Frequency and Trends of Pre-Pandemic Surge Periods in U.S. Emergency Departments, 2006-2019.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the frequency, outside of the pandemic setting, with which individual healthcare facilities faced surge periods due to severe increases in demand for emergency department (ED) care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: U.S. EDs. PATIENTS: All ED encounters in the all-payer, nationally representative Nationwide Emergency Department Sample from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, 2006-2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Frequency of surge periods defined as ED months in which an individual facility ED saw a greater than 50% increase in ED visits per month above facility-/calendar month-specific medians. During 2006-2019, 3,317 U.S. EDs reported 354,534,229 ED visits across 142,035 ED months. Fifty-seven thousand four hundred ninety-five ED months (40.5%) during the study period had a 0% to 50% increase in ED visits that month above facility-specific medians and 1,952 ED months (1.4%) qualified as surge periods and had a greater than 50% increase in ED visits that month above facility-specific medians. These surge months were experienced by 397 unique facility EDs (12.0%). Compared with 2006, the most proximal pre-pandemic period of 2016-2019 had a notably elevated likelihood of ED-month surge periods (odds ratios [ORs], 2.36-2.84; all p < 0.0005). Compared with the calendar month of January, the winter ED months in December through March have similar likelihood of an ED-month qualifying as a surge period (ORs, 0.84-1.03; all p > 0.05), while the nonwinter ED months in April through November have a lower likelihood of an ED-month qualifying as a surge period (ORs, 0.65-0.81; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the frequency of surges in demand for ED care-which appear to have increased in frequency even before the COVID-19 pandemic and are concentrated in winter months-is necessary to better understand the burden of potential and realized acute surge events and to inform cost-effectiveness preparedness strategies.

Impact of Universal Screening and Automated Clinical Decision Support for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Emergency Departments: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine improves outcomes in patients with opioid use disorder; however, adoption varies widely. To reduce variability, we implemented a nurse-driven triage screening question in the electronic health record to identify patients with opioid use disorder, followed by targeted electronic health record prompts to measure withdrawal and guide next steps in management, including initiation of treatment. Our objective was to assess the impact of screening implementation in 3 urban, academic EDs. METHODS: We conducted a quasiexperimental study of opioid use disorder-related ED visits using electronic health record data from January 2020 to June 2022. The triage protocol was implemented in 3 EDs between March and July 2021, and 2 other EDs in the health system served as controls. We evaluated changes in treatment measures over time and used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare outcomes in the 3 intervention EDs with those in the 2 controls. RESULTS: There were 2,462 visits in the intervention hospitals (1,258 in the preperiod and 1,204 in the postperiod) and 731 in the control hospitals (459 in the preperiod and 272 in the postperiod). Patient characteristics within the intervention and control EDs were similar across the time periods. Compared with the control hospitals, the triage protocol was associated with a 17% greater increase in withdrawal assessment, using the Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) (95% CI 7 to 27). Buprenorphine prescriptions at discharge also increased by 5% (95% CI 0% to 10%), and naloxone prescriptions increased by 12% points (95% CI 1% to 22%) in the intervention EDs relative to controls. CONCLUSION: An ED triage screening and treatment protocol led to increased assessment and treatment of opioid use disorder. Protocols designed to make screening and treatment the default practice have promise in increasing the implementation of evidence-based treatment ED opioid use disorder care.

Variability in opioid use disorder clinical presentations and treatment in the emergency department: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence for emergency department (ED)-initiated treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). However, implementation is variable, and ED management of OUD may differ by clinical presentation. Our aim was to use mixed methods to explore variation in ED-based OUD care by patient clinical presentation and understand barriers and facilitators to ED implementation of OUD treatment across scenarios. METHODS: We analyzed treatment outcomes in OUD-related visits within three urban, academic EDs from 12/2018 to 7/2020 following the implementation of interventions to increase ED-initiated OUD treatment. We assessed differences in treatment with medications for OUD (MOUDs) by clinical presentation (overdose, withdrawal, others). These data were integrated with results from 5 focus groups conducted with 28 ED physicians and nurses January to April 2020 to provide a richer understanding of clinician perspectives on caring for ED patients with OUD. RESULTS: Of the 1339 total opioid-related visits, there were 265 (20%) visits for overdose, 123 (9%) for withdrawal, and 951 (71%) for other OUD-related conditions. 23% of patients received MOUDs during their visit or at discharge. Treatment with MOUDs was least common in overdose presentations (6%) and most common in withdrawal presentations (69%, p < 0.001). Buprenorphine was prescribed at discharge in 15% of visits, including 42% of withdrawal visits, 14% of other OUD-related visits, and 5% of overdose visits (p < 0.001). In focus groups, clinicians highlighted variation in ED presentations among patients with OUD. Clinicians also highlighted key aspects necessary for successful treatment initiation including perceived patient receptivity, provider confidence, and patient clinical readiness. CONCLUSIONS: ED-based treatment of OUD differed by clinical presentation. Clinician focus groups identified several areas where targeted guidance or novel approaches may improve current practices. These results highlight the need for tailored clinical guidance and can inform health system and policy interventions seeking to increase ED-initiated treatment for OUD.

Change in outcomes for trauma patients over time: Two decades of a state trauma system.

BACKGROUND: Trauma center mortality rates are benchmarked to expected rates of death based on patient and injury characteristics. The expected mortality rate is recalculated from pooled outcomes across a trauma system each year, obscuring system-level change across years. We hypothesized that risk-adjusted mortality would decrease over time within a state-wide trauma system. METHODS: We identified adult trauma patients presenting to Level I and II Pennsylvania trauma centers, 1999-2018, using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study. Multivariable logistic regression generated risk-adjusted models for mortality in all patients, and in key subgroups: penetrating torso injury, blunt multisystem trauma, and patients presenting in shock. RESULTS: Of 162,646 included patients, 123,518 (76.1%) were white and 108,936 (67.0%) were male. The median age was 49 (interquartile range [IQR] 29-70), median injury severity score was 16 (IQR 10-24), and 87.5% of injuries were blunt. Overall, 9.9% of patients died, and compared to 1999, no year had significantly higher adjusted odds of mortality. Overall mortality was significantly lower in 2007-2009 and 2011-2018. Of patients with blunt, multisystem injuries, 17.7% died, and adjusted mortality improved over time. Mortality rates were 24.9% for penetrating torso injury, and 56.9% for shock, with no significant change. Mortality improved for patients with ISS < 25, but not for the most severely injured. CONCLUSIONS: Over 20 years, Pennsylvania trauma centers demonstrated improved risk-adjusted mortality rates overall, but improvement remains lacking in high-risk groups despite numerous innovations and practice changes in this time period. Identifying change over time can help guide focus to these critical gaps.

Epidemiologic Trends in Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm Injuries in the US, 2009-2017.

Importance: Firearm injury research in the US has focused on fatal injuries. The incidence and epidemiologic factors associated with nonfatal firearm injuries are less understood. Objective: To evaluate estimates of incidence and trends over time of fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional, ecologic study was conducted using data throughout the US from 2009 to 2017. Data on fatal injuries from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were combined with national data on emergency department visits for nonfatal firearm injury from the Nationwide Emergency Department (ED) sample. Data analysis was conducted from August 2019 to September 2020. Exposures: Firearm injuries identified with International Classification of Diseases external cause of injury codes and categorized by intent of injury, age group, and urban-rural location. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence, case fatality rate, and trends over time of firearm injury according to intent, age group, and urban-rural location. Results: From 2009 to 2017, there was a mean of 85 694 ED visits for nonfatal firearm injury and 34 538 deaths each year. An annual mean of 26 445 deaths (76.6%) occurred outside of the hospital. Assault was the most common overall mechanism (38.9%), followed by unintentional injuries (36.9%) and intentional self-harm (19.6%). Self-harm, which accounted for 21 128 deaths (61.2%), had the highest case fatality rate (89.4%; 95% CI, 88.5%-90.4%), followed by assault (25.9%; 95% CI, 23.7%-28.6%) and legal intervention (23.4%; 95% CI, 21.6%-25.5%). Unintentional injuries were the most common nonfatal injuries (43 729 [51.0%]) and had the lowest case fatality rate (1.2%; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.3%). Self-harm deaths, 87.8% of which occurred outside the hospital, increased in all age groups in both rural and urban areas during the study period and were most common among people aged 55 years and older. The rate of fatal assault injuries was higher in urban than in rural areas (16.6 vs 9.0 per 100 000 per year) and highest among people aged 15 to 34 years (38.6 per 100 000 per year). Rates of unintentional injury were higher in rural than in urban areas (18.5 per 100 000 vs 12.4 per 100 000). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, suicide appears to be the most common cause of firearm injury death in the US, and most people who die from suicide never reach the hospital. These findings suggest that assaults and unintentional injuries account for most nonfatal and overall firearm injuries and for most of the injuries that are treated in hospitals.