Qualitative Exploration of Emergency Department Care Experiences Among People With Opioid Use Disorder.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We described the experiences and preferences of people with opioid use disorder who access emergency department (ED) services regarding ED care and ED-based interventions. METHODS: Between June and September 2020, we conducted phone or in-person semistructured qualitative interviews with patients recently discharged from 2 urban EDs in Vancouver, BC, Canada, to explore experiences and preferences of ED care and ED-based opioid use disorder interventions. We recruited participants from a cohort of adults with opioid use disorder who were participating in an ED-initiated outreach program. We transcribed audio recordings verbatim. We iteratively developed a thematic coding structure, with interim analyses to assess for thematic saturation. Two team members with lived experience of opioid use provided feedback on content, wording, and analysis throughout the study. RESULTS: We interviewed 19 participants. Participants felt discriminated against for their drug use, which led to poorer perceived health care and downstream ED avoidance. Participants desired to be treated like ED patients who do not use drugs and to be more involved in their ED care. Participants nevertheless felt comfortable discussing their substance use with ED staff and valued continuous ED operating hours. Regarding opioid use disorder treatment, participants supported ED-based buprenorphine/naloxone programs but also suggested additional options (eg, different initiation regimens and settings and other opioid agonist therapies) to facilitate further treatment uptake. CONCLUSION: Based on participant experiences, we recommend addressing potentially stigmatizing practices, increasing patient involvement in their care during ED visits, and increasing access to various opioid use disorder-related treatments and community support.

Concordance between 8-1-1 HealthLink BC Emergency iDoctor-in-assistance (HEiDi) virtual physician advice and subsequent health service utilization for callers to a nurse-managed provincial health information telephone service.

BACKGROUND: British Columbia 8-1-1 callers who are advised by a nurse to seek urgent medical care can be referred to virtual physicians (VPs) for supplemental assessment and advice. Prior research indicates callers' subsequent health service use may diverge from VP advice. We sought to 1) estimate concordance between VP advice and subsequent health service use, and 2) identify factors associated with concordance to understand potential drivers of discordant cases. METHODS: We linked relevant provincial administrative databases to obtain inpatient, outpatient, and emergency service use by callers. We developed operational definitions of concordance collaboratively with researcher, patient, VP, and management perspectives. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to describe health service use post-VP consultation and Cox regression to estimate the association of caller factors (rurality, demography, attachment to primary care) and call factors (reason, triage level, time of day) with concordance as hazard ratios. RESULTS: We analyzed 17,188 calls from November 16, 2020 to April 30, 2021. Callers advised to attend an emergency department (ED) immediately were the most concordant (73%) while concordance was lowest for those advised to seek Family Physician (FP) care either immediately (41%) or within 7 days (47%). Callers unattached to FPs were less likely to schedule an FP visit (hazard ratio = 0.76 [95%CI: 0.68-0.85]). Rural callers were less likely to attend an ED within 48 h when advised to go immediately (0.53 [95%CI:0.46-0.61]) compared to urban callers. Rural callers advised to see an FP, either immediately (1.28 [95%CI:1.01-1.62]) or within 7 days (1.23 [95%CI: 1.11-1.37]), were more likely to do so than urban callers. INTERPRETATION: Concordance between VP advice and subsequent caller health service use varies substantially by category of advice and caller rurality. Concordance with advice to "Go to ED" is high overall but to access primary care is below 50%, suggesting potential issues with timely access to FP care. Future research from a patient/caller centered perspective may reveal additional barriers and facilitators to concordance.

Which Patients Should Have Early Surgical Intervention for Acute Ureteral Colic?

PURPOSE: Early surgical intervention is an attractive option for acute ureteral colic but existing evidence does not clarify which patients benefit. We compared treatment failure rates in patients receiving early intervention and patients offered spontaneous passage to identify subgroups that benefit from early intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used administrative data and structured chart review to study consecutive patients attending 9 emergency departments in 2 Canadian provinces with confirmed 2.0 to 9.9 mm ureteral stones. We described patient, stone and treatment characteristics, and performed multivariable regression to identify factors associated with treatment failure, defined as intervention or hospitalization within 60 days. Our secondary outcome was emergency department revisit rate. RESULTS: Overall 1,168 of 3,081 patients underwent early intervention. Those with stones smaller than 5 mm experienced more treatment failures (31.5% vs 9.9%, difference 21.6%, 95% CI 16.9 to 21.2) and emergency department revisits (38.5% vs 19.7%, difference 18.8%, 95% CI 13.8 to 23.8) with early intervention than with spontaneous passage. Patients with stones 7.0 mm or larger experienced fewer treatment failures (34.7% vs 58.6%, risk difference 23.9%, 95% CI 11.3 to 36.6) and similar emergency department revisit rates with early intervention. Patients with 5.0 to 6.9 mm stones had fewer treatment failures with intervention (37.4% vs 55.5%, risk difference 18.1%, 95% CI 7.1 to 28.9) if stones were in the proximal or middle ureter. CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention improves outcomes for patients with large (greater than 7 mm) ureteral stones or 5 to 7 mm proximal or mid ureteral stones. Early intervention may increase morbidity for patients with stones smaller than 5 mm. These findings could help inform future guidelines.

Rapid Agitation Control With Ketamine in the Emergency Department: A Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that the use of intramuscular ketamine would result in a clinically relevant shorter time to target sedation. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing the rapidity of onset, level of sedation, and adverse effect profile of ketamine compared to a combination of midazolam and haloperidol for behavioral control of emergency department patients with severe psychomotor agitation. We included patients with severe psychomotor agitation measured by a Richmond Agitation Score (RASS) ≥+3. Patients in the ketamine group were treated with a 5 mg/kg intramuscular injection. Patients in the midazolam and haloperidol group were treated with a single intramuscular injection of 5 mg midazolam and 5 mg haloperidol. The primary outcome was the time, in minutes, from study medication administration to adequate sedation, defined as RASS ≤-1. Secondary outcomes included the need for rescue medications and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Between June 30, 2018, and March 13, 2020, we screened 308 patients and enrolled 80. The median time to sedation was 14.7 minutes for midazolam and haloperidol versus 5.8 minutes for ketamine (difference 8.8 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 14.5]). Adjusted Cox proportional model analysis favored the ketamine arm (hazard ratio 2.43, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.12). Five (12.5%) patients in the ketamine arm and 2 (5.0%) patients in the midazolam and haloperidol arm experienced serious adverse events (difference 7.5% [95% CI -4.8% to 19.8%]). CONCLUSION: In ED patients with severe agitation, intramuscular ketamine provided significantly shorter time to adequate sedation than a combination of intramuscular midazolam and haloperidol.

Impact of Atrial Fibrillation Case Volume in the Emergency Department on Early and Late Outcomes of Patients With New Atrial Fibrillation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To define the association between atrial fibrillation case volume in the emergency department and death or all-cause hospitalization at 30 days and 1 year in patients with new atrial fibrillation. Secondary objectives examined repeat ED visits and the management of atrial fibrillation within 90 days. METHODS: We identified all adults presenting to an ED in Alberta, Canada, with a new primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation/flutter between 2009 and 2015 using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision code I48. Volume was classified in tertiles weighted by annual ED number of atrial fibrillation cases. The association between volume and outcomes was evaluated using generalized linear mixed models, adjusting for prognostically important covariates as fixed effects and ED as a random effect to account for potential clustering within EDs. RESULTS: The tertiles consisted of 4 high, 9 medium, and 68 low atrial fibrillation volume EDs, with 4,217, 4,193, and 4,112 patients, respectively. Volume was not independently associated with the primary outcome or individual components. However, medium- and high-volume EDs had fewer repeat ED visits at 30 days (respective adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.75 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.66 to 0.87] and 0.64 [0.52 to 0.79]) and 1 year (respective aOR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.90] and 0.71 [0.56 to 0.90]). Fewer patients were admitted from medium- (37.1%) and high- (32.0%) compared with low-volume (39.5%) EDs. Patients attending medium- and high-volume EDs were more likely to be cardioverted (aOR 3.28 [95% CI 1.94 to 5.53] and 3.81 [1.39 to 10.48] for medium- and high-volume EDs, respectively). CONCLUSION: Treatment in higher volume EDs was associated with significantly lower admission rates and repeat ED visits but no difference in survival.

Can plain film radiography improve the emergency department detection of clinically important urinary stones?

OBJECTIVE: Physicians frequently use ultrasound to assess hydronephrosis in patients with suspected renal colic, but ultrasound has limited diagnostic sensitivity and rarely clarifies stone size or location. Consequently, up to 80% of emergency department (ED) renal colic patients undergo confirmatory CT imaging. Our goal was to estimate x-ray sensitivity for urinary stones and determine whether x-ray substantially improves stone detection (sensitivity) compared to hydronephrosis assessment alone. METHODS: We reviewed imaging reports from all renal colic patients who underwent x-ray and CT at four EDs. For each patient, we documented stone size, location and hydronephrosis severity on CT and whether stones were identified on x-ray. We considered moderate and severe hydronephrosis (MS-Hydro) as significant positive findings, then calculated the sensitivity (detection rate) of MS-Hydro and x-ray for large stones ≥5 mm and for stones likely to require intervention (all ureteral stones >7 mm and proximal or middle stones >5 mm). We then tested a diagnostic algorithm adding x-ray to hydronephrosis assessment. RESULTS: Among 1026 patients with 1527 stones, MS-Hydro sensitivity was 39% for large stones and 60% for interventional stones. X-ray sensitivity was 46% for large stones and 52% for interventional stones. Adding x-ray to hydronephrosis assessment increased sensitivity in all stone categories, specifically from 39% to 68% for large stones (gain = 29%; 95%CI, 23% to 35%) and from 60% to 82% for interventional stones (gain = 22%; 95%CI, 13% to 30%). Because CT and ultrasound show strong agreement for MS-Hydro identification, physicians who depend on ultrasound-based hydronephrosis assessment could achieve similar gains by adding x-ray. CONCLUSIONS: Adding x-ray to hydronephrosis assessment substantially improves diagnostic sensitivity, enabling the detection of nearly 70% of large stones and over 80% of interventional stones. This level of sensitivity may be sufficient to reassure physicians about a renal colic diagnosis without CT imaging for many patients.

Impact of cardiology follow-up care on treatment and outcomes of patients with new atrial fibrillation discharged from the emergency department.

AIMS: The first presentation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is often to an emergency department (ED). We evaluated the association of subsequent specialist care with morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study of all adults in Alberta, Canada, with a new primary diagnosis of AF treated and released during an index ED visit between 2009 and 2015. Types of physician follow-up within 3 months of ED visit was analysed using Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying covariates. Outcomes were evaluated at 1 year. Of 7986 patients, 476 (6.0%) had no physician follow-up within 3 months, whereas 2730 (34.2%) attended a non-specialist only, 1277 (16.0%) an internal medicine specialist, and 3503 (43.9%) cardiology. An increasing gradient of cardiac investigations occurred across these groups. Cardiology compared with non-cardiologist care was associated with approximately two-fold greater electrophysiology interventions and revascularization, and increased use of beta-blockers (48.9% vs. 43.0%, P < 0.0001), statins (31.4% vs. 26.7%, P < 0.0001), and oral anticoagulation in patients with CHADS2 scores ≥1 (53.7% vs. 43.6%, P < 0.0001). In the subsequent year, cardiology care was associated with fewer deaths [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.93], strokes (aHR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96), or major bleeds (aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.89). No differences in the risk of hospitalization or ED visits were associated with cardiology care. CONCLUSION: Cardiology care after an ED visit for symptomatic new-onset AF is associated with better prognosis. The benefit may be mediated through more intensive investigation, identification, and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and disease.

Lorazepam Versus Diazepam in the Management of Emergency Department Patients With Alcohol Withdrawal.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Alcohol withdrawal is a common emergency department (ED) presentation. Although benzodiazepines reduce symptoms of withdrawal, there is little ED-based evidence to assist clinicians in selecting appropriate pharmacotherapy. We compare lorazepam with diazepam for the management of alcohol withdrawal to assess 1-week ED and hospital-related outcomes. METHODS: From January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, at 3 urban EDs in Vancouver, Canada, we studied patients with a discharge diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal. We excluded individuals presenting with a seizure or an acute concurrent illness. We performed a structured chart review to ascertain demographics, ED treatments, and outcomes. Patients were stratified according to initial management with lorazepam versus diazepam. The primary outcome was hospital admission, and secondary outcomes included in-ED seizures and 1-week return visits for discharged patients. RESULTS: Of 1,055 patients who presented with acute alcohol withdrawal, 898 were treated with benzodiazepines. Median age was 47 years (interquartile range 37 to 56 years) and 73% were men. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. Overall, 69 of 394 patients (17.5%) receiving lorazepam were admitted to the hospital compared with 94 of 504 patients receiving diazepam (18.7%), a difference of 1.2% (95% confidence interval -4.2% to 6.3%). Seven patients (0.7%; 95% confidence interval 0.3% to 1.4%) had an in-ED seizure, but all seizures occurred before receipt of benzodiazepines. Among patients discharged home, 1-week return visits occurred for 78 of 325 (24.0%) who received lorazepam and 94 of 410 (23.2%) who received diazepam, a difference of 0.8% (95% confidence interval -5.3% to 7.1%). CONCLUSION: In our sample of ED patients with acute alcohol withdrawal, patients receiving lorazepam had an admission rate similar to that of those receiving diazepam. The few in-ED seizures occurred before medication administration. For discharged patients, the 1-week ED return visit rate of nearly 25% could warrant enhanced follow-up and community support.

The Association of the Average Epinephrine Dosing Interval and Survival With Favorable Neurologic Status at Hospital Discharge in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: For patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the recommended dosing interval of epinephrine is 3 to 5 minutes, but this recommendation is based on expert opinion without data to guide optimal management. We seek to evaluate the association between the average epinephrine dosing interval and patient outcomes. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium continuous chest compression trial, we identified consecutive patients treated with greater than or equal to 2 doses of epinephrine. We defined average epinephrine dosing interval as resuscitation duration after the first dose of epinephrine divided by the total administered epinephrine, and categorized the dosing interval in minutes as less than 3, 3 to less than 4, 4 to less than 5, and greater than or equal to 5. We fit a logistic regression model to estimate the association of the average epinephrine dosing interval category with survival with favorable neurologic status (modified Rankin Scale score ≤3) at hospital discharge. RESULTS: We included 15,909 patients (median age 68 years [interquartile range 56 to 80 years], 35% women, 13% public location, 46% bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and 19% initial shockable rhythm). The median epinephrine dosing interval was 4.3 minutes (interquartile range 3.5 to 5.3 minutes). Survival with favorable neurologic status occurred in 4.7% of patients. Compared with the reference dosing interval of less than 3 minutes, longer epinephrine dosing intervals were associated with lower survival with favorable neurologic status: dosing interval 3 to less than 4 minutes, adjusted odds ratio 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.60); 4 to less than 5 minutes, adjusted odds ratio 0.26 (95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.36); and greater than or equal to 5 minutes, adjusted odds ratio 0.21 (95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.30). CONCLUSION: In this out-of-hospital cardiac arrest series, a shorter average epinephrine dosing interval was associated with improved survival with favorable neurologic status.

Safety of a Modified Community Trailer to Manage Patients with Presumed Fentanyl Overdose.

Opioid overdoses (OD) cause substantial morbidity and mortality globally, and current emergency management is typically limited to supportive care, with variable emphasis on harm reduction and addictions treatment. Our urban setting has a high concentration of patients with presumed fentanyl OD, which places a burden on both pre-hospital and emergency department (ED) resources. From December 13, 2016, to March 1, 2017, we placed a modified trailer away from an ED but near the center of the expected area of high OD and accepted low-risk patients with presumed fentanyl OD. We provided OD treatment as well as on-site harm reduction, addictions care, and community resources. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients requiring transfer to an ED for clinical deterioration, while secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients initiated on opioid agonists and provided take-home naloxone kits. We treated 269 patients with opioid OD, transferred three (1.1%) to a local ED, started 43 (16.0%) on opioid agonists, and provided 220 (81.7%) with THN. Our program appears to be safe and may serve as a model for other settings dealing with a large numbers of opioid OD.

Safety of a Brief Emergency Department Observation Protocol for Patients With Presumed Fentanyl Overdose.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Fentanyl overdoses are increasing and few data guide emergency department (ED) management. We evaluate the safety of an ED protocol for patients with presumed fentanyl overdose. METHODS: At an urban ED, we used administrative data and explicit chart review to identify and describe consecutive patients with uncomplicated presumed fentanyl overdose (no concurrent acute medical issues) from September to December 2016. We linked regional ED and provincial vital statistics databases to ascertain admissions, revisits, and mortality. Primary outcome was a composite of admission and death within 24 hours. Other outcomes included treatment with additional ED naloxone, development of a new medical issue while in the ED, and length of stay. A prespecified subgroup analysis assessed low-risk patients with normal triage vital signs. RESULTS: There were 1,009 uncomplicated presumed fentanyl overdose, mainly by injection. Median age was 34 years, 85% were men, and 82% received out-of-hospital naloxone. One patient was hospitalized and one discharged patient died within 24 hours (combined outcome 0.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04% to 0.8%). Sixteen patients received additional ED naloxone (1.6%; 95% CI 1.0% to 2.6%), none developed a new medical issue (0%; 95% CI 0% to 0.5%), and median length of stay was 173 minutes (interquartile range 101 to 267). For 752 low-risk patients, no patients were admitted or developed a new issue, and one died postdischarge; 3 (0.4%; 95% CI 0.01% to 1.3%) received ED naloxone. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of ED patients with uncomplicated presumed fentanyl overdose-typically after injection-deterioration, admission, mortality, and postdischarge complications appear low; the majority can be discharged after brief observation. Patients with normal triage vital signs are unlikely to require ED naloxone.

Intraosseous Vascular Access Is Associated With Lower Survival and Neurologic Recovery Among Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We seek to determine the effect of intraosseous over intravenous vascular access on outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Prehospital Resuscitation Using an Impedance Valve and Early Versus Delayed (PRIMED) study included adult patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrests treated during 2007 to 2009, excluding those with any unsuccessful attempt or more than one access site. The primary exposure was intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access. The primary outcome was favorable neurologic outcome on hospital discharge (modified Rankin Scale score ≤3). We determined the association between vascular access route and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcome with multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, initial emergency medical services-recorded rhythm (shockable or nonshockable), witness status, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, use of public automated external defibrillator, episode location (public or not), and time from call to paramedic scene arrival. We confirmed the results with multiple imputation, propensity score matching, and generalized estimating equations, with study enrolling region as a clustering variable. RESULTS: Of 13,155 included out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 660 (5.0%) received intraosseous vascular access. In the intraosseous group, 10 of 660 patients (1.5%) had favorable neurologic outcome compared with 945 of 12,495 (7.6%) in the intravenous group. On multivariable regression, intraosseous access was associated with poorer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival (adjusted odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.46). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results. CONCLUSION: In adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, intraosseous vascular access was associated with poorer neurologic outcomes than intravenous access.

Gains of Continuing Resuscitation in Refractory Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Model-based Analysis to Identify Deaths Due to Intra-arrest Prognostication.

OBJECTIVE: Prognostication bias, in which a clinician predicts a negative outcome and terminates resuscitation (TR) thereby ensuring a poor outcome, is a rarely identified limitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) research. We sought to estimate the number of deaths due to intra-arrest prognostication in a cohort of OHCA's, and use this data to estimate the incremental benefit of continuing resuscitation. METHODS: This study examined a cohort of consecutive non-traumatic EMS-treated OHCAs from a provincial ambulance service, between 2007 and 2011 inclusive. We used Cox and logistic regression modeling, adjusting for Utstein covariates, to estimate the probability of ROSC, survival, and favorable neurological outcomes as a function of resuscitation time, and applied these models to estimate the number of missed survivors in those who had TR (prior to 20, 30, or 40 minutes). We determined the time juncture at which (1) the likelihood of survival fell below 1%, and (2) the proportion of survivors who had achieved ROSC exceeded 99%. RESULTS: Of 5674 adult EMS-treated cases, 46% achieved ROSC, and 12% survived. The median time of TR was 27.0 minutes (IQR 19.0-35.0). Continuing resuscitation until 40 minutes yielded an estimated 17 additional survivors (95% CI 13-21), 10 (95% CI 7-13) with favorable neurological outcomes. The probability of survival of those in refractory arrest decreased below 1% at 28 minutes (95% CI 24-30 minutes). At 36 minutes (95% CI 34-38 minutes) >99% of survivors had achieved ROSC. CONCLUSION: We identified possible deaths due to intra-arrest prognostication. Resuscitation should be continued for a minimum of 30 minutes in all patients, however for those with initial shockable rhythms 40 minutes appears to be warranted. Interventional trials and observational studies should standardize or adjust for duration of resuscitation prior to TR.

External Validation of the Universal Termination of Resuscitation Rule for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in British Columbia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Universal Termination of Resuscitation Rule (TOR Rule) was developed to identify out-of-hospital cardiac arrests eligible for field termination of resuscitation, avoiding futile transportation to the hospital. The validity of the rule in emergency medical services (EMS) systems that do not routinely transport out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients to the hospital is unknown. We seek to validate the TOR Rule in British Columbia. METHODS: This study included consecutive, nontraumatic, adult, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests treated by EMS in British Columbia from April 2011 to September 2015. We excluded patients with active do-not-resuscitate orders and those with missing data. Following consensus guidelines, we examined the validity of the TOR Rule after 6 minutes of resuscitation (to approximate three 2-minute cycles of resuscitation). To ascertain rule performance at the different time junctures, we recalculated TOR Rule classification accuracy at subsequent 1-minute resuscitation increments. RESULTS: Of 6,994 consecutive, adult, EMS-treated, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, overall survival was 15%. At 6 minutes of resuscitation, rule performance was sensitivity 0.72, specificity 0.91, positive predictive value 0.98, and negative predictive value 0.36. The TOR Rule recommended care termination for 4,367 patients (62%); of these, 92 survived to hospital discharge (false-positive rate 2.1%; 95% confidence interval 1.7% to 2.5%); however, this proportion steadily decreased with later application. The TOR Rule recommended continuation of resuscitation in 2,627 patients (38%); of these, 1,674 died (false-negative rate 64%; 95% confidence interval 62% to 66%). Compared with 6-minute application, test characteristics at 30 minutes demonstrated nearly perfect positive predictive value (1.0) and specificity (1.0) but a lower sensitivity (0.46) and negative predictive value (0.25). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, the TOR Rule applied at 6 minutes falsely recommended care termination for 2.1% of patients; however, this decreased with later application. Systems using the TOR Rule to cease resuscitation in the field should consider rule application at points later than 6 minutes.

Missed Opportunities for HIV Prophylaxis Among Emergency Department Patients With Occupational and Nonoccupational Body Fluid Exposures.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Exposures to HIV are frequently managed in the emergency department (ED) for assessment and potential initiation of HIV postexposure prophylaxis. Despite established guidelines, it is unclear whether patients with a nonoccupational exposure are managed similarly to patients with an occupational exposure. METHODS: This retrospective study used an administrative database to identify consecutive patients at a single ED with a discharge diagnosis of "blood or body fluid exposure" without sexual assault from April 1, 2007 to June 30, 2013. Patient exposure details and physician management were ascertained according to predefined guidelines. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with high-risk exposures who were correctly given HIV prophylaxis; the secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with low-risk exposures who were correctly not given HIV prophylaxis. Other outcomes included the proportion of patients who had a baseline HIV test in the ED, the proportion who followed up with an HIV test within 6 months, and the number of seroconversions in this group. All outcomes were compared between nonoccupational and occupational exposure. RESULTS: Of 1,972 encounters, 1,358 patients (68.9%) had an occupational exposure and 614 (31.1%) had a nonoccupational exposure. In the occupational exposure group, 190 patients (14.0%) were deemed high risk, with 160 (84.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 78.1% to 88.9%) appropriately given prophylaxis. In the nonoccupational exposure group, 287 patients (46.7%) had a high-risk exposure, with 208 (72.5%; 95% CI 66.8% to 77.5%) given prophylaxis, for a difference of 11.7% (95% CI 3.8% to 19.1%). For low-risk exposures, appropriate management of both occupational and nonoccupational exposure was similar (92.4% versus 93.0%). At the index ED visit, 90.5% of occupational exposure patients and 76.7% of nonoccupational exposure patients received HIV testing, for a difference of 13.8% (95% CI 10.1% to 17.7%). At 6 months, 25.4% of patients with an occupational exposure and 35.0% of patients with a nonoccupational exposure had a follow-up test, for a difference of -9.6% (95% CI -14.2% to -5.1%). Of patients who had follow-up testing within 6 months, 4 of 215 (1.9%) in the nonoccupational exposure group tested newly positive for HIV, whereas 0 of 345 (0%) in the occupational exposure group tested positive. CONCLUSION: For ED patients with blood or body fluid exposures, those with high-risk nonoccupational exposures were not given HIV prophylaxis nearly twice as often as those with high-risk occupational exposure. Although 6-month follow-up testing rates were low, 1.9% of high-risk nonoccupational exposure patients seroconverted.