Variations in the California Emergency Medical Services Response to Opioid Use Disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids contributed to over 300,000 deaths in the United States in the past 10 years. Most research on drug use occurs in clinics or hospitals; few studies have evaluated the impact of opioid use on emergency medical services (EMS) or the EMS response to opioid use disorder (OUD). This study describes the perceived burden of disease, data collection, and interventions in California local EMS agencies (LEMSA). METHODS: We surveyed medical directors of all 33 California LEMSAs with 25 multiple-choice and free-answer questions. Results were collected in RedCap and downloaded into Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond WA). This study was exempt from review by the Alameda Health System - Highland Hospital Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: Of the 33 California LEMSAs, 100% responded, all indicating that OUD significantly affects their patients. Most (91%) had specific protocols directing care of those patients and repeat naloxone dosing. After naloxone administration, none permitted release to law enforcement custody, 6% permitted patient refusal of care, and 45% directed base hospital contact for refusal of care. Few protocols directed screening or treatment of OUD or withdrawal symptoms. Regular data collection occurred in 76% of LEMSAs, with only 48% linking EMS data with hospital or coroner outcomes. In only 30% did the medical director oversee regular quality improvement meetings. Of respondents, 64% were aware of public health agency-based outreach programs and 42% were aware of emergency department BRIDGE programs (Medication Assisted Treatment and immediate referral). Only 9% oversaw naloxone kit distribution (all under the medical director), and 6% had EMS-based outreach programs. In almost all (94%), law enforcement officers carried naloxone and administered it anywhere from a few times a year to greater than 200 in one LEMSA. CONCLUSION: This study represents an important description of EMS medical directors' approaches to the impact of OUD as well as trends in protocols and interventions to treat and prevent overdoses. Through this study, we can better understand the variable response to patients with OUD across California.

How Well Do Core Faculty Understand The Emergency Medicine Milestones?

INTRODUCTION: It is unclear how emergency medicine (EM) programs educate core faculty about the use of milestones in competency-based evaluations. We conducted a national survey to profile how programs educate core faculty regarding their use and to assess core faculty's understanding of the milestones. METHODS: Our survey tool was distributed over six months in 2017 via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) listserv. Responses, which were de-identified, were solicited from program directors (PDs), assistant/associate program directors (APDs), and core faculty. A single response from a program was considered sufficient. RESULTS: Our survey had a 69.7% response rate (n=140/201). 62.9% of programs reported educating core faculty about the EM Milestones via the distribution of physical or electronic media. Although 82.6% of respondents indicated that it was important for core faculty to understand how the EM Milestones are used in competency-based evaluations, respondents estimated that 48.6% of core faculty possess "fair or poor" understanding of the milestones. Furthermore, only 50.7% of respondents felt that the EM Milestones were a valuable tool. CONCLUSION: These data suggest there is sub-optimal understanding of the EM Milestones among core faculty and disagreement as to whether the milestones are a valuable tool.

Emergency Medical Services Use Among Patients Receiving Involuntary Psychiatric Holds and the Safety of an Out-of-Hospital Screening Protocol to "Medically Clear" Psychiatric Emergencies in the Field, 2011 to 2016.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Patients with acute psychiatric emergencies who receive an involuntary hold often spend hours in the emergency department (ED) because of a deficit in inpatient psychiatric beds. One solution to address the lack of prompt psychiatric evaluation in the ED has been to establish regional stand-alone psychiatric emergency services. However, patients receiving involuntary holds still need to be screened and evaluated to ensure that their behavior is not caused by an underlying and life-threatening nonpsychiatric illness. Although traditional regional emergency medical services (EMS) systems depend on the medical ED for this function, a field-screening protocol can allow EMS to directly transport a substantial portion of patients to a stand-alone psychiatric emergency service. The purpose of this investigation is to describe overall EMS use for patients receiving involuntary holds, compare patients receiving involuntary holds with all EMS patients, and evaluate the safety of field medical clearance of an established field-screening protocol in Alameda County, CA. METHODS: We obtained data for all EMS encounters between November 1, 2011, and November 1, 2016, using Alameda County's standardized data set. After unique patient identification, we describe the data at the patient level and at the encounter level. At the patient level, we compare "involuntary hold patients" (≥1 involuntary hold during the study period) with those who were "never held." Additionally, we assess the safety of out-of-hospital medical clearance by calculating the rate of failed diversion, defined as retransport of a patient to a medical ED within 12 hours of transport to the psychiatric emergency services by EMS. RESULTS: Of the 541,731 total EMS encounters in Alameda County during the study period, 10% (N=53,887) were identified as involuntary hold encounters. Of these involuntary hold patient encounters, 41% (N=22,074) resulted in direct transport of the patient to the stand-alone psychiatric emergency service for evaluation; 0.3% (N=60) failed diversion and required retransport within 12 hours. At the patient level, Alameda County EMS encountered 257,625 unique patients, and 10% (N=26,283) had at least one encounter for an involuntary hold during the study period. These "involuntary hold patients" were substantially younger, more likely to be men, and less likely to be insured. Additionally, they had higher overall EMS use: "involuntary hold patients" accounted for 24% of all encounters (N=128,003); 53,887 of these encounters were for involuntary holds, whereas an additional 74,116 were for other reasons. Similarly, 4% of "involuntary hold patients" had 20 or more encounters, whereas only 0.4% of "never held" patients were in this category. Last, the 7% of "involuntary hold patients" (N=1,907) who received greater than or equal to 5 involuntary holds during the study period accounted for 39% of all involuntary holds and 9% of all EMS encounters. CONCLUSION: Ten percent of all EMS encounters were for involuntary psychiatric holds. With an EMS-directed screening protocol, 41% of all such patient encounters resulted in direct transport of the patient to the psychiatric emergency service, bypassing medical clearance in the ED. Overall, only 0.3% of these patients required retransport to a medical ED within 12 hours of arrival to psychiatric emergency services. We found that 24% of all EMS encounters in Alameda County were attributable to "involuntary hold patients," reinforcing the importance of the effects of mental illness on EMS use.

Ready for Discharge? A Survey of Discharge Transition-of-Care Education and Evaluation in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs.

This study aimed to assess current education and practices of emergency medicine (EM) residents as perceived by EM program directors to determine if there are deficits in resident discharge handoff training. This survey study was guided by the Kern model for medical curriculum development. A six-member Council of EM Residency Directors (CORD) Transitions of Care task force of EM physicians performed these steps and constructed a survey. The survey was distributed to program residency directors via the CORD listserve and/or direct contact. There were 119 responses to the survey, which were collected using an online survey tool. Over 71% of the 167 American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited EM residency programs were represented. Of those responding, 42.9% of programs reported formal training regarding discharges during initial orientation and 5.9% reported structured curriculum outside of orientation. A majority (73.9%) of programs reported that EM residents were not routinely evaluated on their discharge proficiency. Despite the ACGME requirements requiring formal handoff curriculum and evaluation, many programs do not provide formal curriculum on the discharge transition of care or evaluate EM residents on their discharge proficiency.

Are plain radiographs sufficient to exclude cervical spine injuries in low-risk adults?

BACKGROUND: The routine use of clinical decision rules and three-view plain radiography to clear the cervical spine in blunt trauma patients has been recently called into question. CLINICAL QUESTION: In low-risk adult blunt trauma patients, can plain radiographs adequately exclude cervical spine injury when clinical prediction rules cannot? EVIDENCE REVIEW: Four observational studies investigating the performance of plain radiographs in detecting cervical spine injury in low-risk adult blunt trauma patients were reviewed. CONCLUSION: The consistently poor performance of plain radiographs to rule out cervical spine injury in adult blunt trauma victims is concerning. Large, rigorously performed prospective trials focusing on low- or low/moderate-risk patients will be needed to truly define the utility of plain radiographs of the cervical spine in blunt trauma.

Factors that influence medical student selection of an emergency medicine residency program: implications for training programs.

OBJECTIVES: An understanding of student decision-making when selecting an emergency medicine (EM) training program is essential for program directors as they enter interview season. To build upon preexisting knowledge, a survey was created to identify and prioritize the factors influencing candidate decision-making of U.S. medical graduates. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, multi-institutional study that anonymously surveyed U.S. allopathic applicants to EM training programs. It took place in the 3-week period between the 2011 National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) rank list submission deadline and the announcement of match results. RESULTS: Of 1,525 invitations to participate, 870 candidates (57%) completed the survey. Overall, 96% of respondents stated that both geographic location and individual program characteristics were important to decision-making, with approximately equal numbers favoring location when compared to those who favored program characteristics. The most important factors in this regard were preference for a particular geographic location (74.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 72% to 78%) and to be close to spouse, significant other, or family (59.7%, 95% CI = 56% to 63%). Factors pertaining to geographic location tend to be out of the control of the program leadership. The most important program factors include the interview experience (48.9%, 95% CI = 46% to 52%), personal experience with the residents (48.5%, 95% CI = 45% to 52%), and academic reputation (44.9%, 95% CI = 42% to 48%). Unlike location, individual program factors are often either directly or somewhat under the control of the program leadership. Several other factors were ranked as the most important factor a disproportionate number of times, including a rotation in that emergency department (ED), orientation (academic vs. community), and duration of training (3-year vs. 4-year programs). For a subset of applicants, these factors had particular importance in overall decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of applicants to EM residency programs employed a balance of geographic location factors with individual program factors in selecting a residency program. Specific program characteristics represent the greatest opportunity to maximize the success of the immediate interview experience/season, while others provide potential for strategic planning over time. A working knowledge of these results empowers program directors to make informed decisions while providing an appreciation for the limitations in attracting applicants.

Reliability of a core competency checklist assessment in the emergency department: the Standardized Direct Observation Assessment Tool.

OBJECTIVES: A Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors task force developed the Standardized Direct Observation Assessment Tool (SDOT), a 26-item checklist assessment tool to evaluate Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident core competencies by direct observation. Each of the checklist items is assigned to one or more of five core competencies. The objective of this study was to test the interrater measurement properties of the SDOT instrument. METHODS: Two videos of simulated patient-resident-attending physician encounters were produced. Academic emergency medicine faculty members not involved in the development of the form viewed the two encounters and completed the SDOT for each. Faculty demographic data were collected. Data were collected from 82 faculty members at 16 emergency medicine residency programs. The checklist items were used to generate a composite score for each core competency of patient care, medical knowledge, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and systems-based practice. RESULTS: Univariate analysis demonstrated a high degree of agreement between evaluators in evaluating residents for both videos. Multivariate analysis found no differences in rating by faculty when examined by experience, academic title, site, or previous use of the SDOT. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty from 16 emergency medicine residency programs had a high interrater agreement when using the SDOT to evaluate resident core competency performance. This study did not test the validity of the tool. This data analysis is mainly descriptive, and scripted video scenarios may not approximate direct observation in the emergency department.

Identifying inaccuracies on emergency medicine residency applications.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have showed a 10-30% rate of inaccuracies on applications to individual residency programs. No studies have attempted to corroborate this on a national level. Attempts by residency programs to diminish the frequency of inaccuracies on applications have not been reported. We seek to clarify the national incidence of inaccuracies on applications to emergency medicine residency programs. METHODS: This is a multi-center, single-blinded, randomized, cohort study of all applicants from LCME accredited schools to involved EM residency programs. Applications were randomly selected to investigate claims of AOA election, advanced degrees and publications. Errors were reported to applicants' deans and the NRMP. RESULTS: Nine residencies reviewed 493 applications (28.6% of all applicants who applied to any EM program). 56 applications (11.4%, 95%CI 8.6-14.2%) contained at least one error. Excluding "benign" errors, 9.8% (95% CI 7.2-12.4%), contained at least one error. 41% (95% CI 35.0-47.0%) of all publications contained an error. All AOA membership claims were verified, but 13.7% (95%CI 4.4-23.1%) of claimed advanced degrees were inaccurate. Inter-rater reliability of evaluations was good. Investigators were reluctant to notify applicants' dean's offices and the NRMP. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to date of accuracy on application for residency and the first such multi-centered trial. High rates of incorrect data were found on applications. This data will serve as a baseline for future years of the project, with emphasis on reporting inaccuracies and warning applicants of the project's goals.