Mulch Madness: A Community-Academic Partnership for Lead Poisoning Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Soil constitutes a major source of childhood lead exposure, disproportionately affecting communities of color. Mulching offers a low-cost interim control. OBJECTIVES: A community-academic partnership was established for lead poisoning prevention, with a three-fold aim: (1) control soil lead hazards by applying mulch, (2) identify home lead hazards with screening kits, and (3) connect residents to resources to address lead hazards. METHODS: Student volunteers canvassed neighborhoods one month prior to the annual event. They requested consent for mulching, distributed lead screening kits, and screened residents for grant eligibility. Soil samples were collected from each home before mulching. According to principles of community-based participatory research, materials and plans were iterative, guided and adjusted by neighborhood association feedback, and detailed reports about home lead results were shared with each participating resident. Composite neighborhood data and survey results were shared with volunteers and community partners. RESULTS: The project was evaluated in the third (41 homes) and fourth (48 homes) years of implementation. Before mulching, the median soil lead level was over 400 ppm, and after mulching, it was less than 20 ppm. Lead screening kits identified widespread lead hazards in paint, soil, and dust, but not water. Challenges remain in (a) increasing child blood lead testing and (b) increasing submissions for city grant funding for lead abatement. Evaluation surveys indicate a sense of ownership in the project among community partners and high levels of engagement among students. CONCLUSIONS: Community-academic partnerships are an effective tool for lead poisoning prevention, generating evidence for public health action.

Troponin is unrelated to outcomes in heart failure patients discharged from the emergency department.

Background: Prior data has demonstrated increased mortality in hospitalized patients with acute heart failure (AHF) and troponin elevation. No data has specifically examined the prognostic significance of troponin elevation in patients with AHF discharged after emergency department (ED) management. Objective: Evaluate the relationship between troponin elevation and outcomes in patients with AHF who are treated and released from the ED. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the Get with the Guidelines to Reduce Disparities in AHF Patients Discharged from the ED (GUIDED-HF) trial, a randomized, controlled trial of ED patients with AHF who were discharged. Patients with elevated conventional troponin not due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were included. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint: time to 30-day cardiovascular death and/or heart failure-related events. Results: Of the 491 subjects included in the GUIDED-HF trial, 418 had troponin measured during the ED evaluation and 66 (16%) had troponin values above the 99th percentile. Median age was 63 years (interquartile range, 54-70), 62% (n = 261) were male, 63% (n = 265) were Black, and 16% (n = 67) experienced our primary outcome. There were no differences in our primary outcome between those with and without troponin elevation (12/66, 18.1% vs 55/352, 15.6%; P = 0.60). This effect was maintained regardless of assignment to usual care or the intervention arm. In multivariable regression analysis, there was no association between our primary outcome and elevated troponin (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval,  0.49-2.01, P = 0.994). Conclusion: If confirmed in a larger cohort, these findings may facilitate safe ED discharge for a group of patients with AHF without ACS when an elevated troponin is the primary reason for admission.

Effect of a Self-care Intervention on 90-Day Outcomes in Patients With Acute Heart Failure Discharged From the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Up to 20% of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute heart failure (AHF) are discharged without hospitalization. Compared with rates in hospitalized patients, readmission and mortality are worse for ED patients. Objective: To assess the impact of a self-care intervention on 90-day outcomes in patients with AHF who are discharged from the ED. Design, Setting, and Participants: Get With the Guidelines in Emergency Department Patients With Heart Failure was an unblinded, parallel-group, multicenter randomized trial. Patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care vs a tailored self-care intervention. Patients with AHF discharged after ED-based management at 15 geographically diverse EDs were included. The trial was conducted from October 28, 2015, to September 5, 2019. Interventions: Home visit within 7 days of discharge and twice-monthly telephone-based self-care coaching for 3 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a global rank of cardiovascular death, HF-related events (unscheduled clinic visit due to HF, ED revisit, or hospitalization), and changes in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) summary score (SS) at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included the global rank outcome at 30 days and changes in the KCCQ-12 SS score at 30 and 90 days. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed for the primary, secondary, and safety outcomes. Per-protocol analysis was conducted including patients who completed a home visit and had scheduled outpatient follow-up in the intervention arm. Results: Owing to slow enrollment, 479 of a planned 700 patients were randomized: 235 to the intervention arm and 244 to the usual care arm. The median age was 63.0 years (interquartile range, 54.7-70.2), 302 patients (63%) were African American, 305 patients (64%) were men, and 178 patients (37%) had a previous ejection fraction greater than 50%. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between patients in the intervention vs usual care arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.10; P = .28). At day 30, patients in the intervention arm had significantly better global rank (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99; P = .04) and a 5.5-point higher KCCQ-12 SS (95% CI, 1.3-9.7; P = .01), while at day 90, the KCCQ-12 SS was 2.7 points higher (95% CI, -1.9 to 7.2; P = .25). Conclusions and Relevance: The self-care intervention did not improve the primary global rank outcome at 90 days in this trial. However, benefit was observed in the global rank and KCCQ-12 SS at 30 days, suggesting that an early benefit of a tailored self-care program initiated at an ED visit for AHF was not sustained through 90 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02519283.

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.

Design and Rationale of a Randomized Trial of a Care Transition Strategy in Patients With Acute Heart Failure Discharged From the Emergency Department: GUIDED-HF (Get With the Guidelines in Emergency Department Patients With Heart Failure).

GUIDED-HF (Get With the Guidelines in Emergency Department Patients With Heart Failure) is a multicenter randomized trial of a patient-centered transitional care intervention in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) who are discharged either directly from the emergency department (ED) or after a brief period of ED-based observation. To optimize care and reduce ED and hospital revisits, there has been significant emphasis on improving transitions at the time of hospital discharge for patients with HF. Such efforts have been almost exclusively directed at hospitalized patients; individuals with AHF who are discharged from the ED or ED-based observation are not included in these transitional care initiatives. Patients with AHF discharged directly from the ED or after a brief period of ED-based observation are randomly assigned to our transition GUIDED-HF strategy or standard ED discharge. Patients in the GUIDED arm receive a tailored discharge plan via the study team, based on their identified barriers to outpatient management and associated guideline-based interventions. This plan includes conducting a home visit soon after ED discharge combined with close outpatient follow-up and subsequent coaching calls to improve postdischarge care and avoid subsequent ED revisits and inpatient admissions. Up to 700 patients at 11 sites will be enrolled over 3 years of the study. GUIDED-HF will test a novel approach to AHF management strategy that includes tailored transitional care for patients discharged from the ED or ED-based observation. If successful, this program may significantly alter the current paradigm of AHF patient care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02519283.

Development and Testing of Shared Decision Making Interventions for Use in Emergency Care: A Research Agenda.

Decision aids are evidenced-based tools designed to increase patient understanding of medical options and possible outcomes, facilitate conversation between patients and clinicians, and improve patient engagement. Decision aids have been used for shared decision making (SDM) interventions outside of the ED setting for more than a decade. Their use in the ED has only recently begun to be studied. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference SDM in practice work group regarding "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-Relevant, Patient-Centered Research Agenda." The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda for the development and testing of SDM interventions for use in emergency care that was most important to patients, clinicians, caregivers, and other key stakeholders. Using the nominal group technique, the consensus working group proposed prioritized research questions in six key domains: 1) content (i.e., clinical scenario or decision area), 2) level of evidence available, 3) tool design strategies, 4) risk communication, 5) stakeholders, and 6) outcomes.