ABSTRACT
In June 2023, the Supreme Court declared that there was no longer a right to abortion under the federal constitution. This decision has allowed states to promulgate different restrictions on abortion, many of which implicate the practice of emergency medicine. An abortion is defined as a "medical intervention provided to individuals who need to end the medical condition of pregnancy" and includes care such as termination of an ectopic pregnancy and induction of labor for previable preterm premature rupture of membranes-interventions that emergency physicians either perform or rely on the assistance of consultants to perform. State bans on abortion must be evaluated against duties under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a federal law that preempts state law. In this paper we examine the conflict between state and federal law as it applies to emergency abortion care and describe how emergency physicians can continue caring for patients.
Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services , Emergency Medicine , Pregnancy Complications , Female , Pregnancy , Infant, Newborn , Humans , Pregnancy Complications/therapyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Unintended pregnancy disproportionately affects marginalized populations and has significant negative health and financial impacts on women, their families, and society. The emergency department (ED) is a promising alternative setting to increase access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services including contraception, especially among marginalized populations. The primary objective of this study was to determine the extent to which adult women of childbearing age who present to the ED would be receptive to receiving contraception and/or information about contraception in the ED. As a secondary objective, we sought to identify the barriers faced in attempting to obtain SRH care in the past. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative, cross-sectional, assisted, in-person survey of women aged 18-50 in the ED setting at two large, urban, academic EDs between June 2018-September 2019. The survey was approved by the institutional review board. Survey items included demographics, interest in contraception initiation and/or receiving information about contraception in the ED, desire to conceive, prior SRH care utilization, and barriers to SRH. RESULTS: A total of 505 patients participated in the survey. Participants were predominantly single and Black, with a mean age of 31 years, and reporting not wanting to become pregnant in the next year. Of those participants, 55.2% (n = 279) stated they would be interested in receiving information about birth control AND receiving birth control in the ED if it were available. Of those who reported the ability to get pregnant, and not desiring pregnancy in the next year (n = 279, 55.2%), 32.6% were not currently using anything to prevent pregnancy (n = 91). Only 10.5% of participants stated they had experienced barriers to SRH care in the past (n = 53). Participants who experienced barriers to SRH reported higher interest in receiving information and birth control in the ED (74%, n = 39) compared to those who had not experienced barriers (53%, n = 240); (P = 0.004, 95% confidence interval, 1.30-4.66). CONCLUSION: The majority of women of childbearing age indicated the desire to access contraception services in the ED setting. This finding suggests favorable patient acceptability for an implementation study of contraception services in emergency care.
Subject(s)
Contraception/psychology , Contraceptive Agents/administration & dosage , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Pregnancy , Pregnancy, Unplanned , Reproductive Health/education , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Many physicians complete residency training during optimal childbearing years. The literature shows that working nights or on call can lead to pregnancy complications including miscarriage, preterm labor, and preeclampsia. In addition, infant-parent bonding in the postpartum period is crucial for breastfeeding, health, and well-being. No national standards exist for flexible scheduling options for pregnant or new parent residents. Our project objectives are 1) to describe a policy for scheduling pregnant and new parent residents in an emergency medicine (EM) residency and 2) to report pilot outcomes to assess feasibility of implementation, resident satisfaction, and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: An EM residency task force developed a proposal of scheduling options for pregnant and new parent residents based on best practice recommendations and resident input. The policy included prenatal scheduling options for pregnant residents and postpartum scheduling options for all new resident parents. Resident support for the policy was evaluated via an anonymous survey. It was piloted for 2 months in an EM residency program. RESULTS: Policy development resulted in 1) an opt-out prenatal pregnancy work hour option policy with no nights or call during the first and third trimesters, 2) a 6-week new parent flexible scheduling policy, and 3) clarified sick call options. A majority of residents approved the new policy. During the 2-month pilot period, four residents (of 73 total) utilized the policy. The chief residents reported no added burden in scheduling. Of the residents who utilized the policy, all reported high satisfaction. There were no reported pregnancy or postpartum complications. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully adopted a new scheduling policy for pregnant residents and new parents in one of the largest EM residency training programs in the country. This policy can serve as a national model for other graduate medical education programs.