Navigating Care Refusal and Noncompliance in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: For many emergency physicians (EPs), deciding whether or not to allow a patient suffering the ill effects of opioid use to refuse care is the most frequent and fraught situation in which they encounter issues of decision-making capacity, informed refusal, and autonomy. Despite the frequency of this issue and the well-known impacts of opioid use disorder on decision-making, the medical ethics community has offered little targeted analysis or guidance regarding these situations. DISCUSSION: As a result, EPs demonstrate significant variability in how they evaluate and respond to them, with highly divergent understandings and application of concepts such as decision-making capacity, informed consent, autonomy, legal repercussions, and strategies to resolve the clinical dilemma. In this paper, we seek to provide more clarity to this issue for the EPs. CONCLUSIONS: Successfully navigating this issue requires that EPs understand the specific effects that opioid use disorder has on decision-making, and how that in turn bears on the ethical concepts of autonomy, capacity, and informed refusal. Understanding these concepts can lead to helpful strategies to resolve these commonly-encountered dilemmas.

Revive and Refuse: Capacity, Autonomy, and Refusal of Care After Opioid Overdose.

Physicians generally recommend that patients resuscitated with naloxone after opioid overdose stay in the emergency department for a period of observation in order to prevent harm from delayed sequelae of opioid toxicity. Patients frequently refuse this period of observation despiteenefit to risk. Healthcare providers are thus confronted with the challenge of how best to protect the patient's interests while also respecting autonomy, including assessing whether the patient is making an autonomous choice to refuse care. Previous studies have shown that physicians have widely divergent approaches to navigating these conflicts. This paper reviews what is known about the effects of opioid use disorder on decision-making, and argues that some subset of these refusals are non-autonomous choices, even when patients appear to have decision making capacity. This conclusion has several implications for how physicians assess and respond to patients refusing medical recommendations after naloxone resuscitation.

The effect of batched patient-physician assignment on patient length of stay in the emergency department.

Objectives: Queuing theory suggests that signing up for multiple patients at once (batching) can negatively affect patients' length of stay (LOS). At academic centers, resident assignment adds a second layer to this effect. In this study, we measured the rate of batched patient assignment by resident physicians, examined the effect on patient in-room LOS, and surveyed residents on underlying drivers and perceptions of batching. Methods: This was a retrospective study of discharged patients from August 1, 2020 to October 27, 2020, supplemented with survey data conducted at a large, urban, academic hospital with an emergency medicine training program in which residents self-assign to patients. Time stamps were extracted from the electronic health record and a definition of batching was set based on findings of a published time and motion study. Results: A total of 3794 patients were seen by 28 residents and ultimately discharged during the study period. Overall, residents batched 23.7% of patients, with a greater rate of batching associated with increasing resident seniority and during the first hour of resident shifts. In-room LOS for batched assignment patients was 15.9 minutes longer than single assignment patients (P value < 0.01). Residents' predictions of their rates of batching closely approximated actual rates; however, they underestimated the effect of batching on LOS. Conclusions: Emergency residents often batch patients during signup with negative consequences to LOS. Moreover, residents significantly underestimate this negative effect.

The Ethics of Procedural Education Under Pandemic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted emergency medicine residents' education. Early in the pandemic, many facilities lacked adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), and intubation was considered particularly high risk for transmission to physicians, leading hospitals to limit the number of individuals present during the procedure. This posed difficulties for residents and academic faculty, as opportunities to perform endotracheal intubation during residency are limited, but patients with COVID-19 requiring intubation are unstable and have difficult airways. Case Scenario: When PPE is being rationed, who should be the one to perform an intubation on a patient with respiratory failure from severe COVID-19? DISCUSSION: We examined this case scenario using the ethical frameworks of bioethical principles and virtue ethics. Bioethical principles include justice, beneficence, nonmalfeasance, and autonomy, and virtue ethics emphasizes the provision of moral exemplars and opportunities to exercise practical wisdom. Arguments for an attending-only strategy include the role of the attending as a truly autonomous decision maker and the importance of providing residents with a moral exemplar. A resident-only strategy benefits a resident's future patients and provides opportunities for residents to exercise character. Strategies preserving the dyad of attending and resident maintain these advantages and mitigate some drawbacks, while intubation teams may provide the most parsimonious use of PPE, but may elide resident involvement. CONCLUSIONS: There exist compelling motivations for involving senior residents and attendings in high-risk intubations during the COVID-19 pandemic. A just strategy will preserve residents' role whenever possible, while maximizing supervision and providing alternative routes for intubation practice.

CODE BLUE-19: Proposal to Mitigate COVID-19 Transmission in the Emergency Department for Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Resuscitation of cardiac arrest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients places the healthcare staff at higher risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Unfortunately, COVID-19 status is unknown in most patients presenting to the emergency department (ED), and therefore special attention must be given to protect the healthcare staff along with the other patients. This is particularly true for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who are transported to the ED. Based on the current data available on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, we have proposed a protocolized approach to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests to limit risk of transmission.

Ethical issues in access to and delivery of emergency department care in an era of changing reimbursement and novel payment models.

Hospital emergency departments (EDs) and the emergency physicians, nurses, and other health professionals who provide emergency care in them, are a critical component of the United States (US) health care system in the 21st century. Although access to emergency care has become a de facto right in the United States, funding for emergency care is fragmented and complex, which causes confusion and conflict about who should bear the cost of care. This article examines the tension between universal access to emergency care in the United States and the fragmentary, tenuous, and contentious financial arrangements that make it possible, viewing the issue in context of the historical development, legal and moral foundations, current situation, and future challenges of ED care in the United States. It begins with a review of the origins and evolution of emergency care and of hospital EDs in the United States. It then examines arguments for a right to emergency medical care and for shared obligations of patients to seek and of professionals and society to provide that care. Finally, it reviews current strategies and future prospects for protecting access to emergency care for patients who require it.

Design of the Academic Emergency Department.

This article introduces a clinical audience to the process of emergency department (ED) design, particularly relating to academic EDs. It explains some of the major terms, processes, and key decisions that clinical staff will experience as participants in the design process. Topics covered include an overview of the planning and design process, issues related to determining needed patient capacity, the impact of patient flow models on design, and a description of several common ED design types and their advantages and disadvantages.

How Emergency Physicians Approach Refusal of Observation after Naloxone Resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are resuscitated with naloxone frequently refuse a period of observation, even though they may be suffering from a variety of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Emergency physicians (EPs) are then confronted with the challenge of how best to serve patients' interests while respecting autonomy. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize how EPs think about this kind of dilemma and the strategies they use to resolve them. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 59 emergency physicians attending the American College of Emergency Physicians' Scientific Assembly in October 2018. Three case vignettes highlighting different clinical and ethical features served as prompts. Interviews were analyzed using a constant comparative method to identify patterns of responses and derive key themes. RESULTS: Across the vignettes, EPs demonstrated diverse approaches to observation, assessing decision-making capacity and encouraging compliance. Some EPs refused to comply with a patient's wishes even when they had determined a patient demonstrated capacity. Conversely, a few EPs were willing to allow patients to leave the emergency department (ED) without assessing capacity, or despite determining that the patient lacked capacity. Common reasons for complying with patients' demands were concerns about the patients' rights and concerns about the safety of staff. Most physicians interviewed reported no institutional guidelines or education on the topic, and many physicians expressed an interest in providing medication for addiction treatment in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: EPs approach this clinical and ethical dilemma in widely divergent ways. Consensus about strategies for navigating patients' wishes relative to clinical concerns are needed to help EPs manage these challenging cases.

Another Look at the Persistent Moral Problem of Emergency Department Crowding.

This article revisits the persistent problem of crowding in US hospital emergency departments (EDs). It begins with a brief review of origins of this problem, terms used to refer to ED crowding, proposed definitions and measures of crowding, and causal factors. The article then summarizes recent studies that document adverse moral consequences of ED crowding, including poorer patient outcomes; increased medical errors; compromises in patient physical privacy, confidentiality, and communication; and provider moral distress. It describes several organizational strategies implemented to relieve crowding and implications of ED crowding for individual practitioners. The article concludes that ED crowding remains a morally significant problem and calls on emergency physicians, ED and hospital leaders, emergency medicine professional associations, and policymakers to collaborate on solutions.

Should Emergency Department Patients with End-of-Life Directives be Admitted to the ICU?

BACKGROUND: Whether emergency physicians should utilize critical care resources for patients with advance care planning directives is a complex question. Because the cost of intensive care unit (ICU)-level care, in terms of human suffering and financial burden, can be considerable, ICU-level care ought to be provided only to those patients who would consent and who would benefit from it. OBJECTIVES: In this article, we discuss the interplay between clinical indications, patient preferences, and advance care directives, and make recommendations about what the emergency physician must consider when deciding whether a patient with an advance care planning document should be admitted to the ICU. DISCUSSION: Although some patients may wish to avoid certain aggressive or invasive measures available in an ICU, there may be a tendency, reinforced by recent Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines, to presume that such patients will not benefit as much as other patients from the specialized care of the ICU. The ICU still may be the most appropriate setting for hospitalization to access care outside of the limitations set forward in those end-of-life care directives. On the other hand, ICU beds are a scarce and expensive resource that may offer aggressive treatments that can inflict suffering onto patients unlikely to benefit from them. Goals-of-care discussions are critical to align patient end-of-life care preferences with hospital resources, and therefore, the appropriateness of ICU disposition. CONCLUSIONS: End-of-life care directives should not automatically exclude patients from the ICU. Rather, ICU admission should be based upon the alignment of uniquely beneficial treatment offered by the ICU and patients' values and stated goals of care.