Prevalence of Homelessness by Gender in an Emergency Department Population in Pennsylvania.

CONTEXT: According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, nearly 1.5 million people spend at least 1 night in an emergency shelter or transitional housing each year, and more than 500,000 people are homeless on a given night in the United States. To our knowledge, limited data exist regarding the prevalence of homelessness in ED patients by gender (male, female, and transgender). OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of homelessness by gender in 3 EDs in Pennsylvania. METHODS: From May 2015 through February 2016, patients in 3 EDs were approached to take a 5-question homelessness screening survey. To participate, patients had to be aged at least 18 years, speak English, have capacity to complete the survey, be willing to participate, and not be critically ill. Frequency comparisons were made using χ2 analysis. Statistical significance was defined as P≤.05. RESULTS: A total of 4395 patients were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age of the participants was 50.8 (20.5) years; 2557 (58.2%) were women and 3 (0.07%) were transgender. No difference in the rate of homelessness was observed between men and women, with 135 of 1835 men (7.4%) and 173 of 2557 women (6.8%) screening positive for homelessness (P=.472). Forty of 2557 women (1.6%) and 41 of 1835 men (2.2%) admitted they had slept outside or in an abandoned building, their car, an emergency shelter, or a hotel due to financial hardship in the past 60 days (P=.26). One transgender patient screened positive for homelessness. The mean age of participants who screened positive for homelessness was 40.9 (15.9) years. CONCLUSION: No significant difference was observed in the rate of homelessness between men and women in this ED population, which defies the perception that this issue primarily affects men. Public health interventions aimed at homeless populations should consider that both men and women may be equally affected by homelessness.

Factors Influencing Participation in Clinical Trials: Emergency Medicine vs. Other Specialties.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated factors that influence emergency medicine (EM) patients' decisions to participate in clinical trials and whether the impact of these factors differs from those of other medical specialties. METHODS: A survey was distributed in EM, family medicine (FM), infectious disease (ID), and obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN) outpatient waiting areas. Eligibility criteria included those who were 18 years of age or older, active patients on the day of the survey, and able to complete the survey without assistance. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test and ordinal logistic regression analyses to identify differences in participants' responses. RESULTS: A total of 2,893 eligible subjects were approached, and we included 1,841 surveys in the final analysis. Statistically significant differences (p≤0.009) were found for eight of the ten motivating factors between EM and one or more of the other specialties. Regardless of a patient's gender, race, and education, the relationship with their doctor was more motivating to patients seen in other specialties than to EM patients (FM [odds ratio {OR}:1.752, 95% confidence interval {CI}{1.285-2.389}], ID [OR:3.281, 95% CI{2.293-4.695}], and OB/GYN [OR:2.408, 95% CI{1.741-3.330}]). EM's rankings of "how well the research was explained" and whether "the knowledge learned would benefit others" as their top two motivating factors were similar across other specialties. All nine barriers showed statistically significant differences (p≤0.008) between EM and one or more other specialties. Participants from all specialties indicated "risk of unknown side effects" as their strongest barrier. Regardless of the patients' race, "time commitment" was considered to be more of a barrier to other specialties when compared to EM (FM [OR:1.613, 95% CI{1.218-2.136}], ID [OR:1.340, 95% CI{1.006-1.784}], or OB/GYN [OR:1.901, 95% CI{1.431-2.526}]). Among the six resources assessed that help patients decide whether to participate in a clinical trial, only one scored statistically significantly different for EM (p<0.001). EM patients ranked "having all material provided in my own language" as the most helpful resource. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences between EM patients and those of other specialties in the factors that influence their participation in clinical trials. Providing material in the patient's own language, explaining the study well, and elucidating how their participation might benefit others in the future may help to improve enrollment in EM-based clinical trials.

Prevalence of Homelessness in the Emergency Department Setting.

INTRODUCTION: According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the national rate of homelessness has been cited as 17.7 homeless people/10,000 people in the general population, and 24.8 homeless veterans/10,000 veterans in the general population. However, it is unknown what the prevalence of homelessness is in the emergency department (ED) setting. We set out to determine the prevalence of homelessness or at risk for homelessness in the ED setting. METHODS: Using a five-question screening tool derived from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services and the Veterans Administration definition for homelessness, we surveyed all patients meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria on scheduled shifts in one of three EDs in Northeastern Pennsylvania. To participate, subjects had to be a registered patient in the ED, be 18 years or older, speak English, have the capacity to answer survey questions, not be critically ill, be willing to participate, and not have taken the survey before. We selected two survey periods to represent seasonal variations. RESULTS: We included 4,395 subjects in the analysis. The mean age of those who screened positive for homelessness or at risk for homelessness was 43.1 (SD 16.6). Overall, 136 (3.1%) participants screened positive for at risk for homelessness and 309 (7.0%) screened positive for homelessness. A total of 103 subjects (9.8%) screened positive for homelessness or at risk for homelessness on weekends and 312 (10.3%) on weekdays (p=0.64). The proportion of those screening positive for homelessness or at risk for homelessness varied by site: 145 (7.5%) at the trauma center, 151(9.1%) at the suburban site, and 149 (18.7%) at the center city site, p<0.001.There was no statistical significance to the difference between the trauma center and the suburban site (p=.088), but there was statistical significance between both the suburban and the trauma center when compared to the center city site (both p<0.0001). The proportion of those screening positive for homelessness in the summer months (156, 7.5%) was similar to those in the winter months (153, 6.6%), p=0.23. CONCLUSION: In our study, the overall prevalence of homelessness or at risk for homelessness was 10.1 percent. This prevalence did not seem to vary between weekdays and weekends. Additionally, summer months had a prevalence that was as concerning as winter months. The prevalence does, however, seem to vary by institutional characteristics even in the same geographic region. Understanding the patterns of prevalence of homelessness is a step toward considering possible interventions to assist this vulnerable population.

Evaluation of a new, rapid test for detecting HCV infection, suitable for use with blood or oral fluid.

The availability of a highly accurate, rapid, point-of-care test for hepatitis C virus (HCV) may be useful in addressing the problem of under-diagnosis of HCV, by increasing opportunities for testing outside of traditional clinical settings. A new HCV rapid test device (OraQuick® HCV Rapid Antibody Test), approved recently in Europe for use with venous blood, fingerstick blood, serum, plasma, or oral fluid was evaluated in a multi-center study and performance compared to established laboratory-based tests for detection of HCV. The HCV rapid test was evaluated in prospective testing of subjects with signs and/or symptoms of hepatitis, or who were at risk for hepatitis C using all 5 specimen types. Performance was assessed relative to HCV serostatus established by laboratory methods (EIA, RIBA and PCR) approved in Europe for diagnosis of hepatitis C infection. Sensitivity to antibody in early infection was also compared to EIA in 27 seroconversion panels. In addition, the reliability of the oral fluid sample for accurate detection of anti-HCV was assessed by studying the impact of various potentially interfering conditions of oral health, use of oral care products and consumption of food and drink. In this large study of at-risk and symptomatic persons, the overall specificities of the OraQuick® HCV Rapid Antibody Test were equivalent (99.6-99.9%) for all 5 specimen types and the 95% CIs substantially overlapped. Overall sensitivities were virtually identical for venous blood, fingerstick blood, serum and plasma (99.7-99.9%). Observed sensitivity was slightly lower for oral fluid at 98.1% though the upper CI (99.0%) was equal to the lower CI for venous blood and fingerstick blood. Most of the HCV positive subjects which gave nonreactive results in oral fluid had serological and virological results consistent with resolved infection. Sensitivity for anti-HCV in early seroconversion was virtually identical between the HCV rapid test and EIA. Detection of anti-HCV in oral fluid appeared generally robust to conditions of oral health, consumption of food and drink and use of oral care products. The OraQuick® HCV Rapid Antibody Test demonstrated clinical performance that was equivalent to current laboratory-based EIA. This new, HCV rapid test appears suitable as an aid in the diagnosis of HCV infection and may increase testing opportunities due to its simplicity and flexibility to use multiple specimen types, including fingerstick blood and oral fluid.