Patient-Reported Opioid Pill Consumption After an ED Visit: How Many Pills Are People Using?

OBJECTIVES: Recent guidelines advise limiting opioid prescriptions for acute pain to a three-day supply; however, scant literature quantifies opioid use patterns after an emergency department (ED) visit. We sought to describe opioid consumption patterns after an ED visit for acute pain. DESIGN: Descriptive study with data derived from a larger interventional study promoting safe opioid use after ED discharge. SETTING: Urban academic emergency department (>88,000 annual visits). SUBJECTS: Patients were eligible if age >17 years, not chronically using opioids, and newly prescribed hydrocodone-acetaminophen and were included in the analysis if they returned the completed 10-day medication diary. METHODS: Patient demographics and opioid consumption are reported. Opioid use is described in daily number of pills and daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) both for the sample overall and by diagnosis. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty patients returned completed medication diaries (45 [17%] back pain, 52 [20%] renal colic, 54 [21%] fracture/dislocation, 40 [15%] musculoskeletal injury [nonfracture], and 69 [27%] "other"). The mean age (SD) was 45 (15) years, and 59% of the sample was female. A median of 12 pills were prescribed. Patients with renal colic used the least opioids (total pills: median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 3 [1-7]; total MME: median [IQR] = 20 [10-50]); patients with back pain used the most (total pills: median [IQR] = 12 [7-16]; total MME: median [IQR] = 65 [47.5-100]); 92.5% of patients had leftover pills. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, pill consumption varied by illness category; however, overall, patients were consuming low quantities of pills, and the majority had unused pills 10 days after their ED visit.

Simulation-based mastery learning compared to standard education for discussing diagnostic uncertainty with patients in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic uncertainty occurs frequently in emergency medical care, with more than one-third of patients leaving the emergency department (ED) without a clear diagnosis. Despite this frequency, ED providers are not adequately trained on how to discuss diagnostic uncertainty with these patients, who often leave the ED confused and concerned. To address this training need, we developed the Uncertainty Communication Education Module (UCEM) to teach physicians how to discuss diagnostic uncertainty. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the UCEM in improving physician communications. METHODS: The trial is a multicenter, two-arm randomized controlled trial designed to teach communication skills using simulation-based mastery learning (SBML). Resident emergency physicians from two training programs will be randomly assigned to immediate or delayed receipt of the two-part UCEM intervention after completing a baseline standardized patient encounter. The two UCEM components are: 1) a web-based interactive module, and 2) a smart-phone-based game. Both formats teach and reinforce communication skills for patient cases involving diagnostic uncertainty. Following baseline testing, participants in the immediate intervention arm will complete a remote deliberate practice session via a video platform and subsequently return for a second study visit to assess if they have achieved mastery. Participants in the delayed intervention arm will receive access to UCEM and remote deliberate practice after the second study visit. The primary outcome of interest is the proportion of residents in the immediate intervention arm who achieve mastery at the second study visit. DISCUSSION: Patients' understanding of the care they received has implications for care quality, safety, and patient satisfaction, especially when they are discharged without a definitive diagnosis. Developing a patient-centered diagnostic uncertainty communication strategy will improve safety of acute care discharges. Although use of SBML is a resource intensive educational approach, this trial has been deliberately designed to have a low-resource, scalable intervention that would allow for widespread dissemination and uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04021771). Registration date: July 16, 2019.

Comparing the hydrosurgery system to conventional debridement techniques for the treatment of delayed healing wounds: a prospective, randomised clinical trial to investigate clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

In these uncertain times of high health care costs, clinicians are looking for cost-effective devices to employ in their everyday practices. In an effort to promote cost-effective and proper wound repair, the hydrosurgical device allows accurate debridement of only unwanted tissue while precisely conserving viable structures for eventual repair. This prospective, randomised study compared procedures using the hydrosurgery system (VERSAJET™) with conventional debridement in order to assess clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness when treating subjects with chronic wounds. A total of 40 subjects were recruited. There was no difference in time to achieve stable wound closure between the treatment groups (P = 0·77). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of cost of the first operative procedure (P = 0·28), cost of surgical procedures during the study (P = 0·51), cost of study treatment (P = 0·29) or cost to achieve stable wound closure (P = 0·85). There were no differences in quantitative bacterial counts after debridement with either methods (P = 0·376). However, the time taken for the first excision procedure was significantly faster using the hydrosurgery system (VERSAJET) when compared with conventional debridement (P < 0·001). The total excision time for all procedures was significantly less for the Hydrosurgery group than for the conventional group (P = 0·005). Also, the Hydrosurgery group demonstrated significantly less intraoperative blood loss than conventional group for all procedures (P = 0·003). In this study, although there were no differences in time to stable wound closure or bacterial reduction between the two groups, the hydrosurgery system (VERSAJET) did offer advantages in terms of operative times and intraoperative blood loss and was cost-neutral, despite the handpiece cost.

Communicating Diagnostic Uncertainty at Emergency Department Discharge: A Simulation-Based Mastery Learning Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: There are no standardized approaches for communicating with patients discharged from the emergency department with diagnostic uncertainty. This trial tested efficacy of the Uncertainty Communication Education Module, a simulation-based mastery learning curriculum designed to establish competency in communicating diagnostic uncertainty. METHOD: Resident physicians at 2 sites participated in a 2-arm waitlist randomized controlled trial from September 2019 to June 2020. After baseline (T1) assessment of all participants via a standardized patient encounter using the Uncertainty Communication Checklist (UCC), immediate access physicians received training in the Uncertainty Communication Education Module, which included immediate feedback, online educational modules, a smartphone-based application, and telehealth deliberate practice with standardized patients. All physicians were retested 16-19 weeks later (T2) via in-person standardized patient encounters; delayed access physicians then received the intervention. A final test of all physicians occurred 11-15 weeks after T2 (T3). The primary outcome measured the percentage of physicians in the immediate versus delayed access groups meeting or exceeding the UCC minimum passing standard at T2. RESULTS: Overall, 109 physicians were randomized, with mean age 29 years (range 25-46). The majority were male (n = 69, 63%), non-Hispanic/Latino (n = 99, 91%), and White (n = 78, 72%). At T2, when only immediate access participants had received the curriculum, immediate access physicians demonstrated increased mastery (n = 29, 52.7%) compared with delayed access physicians (n = 2, 3.7%, P < .001; estimated adjusted odds ratio of mastery for the immediate access participants, 31.1 [95% CI, 6.8-143.1]). There were no significant differences when adjusting for training site or stage of training. CONCLUSIONS: The Uncertainty Communication Education Module significantly increased mastery in communicating diagnostic uncertainty at the first postintervention test among emergency physicians in standardized patient encounters. Further work should assess the impact of clinical implementation of these communication skills.

There's an app for that: Teaching residents to communicate diagnostic uncertainty through a mobile gaming application.

BACKGROUND: Clear communication is integral to good clinical care; however, communication training is cost and time intensive. Mobile applications (apps) may provide a useful adjunct to traditional simulation skills training. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate (1) use of an app for teaching communication skills about diagnostic uncertainty, (2) feedback on app use, and (3) the association between use and skill mastery. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: The app under study is designed to improve doctor-patient communication. METHODS: The study was a planned sub-analysis of a randomized controlled waitlist trial with emergency medicine resident physicians randomized to receive immediate or delayed access to an educational curriculum focused on diagnostic uncertainty. The curriculum included a web-based interactive module and the app. Metrics describing participants' use of the app, feedback on use, and association of use and achieving mastery in communicating diagnostic uncertainty are reported. Differences between groups utilizing the app were analyzed using Chi-squared test; logistic regression assessed the association between app use and achieving mastery of the communication skill. RESULTS: Among 109 participants completing the trial, only 34 (31.2%) used the app. Most participants engaged with the app on one occasion for a median of 50 min (IQR 31, 87). Senior residents were more likely to use the app than junior residents (41.3% vs 23.8%, p=0.05). Overall reviews were positive; 76% reported the app helped them learn. There was no significant association between app use and achieving mastery of the communication skill in the trial [OR 2.1, 95% CI (0.91-4.84)]. DISCUSSION: Despite positive reviews of app use, overall use was low and there was no association with achieving mastery. PRACTICAL VALUE: Offering an app as an auxiliary training opportunity may be beneficial to some residents, but shouldn't be planned for use as a primary didactic modality unless there is evidence for effectiveness and use is mandated. AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS: The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available since some data may be identifiable but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Setting a Minimum Passing Standard for the Uncertainty Communication Checklist Through Patient and Physician Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Historically, medically trained experts have served as judges to establish a minimum passing standard (MPS) for mastery learning. As mastery learning expands from procedure-based skills to patient-centered domains, such as communication, there is an opportunity to incorporate patients as judges in setting the MPS. OBJECTIVE: We described our process of incorporating patients as judges to set the MPS and compared the MPS set by patients and emergency medicine residency program directors (PDs). METHODS: Patient and physician panels were convened to determine an MPS for a 21-item Uncertainty Communication Checklist. The MPS for both panels were independently calculated using the Mastery Angoff method. Mean scores on individual checklist items with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were also calculated for both panels and differences analyzed using a t test. RESULTS: Of 240 eligible patients and 42 eligible PDs, 25 patients and 13 PDs (26% and 65% cooperation rates, respectively) completed MPS-setting procedures. The patient-generated MPS was 84.0% (range 45.2-96.2, SD 10.2) and the physician-generated MPS was 88.2% (range 79.7-98.1, SD 5.5). The overall MPS, calculated as an average of these 2 results, was 86.1% (range 45.2-98.1, SD 9.0), or 19 of 21 checklist items. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are able to serve as judges to establish an MPS using the Mastery Angoff method for a task performed by resident physicians. The patient-established MPS was nearly identical to that generated by a panel of residency PDs, indicating similar expectations of proficiency for residents to achieve skill "mastery."

Development of the Uncertainty Communication Checklist: A Patient-Centered Approach to Patient Discharge From the Emergency Department.

Clear communication with patients upon emergency department (ED) discharge is important for patient safety during the transition to outpatient care. Over one-third of patients are discharged from the ED with diagnostic uncertainty, yet there is no established approach for effective discharge communication in this scenario. From 2017 to 2019, the authors developed the Uncertainty Communication Checklist for use in simulation-based training and assessment of emergency physician communication skills when discharging patients with diagnostic uncertainty. This development process followed the established 12-step Checklist Development Checklist framework and integrated patient feedback into 6 of the 12 steps. Patient input was included as it has potential to improve patient-centeredness of checklists related to assessment of clinical performance. Focus group patient participants from 2 clinical sites were included: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, and Northwestern University Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.The authors developed a preliminary instrument based on existing checklists, clinical experience, literature review, and input from an expert panel comprising health care professionals and patient advocates. They then refined the instrument based on feedback from 2 waves of patient focus groups, resulting in a final 21-item checklist. The checklist items assess if uncertainty was addressed in each step of the discharge communication, including the following major categories: introduction, test results/ED summary, no/uncertain diagnosis, next steps/follow-up, home care, reasons to return, and general communication skills. Patient input influenced both what items were included and the wording of items in the final checklist. This patient-centered, systematic approach to checklist development is built upon the rigor of the Checklist Development Checklist and provides an illustration of how to integrate patient feedback into the design of assessment tools when appropriate.

Identifying Emergency Department Symptom-Based Diagnoses with the Unified Medical Language System.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients who are discharged from the emergency department (ED) with a symptom-based discharge diagnosis (SBD) have post-discharge challenges related to lack of a definitive discharge diagnosis and follow-up plan. There is no well-defined method for identifying patients with a SBD without individual chart review. We describe a method for automated identification of SBDs from ICD-10 codes using the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Metathesaurus. METHODS: We mapped discharge diagnosis, with use of ICD-10 codes from a one-month period of ED discharges at an urban, academic ED to UMLS concepts and semantic types. Two physician reviewers independently manually identified all discharge diagnoses consistent with SBDs. We calculated inter-rater reliability for manual review and the sensitivity and specificity for our automated process for identifying SBDs against this "gold standard." RESULTS: We identified 3642 ED discharges with 1382 unique discharge diagnoses that corresponded to 875 unique ICD-10 codes and 10 UMLS semantic types. Over one third (37.5%, n = 1367) of ED discharges were assigned codes that mapped to the "Sign or Symptom" semantic type. Inter-rater reliability for manual review of SBDs was very good (0.87). Sensitivity and specificity of our automated process for identifying encounters with SBDs were 84.7% and 96.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of our automated process to identify ICD-10 codes that classify into the UMLS "Sign or Symptom" semantic type identified the majority of patients with a SBD. While this method needs refinement to increase sensitivity of capture, it has potential to automate an otherwise highly time-consuming process. This novel use of informatics methods can facilitate future research specific to patients with SBDs.