As such, its role in public health in these communities cannot be underestimated. This quality improvement project is a novel method that can be used to develop and implement public health education programs to address specific community needs in the emergency department. These results show that a multidisciplinary healthcare team can provide a measurable change in attitudes about vaccine safety with directed education in the emergency department that can help address vaccine hesitancy in the future.