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.

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.

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 Effect of Shared Decisionmaking on Patients' Likelihood of Filing a Complaint or Lawsuit: A Simulation Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Shared decisionmaking has been promoted as a method to increase the patient-centeredness of medical decisionmaking and decrease low-yield testing, but little is known about its medicolegal ramifications in the setting of an adverse outcome. We seek to determine whether the use of shared decisionmaking changes perceptions of fault and liability in the case of an adverse outcome. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled simulation experiment conducted by survey, using clinical vignettes featuring no shared decisionmaking, brief shared decisionmaking, or thorough shared decisionmaking. Participants were adult US citizens recruited through an online crowd-sourcing platform. Participants were randomized to vignettes portraying 1 of 3 levels of shared decisionmaking. All other information given was identical, including the final clinical decision and the adverse outcome. The primary outcome was reported likelihood of pursuing legal action. Secondary outcomes included perceptions of fault, quality of care, and trust in physician. RESULTS: We recruited 804 participants. Participants exposed to shared decisionmaking (brief and thorough) were 80% less likely to report a plan to contact a lawyer than those not exposed to shared decisionmaking (12% and 11% versus 41%; odds ratio 0.2; 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.31). Participants exposed to either level of shared decisionmaking reported higher trust, rated their physicians more highly, and were less likely to fault their physicians for the adverse outcome compared with those exposed to the no shared decisionmaking vignette. CONCLUSION: In the setting of an adverse outcome from a missed diagnosis, use of shared decisionmaking may affect patients' perceptions of fault and liability.

Physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of shared decision-making in the Emergency Department: an exploratory analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision-making (SDM) is receiving increasing attention in emergency medicine because of its potential to increase patient engagement and decrease unnecessary healthcare utilisation. This study sought to explore physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of SDM in the ED. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with practising emergency physicians (EP) with the aim of understanding when and why EPs engage in SDM, and when and why they feel unable to engage in SDM. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a three-member team coded all transcripts in an iterative fashion using a directed approach to qualitative content analysis. We identified emergent themes, and organised themes based on an integrative theoretical model that combined the theory of planned behaviour and social cognitive theory. RESULTS: Fifteen EPs practising in the New England region of the USA were interviewed. Physicians described the following barriers: time constraints, clinical uncertainty, fear of a bad outcome, certain patient characteristics, lack of follow-up and other emotional and logistical stressors. They noted that risk stratification methods, the perception that SDM decreased liability and their own improving clinical skills facilitated their use of SDM. They also noted that the culture of the institution could play a role in discouraging or promoting SDM, and that patients could encourage SDM by specifically asking about alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: EPs face many barriers to using SDM. Some, such as lack of follow-up, are unique to the ED; others, such as the challenges of communicating uncertainty, may affect other providers. Many of the barriers to SDM are amenable to intervention, but may be of variable importance in different EDs. Further research should attempt to identify which barriers are most prevalent and most amenable to intervention, as well as capitalise on the facilitators noted.

Acute Kidney Injury After Computed Tomography: A Meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography (CT) is an important imaging modality used in the diagnosis of a variety of disorders. Imaging quality may be improved if intravenous contrast is added, but there is a concern for potential renal injury. Our goal is to perform a meta-analysis to compare the risk of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement, and total mortality after contrast-enhanced CT versus noncontrast CT. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Academic Search Premier for relevant articles. Included articles specifically compared rates of renal insufficiency, need for renal replacement therapy, or mortality in patients who received intravenous contrast versus those who received no contrast. RESULTS: The database search returned 14,691 articles, inclusive of duplicates. Twenty-six unique articles met our inclusion criteria, with an additional 2 articles found through hand searching. In total, 28 studies involving 107,335 participants were included in the final analysis, all of which were observational. Meta-analysis demonstrated that, compared with noncontrast CT, contrast-enhanced CT was not significantly associated with either acute kidney injury (odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 1.07), need for renal replacement therapy (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.16), or all-cause mortality (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36). CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in our principal study outcomes between patients receiving contrast-enhanced CT versus those receiving noncontrast CT. Given similar frequencies of acute kidney injury in patients receiving noncontrast CT, other patient- and illness-level factors, rather than the use of contrast material, likely contribute to the development of acute kidney injury.

Shared Decisionmaking in the Emergency Department: A Guiding Framework for Clinicians.

Shared decisionmaking has been proposed as a method to promote active engagement of patients in emergency care decisions. Despite the recent attention shared decisionmaking has received in the emergency medicine community, including being the topic of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, misconceptions remain in regard to the precise meaning of the term, the process, and the conditions under which it is most likely to be valuable. With the help of a patient representative and an interaction designer, we developed a simple framework to illustrate how shared decisionmaking should be approached in clinical practice. We believe it should be the preferred or default approach to decisionmaking, except in clinical situations in which 3 factors interfere. These 3 factors are lack of clinical uncertainty or equipoise, patient decisionmaking ability, and time, all of which can render shared decisionmaking infeasible. Clinical equipoise refers to scenarios in which there are 2 or more medically reasonable management options. Patient decisionmaking ability refers to a patient's capacity and willingness to participate in his or her emergency care decisions. Time refers to the acuity of the clinical situation (which may require immediate action) and the time that the clinician has to devote to the shared decisionmaking conversation. In scenarios in which there is only one medically reasonable management option, informed consent is indicated, with compassionate persuasion used as appropriate. If time or patient capacity is lacking, physician-directed decisionmaking will occur. With this framework as the foundation, we discuss the process of shared decisionmaking and how it can be used in practice. Finally, we highlight 5 common misconceptions in regard to shared decisionmaking in the ED. With an improved understanding of shared decisionmaking, this approach should be used to facilitate the provision of high-quality, patient-centered emergency care.

Validity of STONE scores in younger patients presenting with suspected uncomplicated renal colic.

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have cast doubt on the routine need for emergent computed tomographic (CT) scan in patients with suspected renal colic. A clinical prediction rule, the STONE score, was recently published with the goal of helping clinicians predict obstructive kidney stones in noninfected flank pain patients before CT scan. We sought to examine the validity of this score in younger, noninfected flank pain patients. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the validity of STONE scores for predicting the outcome of obstructive kidney stone in patients age 18 to 50 years presenting with flank pain suggestive of uncomplicated ureterolithiasis. Validity was measured by calculation of the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and ±likelihood ratios were calculated for various cutoff values. RESULTS: Of 134 patients who met inclusion criteria, 56.7% were female, average age was 37 years, and 52% had an obstructing kidney stone by CT scan. The receiver operating characteristic curve for the STONE score had an area under the curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.93) and indicated that a cutoff of greater than or equal to 8 would have a sensitivity of 78.6%, specificity of 84.4%, negative predictive value of 78.3%, positive predictive value of 84.6%, and +likelihood ratio of 4.9. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that the STONE score is valid in younger populations. It can aid in determining pretest probability and help inform conversations about the likelihood of the diagnosis of renal colic before imaging, which may be useful for decision making.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Weekend emergency department visits in Nebraska: higher utilization, lower acuity.

BACKGROUND: We know very little about differences in Emergency Department (ED) utilization and acuity on weekends compared with weekdays. Understanding such differences may help elucidate the role of the ED in the health care delivery system. STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare patterns of ED use on weekends with weekdays and analyze the differences between these two groups. METHODS: The Health Care Utilization Project (HCUP) is a national state-by-state billing database from acute-care, non-federal hospitals. Data from Nebraska in 2004 was used to compare ED-only patient visits (patients discharged home or transferred to another health care facility) and ED-admitted visits (patients admitted to the same hospital after an ED visit) for weekend vs. weekday frequency, billed charges, sex, age, and primary payer. RESULTS: Of all non-admitted patients who visited the ED, 34.5% came in on weekends. This yielded ED utilization rates of 25 visits/1,000 people on weekdays and 33 visits/1,000 people on weekends, an increase of 32% on weekends. Weekend-only ED patients of all ages and payer categories were charged lower hospital facility fees than weekday-only ED patients; USD 777 vs. USD 921, respectively (p < 0.001). Weekend ED patients were less likely to be admitted and less likely to die while in the ED (2 deaths/1000 ED visits for weekend-only patients vs. 3 deaths/1000 ED visits for weekday-only [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: In Nebraska, EDs care for a greater number of low-acuity patients on weekends than on weekdays. This highlights the important role EDs play within the ambulatory care delivery system.

Mastitis and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): the calm before the storm?

BACKGROUND: Post-partum mastitis is a common infection in breastfeeding women, with an incidence of 9.5-16% in recent literature. Over the past decade, community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as a significant pathogen in soft-tissue infections presenting to the emergency department. The incidence of mastitis caused by MRSA is unknown at this time, but likely increasing. OBJECTIVES: We review the data on prevention and treatment of mastitis and address recent literature demonstrating increases in MRSA infections in the post-partum population and how we should change our practices in light of this emerging pathogen. CASE REPORT: We present a case of simple mastitis in a health care worker who failed to improve until treated with antibiotics appropriate for a MRSA infection. CONCLUSION: Recent evidence suggests that just as MRSA has become the prominent pathogen in other soft-tissue infections, mastitis is now increasingly caused by this pathogen. Physicians caring for patients with mastitis need to be aware of this bacteriologic shift to treat appropriately.