Involuntary sedation of patients in the emergency department for mental health: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary sedation of agitated mental health patients in the Emergency Department (ED) is standard practice to obtain accurate medical assessments and maintain safety. However, the rate of this practice and what factors are associated with the use of involuntary sedation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to obtain baseline data on involuntary sedation in our EDs. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients with ED visits for mental health care in 2020-2021. Patients >12 years old who received both a psychiatry consultation and involuntary sedation were included. Data variables included demographics, medical and mental health diagnoses, sedatives given, substance use, ED length of stay, and disposition. The primary outcome was repeated involuntary sedation. RESULTS: Involuntary sedation was used in 18.8% of the mental health patients screened for study inclusion. 334 patients were included in the study cohort and 31.6% (n = 106) required repeated involuntary sedation. Their average age was 35.5 ± 13.5 years with 58.4% men, 40.1% women, and 1.2% transgender persons. Most (90.0%, n = 299) had prior mental health diagnoses with the most common being substance use disorder (38.9%, n = 130), bipolar disorder (34.1%, n = 114), depressive disorder (29.0%, n = 97), and schizophrenia (24.3%, n = 81). Two-thirds (65.9%, n = 220) had current substance use and 41.9% (n = 142) reported current use with a chemical associated with aggression. Hospital security was called for 73.1% (n = 244). Current cocaine, methamphetamines, or alcohol use was associated with decreased odds of repeated sedation (0.52 OR, 95% CI 0.32-0.85). Prior mental health diagnosis and non-white race were associated with increased odds of repeated sedation. In the multivariable regression, the effect of race was more significant. CONCLUSIONS: Involuntary sedation was used in 18.8% of ED patients for mental health care and almost a third were repeatedly sedated, with race being a potential risk factor for repeated sedation. ED care could benefit from evidence-based interventions to reduce the need for involuntary sedation.

Opioids Dispensed in the U.S. by Prescribing Specialty, 2012-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Increases in opioid prescribing contributed to the opioid epidemic in the U.S. Subsequent efforts to promote safer use of opioids for treating pain included augmenting prescription drug monitoring programs and prescribing guidelines. The purpose of this study is to characterize the distribution of opioids dispensed in the U.S. by specialty. METHODS: Data from the IQVIA National Prescription Audit were analyzed (in 2019). Prescriptions were standardized to morphine milligram equivalents using the 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conversion file. The annual number of prescriptions and total dose (morphine milligram equivalents) of opioids dispensed, overall and by specialty (provider type or physician specialty), were calculated for 2012-2017. RESULTS: The number of prescriptions for opioids dispensed declined by 26.6% overall from 2012 to 2017. However, the number of prescriptions dispensed increased for pain medicine (8.8%) and advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners: 34.8%, physician assistants: 5.4%). Similarly, total morphine milligram equivalents for opioids dispensed declined by 28.6% from 2012 to 2017. Despite an increase in the number of prescriptions, total morphine milligram equivalents of opioids dispensed declined by nearly 20% in pain medicine. Higher total morphine milligram equivalents of dispensed opioids were observed in 2017 than in 2012 for advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners: 19.1%, physician assistants: 1.8%), although a decline in morphine milligram equivalents was observed from 2016 to 2017. CONCLUSIONS: During a period in which prescribing interventions were expanded, opioid prescribing declined overall, although not uniformly by specialty.

Defining "Doctor Shopping" with Dispensing Data: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: "Doctor shopping" typically refers to patients that seek controlled substance prescriptions from multiple providers with the presumed intent to obtain these medications for non-medical use and/or diversion. The purpose of this scoping review is to document and examine the criteria used to identify "doctor shopping" from dispensing data in the United States. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted on "doctor shopping" or analogous terminology from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2020, using the Web of Science Core Collection (seven citation indexes). Our search was limited to the United States only, English-language, peer-reviewed and US federal government studies. Studies without explicit "doctor shopping" criteria were excluded. Key components of these criteria included the number of prescribers and dispensers, dispensing period, and drug class (e.g., opioids). RESULTS: Of 9,845 records identified, 95 articles met the inclusion criteria and our pool of studies ranged from years 2003 to 2020. The most common threshold-based or count definition was (≥4 Prescribers [P] AND ≥4 Dispensers [D]) (n = 12). Thirty-three studies used a 365-day detection window. Opioids alone were studied most commonly (n = 69), followed by benzodiazepines and stimulants (n = 5 and n = 2, respectively). Only 39 (41%) studies provided specific drug lists with active ingredients. CONCLUSION: Relatively simple P x D criteria for identifying "doctor shopping" are still the dominant paradigm with the need for ongoing validation. The value of P x D criteria may change through time with more diverse methods applied to dispensing data emerging.

The Association between Emergency Department Super-Utilizer Status and Willingness to Participate in Research.

BACKGROUND: Research based on emergency departments (EDs) primarily focuses on medical conditions. There is limited research that investigates patients who willingly participate in research. This current study explored ED super-utilizers' (SUs') and nonsuper-utilizers' (NSUs') attitudes toward research. OBJECTIVE: The study assesses the willingness of SUs to participate in research. We hypothesize that the SU population will be as interested as nonutilizers in participating in medical research. METHODS: This prospective observational study stratified participants into SU and NSU cohorts based on their self-reported number of ED visits within 6 months. Surveys were captured in a secured database and analyzed using SAS 9.4. RESULTS: 7,481 completed questionnaires. SUs were more interested in participating in all types of research compared to NSUs. Both groups were most willing to participate in surveys. Neither group was particularly interested in studies that required medications. SUs were not more willing to participate in studies without payment than NSUs. Both groups trusted researchers at the same rates. CONCLUSION: Although rarely included in medical research, SUs were more willing to participate in nearly all types of research and expressed a similar trust in medical research when compared to nonsuper-utilizers.

Trends in Florida's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program registration and utilization: Implications for increasing voluntary use.

OBJECTIVE: Effective use of state prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) to track controlled substance prescribing and dispensing may help mitigate the current opioid crisis. Our objective was to examine trends in registration for and use of Florida's PDMP by physicians and pharmacists, from 2013 to 2016. We discuss implications for PDMP uptake and policy. DESIGN: Key measures, such as cumulative number of registrants per license type and monthly utilization intensity, are presented. A time series forecasting approach was used to (1) model the monthly count of new PDMP registrants and users from January 2013 to December 2016 and (2) estimate cumulative registration totals after 1 year. SETTING: Florida. RESULTS: As of November 2016, there were 16,498 physicians (representing 31 percent of Drug Enforcement Administration licensees) and 17,241 pharmacists registered with the PDMP, representing 21 and 57 percent of professional licensees, respectively. Of note, the PDMP's designation as a "specialized registry" for electronic medical record "meaningful use" criteria led to a nearly sevenfold increase in physician registrations in a single month. In November 2016, pharmacists displayed a higher past-month PDMP utilization rate (52.2 percent vs 30.1 percent), while physicians displayed a higher past-month PDMP utilization intensity (58.1 vs. 36.1 queries per user). Approximately 25,000 physicians and 31,000 pharmacists must register by the end of 2017 to meet national policy goals. CONCLUSION: PDMP registration among physicians and pharmacists is limited, and the use of the PDMP among registrants is more limited still. Our findings suggest that Florida will not meet national policy goals for registrants by the end of 2017, although new initiatives may alter this trend. Allowing the PDMP to help prescribers meet other professional needs, such as "meaningful use" or similar efforts, may be effective in increasing PDMP use.

The current utilization and perceptions of prescription drug monitoring programs among emergency medicine providers in Florida.

BACKGROUND: Pain is among the most commonly treated symptoms in the emergency department, and opioids are commonly prescribed from the emergency department to treat moderate to severe pain. Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) can be used to assist physicians identify individuals at increased risk to misuse or abuse opioids. While the use of the PDMP has been shown useful among clinicians, in the past, utilization of the PDMP has been less than optimal. The objective of this study was to assess the current utilization and perceptions of the prescription drug monitoring program among emergency medicine providers in Florida. METHODS: A survey assessing the utilization and perception of Florida's prescription drug monitoring program was distributed to emergency medicine providers in Florida over a 5 week period. Attending physicians, physicians in training, and extenders from a variety of practice types were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 88 surveys were completed. Over two thirds (67%) of the respondents were male. The majority of respondents were attending physicians (62%), 13 (14%) were residents, and 21 (23%) were extenders. Nearly all (99%) were aware of Electronic-Florida Online Reporting of Controlled Substance Evaluation Program (EFORCSE) and 84% had registered accounts. More than 2/3 (73%) reported feeling pressured to prescribe opioids, and 70% reported receiving no formal education on identifying individuals at increased risk of opioid misuse. Approximately half (51%) reported that they used EFORCSE only when they suspect the patient may misuse the medication, 21% reported that they rarely used EFORCSE, and only 3% reported using PDMP every time that they prescribed opioids. Residents used PDMP less frequently than extenders and attending physicians. The most common barriers associated with PDMP use were related to access. CONCLUSIONS: Although most providers reported that they were aware of their states' PDMP, utilization of the PDMP among emergency medicine providers in Florida remains low. Low utilization was associated with barriers to access. If further enhancements to PDMPs can be made to improve accessibility, then rates of PDMP utilization may increase.