Barriers and Facilitators to Harm Reduction for Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Study of People With Lived Experience.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although an increasing number of emergency departments (ED) offer opioid agonist treatment, naloxone, and other harm reduction measures, little is known about patient perspectives on harm reduction practices delivered in the ED. The objective of this study was to identify patient-focused barriers and facilitators to harm reduction strategies in the ED. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of individuals in Massachusetts diagnosed with opioid use disorder. We developed an interview guide, and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process using reflexive thematic analysis. After initial interviews and coding, we triangulated the results among a focus group of 4 individuals with lived experience. RESULTS: We interviewed 25 participants with opioid use disorder, 6 recruited from 1 ED and 19 recruited from opioid agonist treatment clinics. Key themes included accessibility of harm reduction supplies, lack of self-care resulting from withdrawal and hopelessness, the impact of stigma on the likelihood of using harm reduction practices, habit and knowledge, as well as the need for user-centered harm reduction interventions. CONCLUSION: In this study, people with lived experience discussed the characteristics and need for user-centered harm reduction strategies in the ED that centered on reducing stigma, treatment of withdrawal, and availability of harm reduction materials.

Characteristics of acute sexual assault care in New England emergency departments.

Objective: Interventions such as written protocols and sexual assault nurse examiner programs improve outcomes for patients who have experienced acute sexual assault. How widely and in what ways such interventions have been implemented is largely unknown. We sought to characterize the current state of acute sexual assault care in New England. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of individuals acute with knowledge of emergency department (ED) operations in relation to sexual assault care at New England adult EDs. Our primary outcomes included the availability and coverage of dedicated and non-dedicated sexual assault forensic examiners in EDs. Secondary outcomes included frequency of and reasons for patient transfer; treatment before transfer; availability of written sexual assault protocols; characteristics and scope of practice of dedicated and non-dedicated sexual assault forensic examiners (SAFEs), provision of care in SAFEs' absence; availability, coverage, and characteristics of victim advocacy and follow-up resources; and barriers to and facilitators of care. Results: We approached all 186 distinct adult EDs in New England to recruit participants; 92 (49.5%) individuals participated, most commonly physician medical directors (n = 34, 44.1%). Two thirds of participants reported they at times have access to a dedicated (n = 52, 65%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 54.5%-75.5%) or non-dedicated (n = 50, 64.1%; 95% CI, 53.5%-74.7%) SAFE, but fewer reported always having this access (n = 9, 17.3%; 95% CI, 7%-27.6%; n = 13, 26%; 95% CI, 13.8%-38.2%). We describe in detail findings related to our secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Although SAFEs are recognized as a strategy to provide high-quality acute sexual assault care, their availability and coverage is limited.

"Just give them a choice": Patients' perspectives on starting medications for opioid use disorder in the ED.

OBJECTIVES: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) prescribed in the emergency department (ED) have the potential to save lives and help people start and maintain recovery. We sought to explore patient perspectives regarding the initiation of buprenorphine and methadone in the ED with the goal of improving interactions and fostering shared decision making (SDM) around these important treatment options. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) regarding ED visits and their experiences with MOUD. The interview guide was based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, a framework for examining decisional needs and tailoring decisional support, and the research team's experience with MOUD and SDM. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process using both the Ottawa Framework and a social-ecological framework. Themes were identified and organized and implications for clinical care were noted and discussed. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants were interviewed, seven in person in the ED and 19 via video conferencing software. The majority had tried both buprenorphine and methadone, and almost all had been in an ED for an issue related to opioid use. Participants reported social, pharmacological, and emotional factors that played into their decision making. Regarding buprenorphine, they noted advantages such as its efficacy and logistical ease and disadvantages such as the need to wait to start it (risk of precipitated withdrawal) and that one could not use other opioids while taking it. Additionally, participants felt that: (1) both buprenorphine and methadone should be offered; (2) because "one person's pro is another person's con," clinicians will need to understand the facets of the options; (3) clinicians will need to have these conversations without appearing judgmental; and (4) many patients may not be "ready" for MOUD, but it should still be offered. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants were supportive of offering buprenorphine in the ED, many felt that methadone should also be offered. They felt that treatment should be tailored to an individual's needs and circumstances and clarified what factors might be important considerations for people with OUD.

Executive summary of the 2021 SAEM consensus conference: From bedside to policy: Advancing social emergency medicine and population health through research, collaboration, and education.

BACKGROUND: Social emergency medicine (social EM) examines the intersection of emergency care and the social factors that influence health outcomes. In 2021, the SAEM consensus conference focused on social EM and population health, with the goal of prioritizing research topics, creating collaborations, and advancing the field of social EM. METHODS: Organization of the conference began in 2019 within SAEM. Cochairs were identified and a planning committee created the framework for the conference. Leaders for subgroups were identified, and subgroups performed literature reviews and identified additional stakeholders within EM and community organizations. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the conference format was modified. RESULTS: A total of 246 participants registered for the conference and participated in some capacity at three distinct online sessions. Research prioritization subgroups were as follows-group 1: ED screening and referral for social and access needs; group 2: structural competency; and group 3: race, racism, and antiracism. Thirty-two "projects in progress" were presented within five domains-identity and health: people and places; health care systems; training and education; material needs; and individual and structural violence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ongoing challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 SAEM consensus conference brought together hundreds of stakeholders to define research priorities and create collaborations to push the field forward.

Clinicians' perspectives on the implementation of patient decision aids in the emergency department: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: Decision aids (DAs) are tools to facilitate and standardize shared decision making (SDM). Although most emergency clinicians (ECs) perceive SDM appropriate for emergency care, there is limited uptake of DAs in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators identified by ECs regarding the implementation of DAs in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study guided by implementation science frameworks. ECs participated in interviews focused on the implementation of DAs for the disposition of patients with low-risk chest pain and unexplained syncope in the ED. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We then iteratively developed a codebook with directed qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We approached 25 ECs working in urban New York, of whom 20 agreed to be interviewed (mean age, 41 years; 25% women). The following 6 main barriers were identified: (1) poor DA accessibility, (2) concern for increased medicolegal risk, (3) lack of perceived need for a DA, (4) patient factors including lack of capacity and limited health literacy, (5) skepticism about validity of DAs, and (6) lack of time to use DAs. The 6 main facilitators identified were (1) positive attitudes toward SDM, (2) patient access to follow-up care, (3) potential for improved patient satisfaction, (4) potential for improved risk communication, (5) strategic integration of DAs into the clinical workflow, and (6) institutional support of DAs. CONCLUSIONS: ECs identified multiple barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DAs into clinical practice. These findings could guide implementation efforts targeting the uptake of DA use in the ED.

"This is part of emergency medicine now": A qualitative assessment of emergency clinicians' facilitators of and barriers to initiating buprenorphine.

OBJECTIVES: Despite evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine for the treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), incorporation into clinical practice has been highly variable. We explored barriers and facilitators to the prescription of buprenorphine, as perceived by practicing ED clinicians. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of ED clinicians. An interview guide was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Theoretical Domains Framework implementation science frameworks. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized. RESULTS: We interviewed 25 ED clinicians from 11 states in the United States. Participants were diverse with regard to years in practice and practice setting. While outer setting barriers such as the logistic costs of getting a DEA-X waiver and lack of clear follow-up for patients were noted by many participants, individual-level determinants driven by emotion (stigma), beliefs about consequences and roles, and knowledge predominated. Participants' responses suggested that implementation strategies should address stigma, local culture, knowledge gaps, and logistic challenges, but that a particular order to addressing barriers may be necessary. CONCLUSIONS: While some participants were hesitant to adopt a "new" role in treating patients with medications for OUD, many already had and gave concrete strategies regarding how to encourage others to embrace their attitude of "this is part of emergency medicine now."

A Scoping Review of Current Social Emergency Medicine Research.

INTRODUCTION: Social emergency medicine (EM) is an emerging field that examines the intersection of emergency care and social factors that influence health outcomes. We conducted a scoping review to explore the breadth and content of existing research pertaining to social EM to identify potential areas where future social EM research efforts should be directed. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive PubMed search using Medical Subject Heading terms and phrases pertaining to social EM topic areas (e.g., "homelessness," "housing instability") based on previously published expert consensus. For searches that yielded fewer than 100 total publications, we used the PubMed "similar publications" tool to expand the search and ensure no relevant publications were missed. Studies were independently abstracted by two investigators and classified as relevant if they were conducted in US or Canadian emergency departments (ED). We classified relevant publications by study design type (observational or interventional research, systematic review, or commentary), publication site, and year. Discrepancies in relevant publications or classification were reviewed by a third investigator. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 1,571 publications, of which 590 (38%) were relevant to social EM; among relevant publications, 58 (10%) were interventional studies, 410 (69%) were observational studies, 26 (4%) were systematic reviews, and 96 (16%) were commentaries. The majority (68%) of studies were published between 2010-2020. Firearm research and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) health research in particular grew rapidly over the last five years. The human trafficking topic area had the highest percentage (21%) of interventional studies. A significant portion of publications -- as high as 42% in the firearm violence topic area - included observational data or interventions related to children or the pediatric ED. Areas with more search results often included many publications describing disparities known to predispose ED patients to adverse outcomes (e.g., socioeconomic or racial disparities), or the influence of social determinants on ED utilization. CONCLUSION: Social emergency medicine research has been growing over the past 10 years, although areas such as firearm violence and LGBTQ health have had more research activity than other topics. The field would benefit from a consensus-driven research agenda.

Documentation of Shared Decisionmaking in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: While patient-centered communication and shared decisionmaking are increasingly recognized as vital aspects of clinical practice, little is known about their characteristics in real-world emergency department (ED) settings. We constructed a natural language processing tool to identify patient-centered communication as documented in ED notes and to describe visit-level, site-level, and temporal patterns within a large health system. METHODS: This was a 2-part study involving (1) the development and validation of an natural language processing tool using regular expressions to identify shared decisionmaking and (2) a retrospective analysis using mixed effects logistic regression and trend analysis of shared decisionmaking and general patient discussion using the natural language processing tool to assess ED physician and advanced practice provider notes from 2013 to 2020. RESULTS: Compared to chart review of 600 ED notes, the accuracy rates of the natural language processing tool for identification of shared decisionmaking and general patient discussion were 96.7% (95% CI 94.9% to 97.9%) and 88.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86.1% to 91.3%), respectively. The natural language processing tool identified shared decisionmaking in 58,246 (2.2%) and general patient discussion in 590,933 (22%) notes. From 2013 to 2020, natural language processing-detected shared decisionmaking increased 300% and general patient discussion increased 50%. We observed higher odds of shared decisionmaking documentation among physicians versus advanced practice providers (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.23) and among female versus male patients (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.15). Black patients had lower odds of shared decisionmaking (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.88) compared with White patients. Shared decisionmaking and general patient discussion were also associated with higher levels of triage and commercial insurance status. CONCLUSION: In this study, we developed and validated an natural language processing tool using regular expressions to extract shared decisionmaking from ED notes and found multiple potential factors contributing to variation, including social, demographic, temporal, and presentation characteristics.

Rethinking hiker preparedness: Association of carrying "10 essentials" with adverse events and satisfaction among day-hikers.

INTRODUCTION: Many trusted organizations recommend a particular set of gear for hikers. Termed the "10 essentials," the importance of these items to wilderness preparedness has not been critically evaluated. We sought to better understand the value of these items in day hiker preparedness by assessing the association between carried items, the occurrence of adverse events, and satisfaction. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted at Mount Monadnock (NH) over 4 non-consecutive days. Adults finishing a day hike were invited to participate. The survey assessed items carried, adverse events, satisfaction, and whether hikers felt prepared for the adverse events that occurred. The primary outcome was the occurrence of an adverse event. RESULTS: A total sample of 961 hikers reported 1686 adverse events. Hikers felt prepared for 89% of the events experienced. The most common adverse events reported were thirst (62%), hunger (50%), feeling cold (18%), and needing rain gear (11%). Medical events such as sprains and lacerations made up 18% of all adverse events. Carrying more items was associated with an increased likelihood of reporting an adverse event and a decreased likelihood of adverse events that the hiker was not prepared for, without a change in satisfaction rates. CONCLUSIONS: Carrying more items did not translate into improved satisfaction for day hikers, but was associated with fewer events for which the hiker was unprepared. Other than adverse events related to hunger, thirst, weather, and minor medical events, adverse events were unlikely during this day hike. Nutrition, hydration, and insulation were the items reported as most often needed, followed by a kit to treat minor medical events, while the remaining 6 items were infrequently used.

Feasibility and efficacy of a decision aid for emergency department patients with suspected ureterolithiasis: protocol for an adaptive randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 2 million patients present to emergency departments in the USA annually with signs and symptoms of ureterolithiasis (or renal colic, the pain from an obstructing kidney stone). Both ultrasound and CT scan can be used for diagnosis, but the vast majority of patients receive a CT scan. Diagnostic pathways utilizing ultrasound have been shown to decrease radiation exposure to patients but are potentially less accurate. Because of these and other trade-offs, this decision has been proposed as appropriate for Shared Decision-Making (SDM), where clinicians and patients discuss clinical options and their consequences and arrive at a decision together. We developed a decision aid to facilitate SDM in this scenario. The objective of this study is to determine the effects of this decision aid, as compared to usual care, on patient knowledge, radiation exposure, engagement, safety, and healthcare utilization. METHODS: This is the protocol for an adaptive randomized controlled trial to determine the effects of the intervention-a decision aid ("Kidney Stone Choice")-on patient-centered outcomes, compared with usual care. Patients age 18-55 presenting to the emergency department with signs and symptoms consistent with acute uncomplicated ureterolithiasis will be consecutively enrolled and randomized. Participants will be blinded to group allocation. We will collect outcomes related to patient knowledge, radiation exposure, trust in physician, safety, and downstream healthcare utilization. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that this study will demonstrate that "Kidney Stone Choice," the decision aid created for this scenario, improves patient knowledge and decreases exposure to ionizing radiation. The adaptive design of this study will allow us to identify issues with fidelity and feasibility and subsequently evaluate the intervention for efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04234035 . Registered on 21 January 2020 - Retrospectively Registered.

Emergency department-based interventions affecting social determinants of health in the United States: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDoH) have significant implications for health outcomes in the United States. Emergency departments (EDs) function as the safety nets of the American health care system, caring for many vulnerable populations. ED-based interventions to assess social risk and mitigate social needs have been reported in the literature. However, the breadth and scope of these interventions have not been evaluated. As the field of social emergency medicine (SEM) expands, a mapping and categorization of previous interventions may help shape future research. We sought to identify, summarize, and characterize ED-based interventions aimed at mitigating negative SDoH. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify and characterize peer-reviewed research articles that report ED-based interventions to address or impact SDoH in the United States. We designed and conducted a search in Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Abstracts and, subsequently, full articles were reviewed independently by two reviewers to identify potentially relevant articles. Included articles were categorized by type of intervention and primary SDoH domain. Reported outcomes were also categorized by type and efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 10,856 abstracts were identified and reviewed, and 596 potentially relevant studies were identified. Full article review identified 135 articles for inclusion. These articles were further subdivided into three intervention types: a) provider educational intervention (18%), b) disease modification with SDoH focus (26%), and c) direct SDoH intervention (60%), with 4% including two "types." Articles were subsequently further grouped into seven SDoH domains: 1) access to care (33%), 2) discrimination/group disparities (7%), 3) exposure to violence/crime (34%), 4) food insecurity (2%), 5) housing issues/homelessness (3%), 6) language/literacy/health literacy (12%), 7) socioeconomic disparities/poverty (10%). The majority of articles reported that the intervention studied was effective for the primary outcome identified (78%). CONCLUSION: Emergency department-based interventions that address seven different SDoH domains have been reported in the peer-reviewed literature over the past 30 years, utilizing a variety of approaches including provider education and direct and indirect focus on social risk and need. Characterization and understanding of previous interventions may help identify opportunities for future interventions as well as guide a SEM research agenda.

No evidence of increasing COVID-19 in health care workers after implementation of high flow nasal cannula: A safety evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Initial recommendations discouraged high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in COVID-19 patients, driven by concern for healthcare worker (HCW) exposure. Noting high morbidity and mortality from early invasive mechanical ventilation, we implemented a COVID-19 respiratory protocol employing HFNC in severe COVID-19 and HCW exposed to COVID-19 patients on HFNC wore N95/KN95 masks. Utilization of HFNC increased significantly but questions remained regarding HCW infection rate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of employee infections in our healthcare system using the Employee Health Services database and unit records of employees tested between March 15, 2020 and May 23, 2020. We assessed the incidence of infections before and after the implementation of the protocol, stratifying by clinical or non-clinical role as well as inpatient COVID-19 unit. RESULTS: During the study period, 13.9% (228/1635) of employees tested for COVID-19 were positive. Forty-six percent of infections were in non-clinical staff. After implementation of the respiratory protocol, the proportion of positive tests in clinical staff (41.5%) was not higher than that in non-clinical staff (43.8%). Of the clinicians working in the high-risk COVID-19 unit, there was no increase in infections after protocol implementation compared with clinicians working in COVID-19 units that did not use HFNC. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of increased COVID-19 infections in HCW after the implementation of a respiratory protocol that increased use of HFNC in patients with COVID-19; however, these results are hypothesis generating.

The terminology of social emergency medicine: Measuring social determinants of health, social risk, and social need.

Emergency medicine has increasingly focused on addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) in emergency medicine. However, efforts to standardize and evaluate measurement tools and compare results across studies have been limited by the plethora of terms (eg, SDoH, health-related social needs, social risk) and a lack of consensus regarding definitions. Specifically, the social risks of an individual may not align with the social needs of an individual, and this has ramifications for policy, research, risk stratification, and payment and for the measurement of health care quality. With the rise of social emergency medicine (SEM) as a field, there is a need for a simplified and consistent set of definitions. These definitions are important for clinicians screening in the emergency department, for health systems to understand service needs, for epidemiological tracking, and for research data sharing and harmonization. In this article, we propose a conceptual model for considering SDoH measurement and provide clear, actionable, definitions of key terms to increase consistency among clinicians, researchers, and policy makers.

Safety Assessment of a Noninvasive Respiratory Protocol for Adults With COVID-19.

As evidence emerged supporting noninvasive strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory distress, we implemented a noninvasive COVID-19 respiratory protocol (NCRP) that encouraged high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and self-proning across our healthcare system. To assess safety, we conducted a retrospective chart review evaluating mortality and other patient safety outcomes after implementation of the NCRP protocol (April 3, 2020, to April 15, 2020) for adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with preimplementation outcomes (March 15, 2020, to April 2, 2020). During the study, there were 469 COVID-19 admissions. Fewer patients underwent intubation after implementation (10.7% [23 of 215]), compared with before implementation (25.2% [64 of 254]) (P < .01). Overall, 26.2% of patients died (24% before implementation vs 28.8% after implementation; P = .14). In patients without a do not resuscitate/do not intubate order prior to admission, mortality was 21.8% before implementation vs 21.9% after implementation. Overall, we found no significant increase in mortality following implementation of a noninvasive respiratory protocol that decreased intubations in patients with COVID-19.

Provider Perspectives on the Use of Evidence-based Risk Stratification Tools in the Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Providers often pursue imaging in patients at low risk of pulmonary embolism (PE), resulting in imaging yields <10% and false-positive imaging rates of 10% to 25%. Attempts to curb overtesting have had only modest success and no interventions have used implementation science frameworks. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators to the adoption of evidence-based diagnostic testing for PE. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of providers. An interview guide was developed using the implementation science frameworks, consolidated framework for implementation research, and theoretical domains framework. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized. RESULTS: We interviewed 23 providers from four hospital systems, and participants were diverse with regard to years in practice and practice setting. Barriers were predominately at the provider level and included lack of knowledge of the tools, particularly misunderstanding of the validated scoring systems in Wells, as well as risk avoidance and need for certainty. Barriers to prior implementation strategies included the perception of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool for PE as adding steps with little value; most participants reported that they overrode CDS interventions because they had already made the decision. All providers identified institution-level strategies as facilitators to use, including endorsed guidelines, audit feedback with peer comparison about imaging yield, and peer pressure. CONCLUSIONS: This exploration of the use of risk stratification tools in the evaluation of PE found that barriers to use primarily exist at the provider level, whereas facilitators to the use of these tools are largely perceived at the level of the institution. Future efforts to promote the evidence-based diagnosis of PE should be informed by these determinants.

Shared Decision Making in Patients With Suspected Uncomplicated Ureterolithiasis: A Decision Aid Development Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop a decision aid (DA) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) around whether to obtain computed tomography (CT) imaging in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected uncomplicated ureterolithiasis. METHODS: We used evidence-based DA development methods, including qualitative methods and iterative stakeholder engagement, to develop and refine a DA. Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), and a steering committee made up of stakeholders, we conducted interviews and focus groups with a purposive sample of patients, community members, emergency clinicians, and other stakeholders. We used an iterative process to code the transcripts and identify themes. We beta-tested the DA with patient-clinician dyads facing the decision in real time. RESULTS: From August 2018 to August 2019, we engaged 102 participants in the design and iterative refinement of a DA focused on diagnostic options for patients with suspected ureterolithiasis. Forty-six were ED patients, community members, or patients with ureterolithiasis, and the remaining were emergency clinicians (doctors, residents, advanced practitioners), researchers, urologists, nurses, or other physicians. Patients and clinicians identified several key decisional needs including an understanding of accuracy, uncertainty, radiation exposure/cancer risk, and clear return precautions. Patients and community members identified facilitators to SDM, such as a checklist of signs and symptoms. Many stakeholders, including both patients and ED clinicians, expressed a strong pro-CT bias. A six-page DA was developed, iteratively refined, and beta-tested. CONCLUSIONS: Using stakeholder engagement and qualitative inquiry, we developed an evidence-based DA to facilitate SDM around the question of CT scan utilization in patients with suspected uncomplicated ureterolithiasis. Future research will test the efficacy of the DA in facilitating SDM.

Association of Patient and Visit Characteristics With Rate and Timing of Urologic Procedures for Patients Discharged From the Emergency Department With Renal Colic.

Importance: Little is known about the timing of urologic interventions in patients with renal colic discharged from the emergency department. Understanding patients' likelihood of a subsequent urologic intervention could inform decision-making in this population. Objectives: To examine the rate and timing of urologic procedures performed after an emergency department visit for renal colic and the factors associated with receipt of an intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the Massachusetts All Payers Claims Database to identify patients 18 to 64 years of age who were seen in a Massachusetts emergency department for renal colic from January 1, 2011, to October 31, 2014, Patients were identified via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes, and all medical care was linked, enabling identification of subsequent health care use. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was receipt of urologic procedure within 60 days. Secondary outcomes included rates of return emergency department visit and urologic and primary care follow-up. Results: A total of 66 218 unique index visits by 55 314 patients (mean [SD] age, 42.6 [12.4] years; 33 590 [50.7%] female; 25 411 [38.4%] Medicaid insured) were included in the study. A total of 5851 patients (8.8%) had visits resulting in admission at the index encounter, and 1774 (2.7%) had visits resulting in a urologic procedure during that admission. Of the 60 367 patient visits resulting in discharge from the emergency department, 3018 (5.0%) led to a urologic procedure within 7 days, 4407 (7.3%) within 14 days, 5916 (9.8%) within 28 days, and 7667 (12.7%) within 60 days. A total of 3226 visits (5.3%) led to a subsequent emergency department visit within 7 days and 6792 (11.3%) within 60 days. For the entire cohort (admitted and discharged patients), 39 189 (59.2%) had contact with a urologist or primary care practitioner within 60 days. Having Medicaid-only insurance was associated with lower rates of urologic procedures (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.74) and urologic follow-up (5.6% vs 8.8%; P < .001) and higher rates of primary care follow-up (59.2% vs 47.2%; P < .001) compared with patients with all other insurance types. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, most adult patients younger than 65 years who were discharged from the emergency department with a diagnosis of renal colic did not undergo a procedure or see a urologist within 60 days. This finding has implications for both the emergency department and outpatient treatment of these patients.

Does Shared Decision Making Actually Occur in the Emergency Department? Looking at It from the Patients' Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the frequency, content, and quality of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), from patients' perspectives. METHODS: Utilizing a cross-sectional, multisite approach, we administered an instrument, consisting of two validated SDM assessment tools-the CollaboRATE and the SDM-Q-9-and one newly developed tool to a sample of ED patients. Our primary outcome was the occurrence of SDM in the clinical encounter, as defined by participants giving "top-box" scores on the CollaboRATE measure, and the ability of patients to identify the topic of their SDM conversation. Secondary outcomes included the content of the SDM conversations, as judged by patients, and whether patients were able to complete each of the two validated scales included in the instrument. RESULTS: After exclusions, 285 participants from two sites completed the composite instrument. Just under half identified as female (47%) or as white (47%). Roughly half gave top-box scores (i.e., indicating optimal SDM) on the CollaboRATE scale (49%). Less than half of the participants were able to indicate a decision they were involved in (44%), although those who did gave high scores for such conversations (73/100 via the SDM-Q-9 tool). The most frequently identified decisions discussed were admission versus discharge (19%), medication options (17%), and options for follow-up care (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of ED patients surveyed reported they were involved in SDM. The most common decision for which SDM was used was around ED disposition (admission vs. discharge). When SDM was employed, patients generally rated the discussion highly.