Sex and Age Differences in Atypical Chief Complaints for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in Emergency Department Visits.

Objectives: Around one million United States emergency department (ED) visits annually are due to acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) symptoms. Characterizing ED symptom presentation of ADHF patients may improve clinical care, yet sex and age differences in ED chief complaints have not been thoroughly investigated. This paper aims to describe differences in chief complaints and comorbid conditions for ED patients with a ADHF diagnosis, stratified by sex and age. Methods: Retrospective analysis of adults presenting to North Carolina EDs in NC DETECT, a statewide syndromic surveillance system, between 2010 and 2016 with a diagnosis of ADHF. Frequencies of chief complaint categories for ED visits and comorbid conditions, stratified by sex and age, were evaluated and standardized differences computed. Results: Top chief complaints were dyspnea (19.1%), chest pain (13.5%), and other respiratory complaints (13.4%). In the 18-44 age group, females when compared to males reported more nausea/vomiting (6.7% versus 4.1%) and headache (4.2% versus 2.0%). In those 45-64 and 65+ years old, complaints were similar by sex. When stratified by age group alone, the 18-44 and 45-64 age groups had more complaints of chest pain, whereas balance issues, weakness, and confusion were more common in the 65+ age group. Conclusion: Sex and age differences in atypical ADHF symptoms were seen in in ED patients with ADHF. Characterizing variation of ADHF symptoms in ED patients can inform the identification of ED patients with ADHF and the management of ADHF-related symptoms.

High Deductible Health Plans and Use of Free Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act aimed to increase use of preventive services by eliminating cost-sharing to consumers. However, patients may be unaware of this benefit or they may not seek preventive services if they anticipate that the cost of potential diagnostic or treatment services will be too high, both more likely among those in high deductible health plans. We used nationally representative private health insurance claims (100% sample of IBM® MarketScan®) for the United States from 2006 to 2018, restricting the data to enrollment and claims for non-elderly adults who were enrolled for the full plan year. The cross-sectional sample (185 million person-years) is used to describe trends in preventive service use and costs from 2008 through 2016. The cohort sample (9 million people) focuses on the elimination of cost-sharing for certain high-value preventive services in late 2010, requiring continuous enrollment across 2010 and 2011. We examine whether HDHP enrollment is associated with use of eligible preventive services using semi-parametric difference-in-differences to account for endogenous plan selection. Our preferred model implies that HDHP enrollment was associated with a reduction of the post-ACA change in any use of eligible preventive services by 0.2 percentage points or 12.5%. Cancer screenings were unaffected but HDHP enrollment was associated with smaller increases in wellness visits, immunizations, and screening for chronic conditions and sexually transmitted infections. We also find that the policy was ineffective at reducing out-of-pocket costs for the eligible preventive services, likely due to implementation issues.

Peer Reviewed Evaluation of Registered End-Points of Randomised Trials (the PRE-REPORT study): a stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether providing relevant clinical trial registry information to peer reviewers evaluating trial manuscripts decreases discrepancies between registered and published trial outcomes. DESIGN: Stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial, with clusters comprised of eligible manuscripts submitted to each participating journal between 1 November 2018 and 31 October 2019. SETTING: Thirteen medical journals. PARTICIPANTS: Manuscripts were eligible for inclusion if they were submitted to a participating journal during the study period, presented results from the primary analysis of a clinical trial, and were peer reviewed. INTERVENTIONS: During the control phase, there were no changes to pre-existing peer review practices. After journals crossed over into the intervention phase, peer reviewers received a data sheet describing whether trials were registered, the initial registration and enrolment dates, and the registered primary outcome(s) when enrolment began. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The presence of a clearly defined, prospectively registered primary outcome consistent with the primary outcome in the published trial manuscript, as determined by two independent outcome assessors. RESULTS: We included 419 manuscripts (243 control and 176 intervention). Participating journals published 43% of control-phase manuscripts and 39% of intervention-phase manuscripts (model-estimated percentage difference between intervention and control trials = -10%, 95% CI -25% to 4%). Among the 173 accepted trials, published primary outcomes were consistent with clearly defined, prospectively registered primary outcomes in 40 of 105 (38%) control-phase trials and 27 of 68 (40%) intervention-phase trials. A linear mixed model did not show evidence of a statistically significant primary outcome effect from the intervention (estimated difference between intervention and control=-6% (90% CI -27% to 15%); one-sided p value=0.68). CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support use of the tested intervention as implemented here to increase agreement between prospectively registered and published trial outcomes. Other approaches are needed to improve the quality of outcome reporting of clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN41225307.

User centered clinical decision support to implement initiation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in the emergency department: EMBED pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a user centered clinical decision support tool versus usual care on rates of initiation of buprenorphine in the routine emergency care of individuals with opioid use disorder. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (EMBED). SETTING: 18 emergency department clusters across five healthcare systems in five states representing the north east, south east, and western regions of the US, ranging from community hospitals to tertiary care centers, using either the Epic or Cerner electronic health record platform. PARTICIPANTS: 599 attending emergency physicians caring for 5047 adult patients presenting with opioid use disorder. INTERVENTION: A user centered, physician facing clinical decision support system seamlessly integrated into user workflows in the electronic health record to support initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department by helping clinicians to diagnose opioid use disorder, assess the severity of withdrawal, motivate patients to accept treatment, and complete electronic health record tasks by automating clinical and after visit documentation, order entry, prescribing, and referral. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of initiation of buprenorphine (administration or prescription of buprenorphine) in the emergency department among patients with opioid use disorder. Secondary implementation outcomes were measured with the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework. RESULTS: 1 413 693 visits to the emergency department (775 873 in the intervention arm and 637 820 in the usual care arm) from November 2019 to May 2021 were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 5047 patients with opioid use disorder (2787 intervention arm, 2260 usual care arm) under the care of 599 attending physicians (340 intervention arm, 259 usual care arm) for analysis. Buprenorphine was initiated in 347 (12.5%) patients in the intervention arm and in 271 (12.0%) patients in the usual care arm (adjusted generalized estimating equations odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 2.43, P=0.58). Buprenorphine was initiated at least once by 151 (44.4%) physicians in the intervention arm and by 88 (34.0%) in the usual care arm (1.83, 1.16 to 2.89, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: User centered clinical decision support did not increase patient level rates of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department. Although streamlining and automating electronic health record workflows can potentially increase adoption of complex, unfamiliar evidence based practices, more interventions are needed to look at other barriers to the treatment of addiction and increase the rate of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department in patients with opioid use disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03658642.

Brief Educational Video plus Telecare to Enhance Recovery for Older Emergency Department Patients with Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: an update to the study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This update describes changes to the Brief Educational Tool to Enhance Recovery (BETTER) trial in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS/DESIGN: The original protocol was published in Trials. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the BETTER trial converted to remote recruitment in April 2020. All recruitment, consent, enrollment, and randomization now occur by phone within 24 h of the acute care visit. Other changes to the original protocol include an expansion of inclusion criteria and addition of new recruitment sites. To increase recruitment numbers, eligibility criteria were expanded to include individuals with chronic pain, non-daily opioid use within 2 weeks of enrollment, presenting musculoskeletal pain (MSP) symptoms for more than 1 week, hospitalization in past 30 days, and not the first time seeking medical treatment for presenting MSP pain. In addition, recruitment sites were expanded to other emergency departments and an orthopedic urgent care clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting from an orthopedic urgent care clinic and transitioning to remote operations not only allowed for continued participant enrollment during the pandemic but also resulted in some favorable outcomes, including operational efficiencies, increased enrollment, and broader generalizability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118595 . Registered on October 8, 2019.

Use of a Brief Negotiation Interview in the emergency department to reduce high-risk alcohol use among older adults: A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI) performed in the emergency department (ED) can reduce future rates of alcohol use among older adults who are high-risk drinkers. METHODS: Adults aged 65 years and older in a single academic ED were screened for high-risk alcohol use based on the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism definition of >7 drinks per week or >3 drinks per occasion. Eligible individuals who were high-risk drinkers who passed a cognitive impairment screener and who consented to enrollment were randomly assigned to receive the BNI versus usual care. Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months.  The primary outcome was the rate of high-risk alcohol use at 6 months. RESULTS:  Of 2250 ED patients who were screened, 183 (8%) met the criteria for high-risk alcohol use. Of those, 98 (53%) patients met full criteria and consented to participation. Of the participants, 67% were men and 83% were non-Hispanic White. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of high-risk alcohol use at 6 months between the BNI at 59.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.5%-76.8%) and the control at 49.1% (95% CI, 36.9%-65.2%). However, there was a significant time-effect reduction in alcohol consumption and rates of high-risk alcohol use for both groups. CONCLUSION: Among older adults who met the criteria for high-risk alcohol use, the BNI in the ED did not result in a reduction in high-risk alcohol use at 6 months, although both groups showed significant reductions after their ED visit. Further work is needed to determine the optimal setting and time to use the BNI to impact high-risk alcohol use in this population.

Advance Care Planning for Emergency Department Patients With COVID-19 Infection: An Assessment of a Physician Training Program.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has heightened the importance of advance care planning (ACP), particularly in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an educational program for emergency physicians on ACP conversations in the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: This was an observational pre-/post-interventional study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a Southeastern U.S. academic ED. PARTICIPANTS: 143 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection in the 2 weeks up to and including the ED encounter of interest (between March 26 and May 25, 2020) were included. INTERVENTIONS: The primary intervention was an ACP training toolkit with three components: (1) an evidence-based guide to COVID-19 risk stratification, (2) education on language to initiate ACP conversations, and (3) modification of the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate ACP documentation. Palliative care physicians also delivered a 60-minute ACP educational session for emergency medicine physicians. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of ACP activities including: (1) identification of a healthcare decision-maker (HCDM), (2) an order for a code status, or (3) a documented goals of care conversation. RESULTS: There was a 25.4% (95% CI: 7.0-43.9) increase in the composite outcome of ED-based ACP. After adjustment for patient demographics and triage score, there was a non-statistically significant increase in ACP activity (OR = 2.71, 95% CI: 0.93-8.64; P = .08). CONCLUSION: A rapid and simple physician-facing educational intervention demonstrated a trend, though lacking in statistical significance, towards increased ED-based ACP activities for patients with COVID-19.

Inclusion of older adults in emergency department clinical research: Strategies to achieve a critical goal.

Medical research across all fields has historically excluded older adults (aged 65 years and older). Because older adults have a higher burden of chronic illness, respond differently to treatment, and are more prone to medication side effects, the results of current research may not be applicable to this important population. To address this major research deficiency, the National Institutes of Health established the Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy, effective January 2019. We present important considerations and proven strategies for successful inclusion of older adults in emergency care research relating to study design, participant recruitment and retention, and sources of support for investigators.

The BRAVO Clinical Study Protocol: Oral Varespladib for Inhibition of Secretory Phospholipase A2 in the Treatment of Snakebite Envenoming.

INTRODUCTION: Snakebite is an urgent, unmet global medical need causing significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Varespladib is a potent inhibitor of venom secretory phospholipase A2 (sPLA2) that can be administered orally via its prodrug, varespladib-methyl. Extensive preclinical data support clinical evaluation of varespladib as a treatment for snakebite envenoming (SBE). The protocol reported here was designed to evaluate varespladib-methyl for SBE from any snake species in multiple geographies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BRAVO (Broad-spectrum Rapid Antidote: Varespladib Oral for snakebite) is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of oral varespladib-methyl plus standard of care (SoC) vs. SoC plus placebo in patients presenting with acute SBE by any venomous snake species. Male and female patients 5 years of age and older who meet eligibility criteria will be randomly assigned 1:1 to varespladib-methyl or placebo. The primary outcome is the Snakebite Severity Score (SSS) that has been modified for international use. This composite outcome is based on the sum of the pulmonary, cardiovascular, nervous, hematologic, and renal systems components of the updated SSS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was submitted to regulatory authorities in India and the US. A Clinical Trial No Objection Certificate from the India Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, Drug Controller General-India, and a Notice to Proceed from the US Food and Drug Administration have been obtained. The study protocol was approved by properly constituted, valid institutional review boards or ethics committees at each study site. This study is being conducted in compliance with the April 1996 ICH Guidance for Industry GCP E6, the Integrated Addendum to ICH E6 (R2) of November 2016, and the applicable regulations of the country in which the study is conducted. The trial is registered on Clinical trials.gov, NCT#04996264 and Clinical Trials Registry-India, 2021/07/045079 000062.

Reliability of the longitudinal experts all data (LEAD) methodology for determining the presence of elder mistreatment.

Developing reliable screening tools to identify elder mistreatment requires an accurate and reproducible reference standard. This study sought to investigate the reliability of the Longitudinal, Experts, All Data (LEAD) methodology as a reference standard in confirming presence of elder mistreatment. We analyzed data from a large, emergency department-based study that used a LEAD panel to determine the reference standard. For this study, a second, blinded LEAD panel reviewed clinical material for 40 patients. For each panel, five content experts voted on whether elder mistreatment was present. We found moderate agreement between the two LEAD panels in determining presence of elder mistreatment: 85% agreement; k = 0.58; 95% Confidence Interval 0.28-0.87. Individual raters for both LEAD panels reported being mostly certain or certain >90% of votes. Efforts to further characterize and improve the reliability of the LEAD methodology in this context are warranted.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of emergency medicine systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess for spin - a form of reporting that overemphasizes benefits or downplay harms - within abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the clinical practice of emergency medicine (EM). METHODS: PubMed was searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since 2015 in either EM or general medical journals that examined an aspect of emergency medical care. In a duplicate, masked fashion, article titles and abstracts were screened to determine eligibility based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The included full-text studies were read and evaluated for spin using a previously determined search strategy. Two authors further evaluated study quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. RESULTS: Our PubMed search identified 478 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, of which a random sample of 200 was selected for data extraction. Spin within the abstract of the manuscript was identified in 34.5% (69/200) of the included reviews. We identified seven of the nine spin types, with two types being most common: (1) conclusion claiming a benefit despite high risk of bias among studies reviewed (19.5% of abstracts), and (2) conclusion claiming a benefit despite reporting bias (14.5%). No significant associations were found between the presence of spin and any of the evaluated study characteristics, the AMSTAR-2 appraisal, or the journal of publication. CONCLUSION: Spin is commonly present in abstracts of EM systematic reviews. The reporting quality for EM systematic reviews requires improvement. Measures should be taken to improve the overall review process and way information is conveyed through abstracts.

Delays in reporting and publishing trial results during pandemics: cross sectional analysis of 2009 H1N1, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO's established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16-76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9-34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Very few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.

A hybrid model of acute unscheduled cancer care provided by a hospital-based acute care clinic and the emergency department: a descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer often experience medical events that require immediate evaluation. These evaluations typically occur in an emergency department (ED), but there is increasing interest in providing this care in other settings. We report on a novel care model whereby a nursing hotline is used to triage patients to the ED or to the North Carolina Cancer Hospital Infusion Center (NCCHIC). METHODS: A retrospective study of adult patients with a neoplasm diagnosis seeking acute care at a large academic hospital pre- and post-initiation of the novel care model in January of 2016. Patients were identified by querying the electronic medical record and clinic administrative data during matched 6 month pre- and post-periods. RESULTS: During the pre-initiation period, 1346 patients visited the ED on 1651 occasions (76.1% admission rate). In the post-initiation period, 1434 patients visited the ED on 1797 occasions (81.5% admission rate), and 246 patients visited the NCCHIC on 322 occasions (68.9% admission rate). The emergency severity index (ESI) in the pre-initiation ED group was primarily ESI 2 (30.6%) and ESI 3 (65.4%). In the post-initiation ED group, the ESI was similar (32.6% ESI 2 and 64.2% ESI 3). In contrast, the NCCHIC predominantly treated lower acuity patients (65.8% calculated ESI of 4/5). CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates a multidisciplinary partnership to providing acute unscheduled care for patients with cancer. In the early implementation phase of this model, approximately 15% of patients, generally of lower acuity, were seen in the NCCHIC.

Forecasting emergency department hourly occupancy using time series analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel predictive model for emergency department (ED) hourly occupancy using readily available data at time of prediction with a time series analysis methodology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all ED visits from a large academic center during calendar year 2012 to predict ED hourly occupancy. Due to the time-of-day and day-of-week effects, a seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average with external regressor (SARIMAX) model was selected. For each hour of a day, a SARIMAX model was built to predict ED occupancy up to 4-h ahead. We compared the resulting model forecast accuracy and prediction intervals with previously studied time series forecasting methods. RESULTS: The study population included 65,132 ED visits at a large academic medical center during the year 2012. All adult ED visits during the first 265 days were used as a training dataset, while the remaining ED visits comprised the testing dataset. A SARIMAX model performed best with external regressors of current ED occupancy, average department-wide ESI, and ED boarding total at predicting up to 4-h-ahead ED occupancy (Mean Square Error (MSE) of 16.20, and 64.47 for 1-hr- and 4-h- ahead occupancy, respectively). Our 24-SARIMAX model outperformed other popular time series forecasting techniques, including a 60% improvement in MSE over the commonly used rolling average method, while maintaining similar prediction intervals. CONCLUSION: Accounting for current ED occupancy, average department-wide ESI, and boarding total, a 24-SARIMAX model was able to provide up to 4 h ahead predictions of ED occupancy with improved performance characteristics compared to other forecasting methods, including the rolling average. The prediction intervals generated by this method used data readily available in most EDs and suggest a promising new technique to forecast ED occupancy in real time.

Research priorities for elder abuse screening and intervention: A Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (GEAR) network scoping review and consensus statement.

The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (GEAR) Network (1) conducted a scoping review of the current literature on the identification of and interventions to address elder abuse among patients receiving care in emergency departments and (2) used this review to prioritize research questions for knowledge development. Two questions guided the scoping review: What is the effect of universal emergency department screening compared to targeted screening or usual practice on cases of elder abuse identified, safety outcomes, and health care utilization?; and What is the safety, health, legal, and psychosocial impact of emergency department-based interventions vs. usual care for patients experiencing elder abuse? We searched five article databases. Additional material was located through reference lists of identified publications, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar. The results were discussed in a consensus conference; and stakeholders voted to prioritize research questions. No studies were identified that directly addressed the first question regarding assessment strategies, but four instruments used for elder abuse screening in the emergency department were identified. For the second question, we located six articles on interventions for elder abuse in the emergency department; however, none directly addressed the question of comparative effectiveness. Based on these findings, GEAR participants identified five questions as priorities for future research - two related to screening, two related to intervention, and one encompassed both. In sum, research to identify best practices for elder abuse assessment and intervention in emergency departments is still needed. Although there are practical and ethical challenges, rigorous experimental studies are needed.

Using malnutrition and food insecurity screening to identify broader health-related social needs amongst older adults receiving emergency department care in the Southeastern United States: A cross-sectional study.

Unmet health-related social needs are common amongst older US adults and impact both quality of life and health outcomes. One of the ways that unmet health-related social needs impact health is through malnutrition, an imbalance in a person's intake of energy and/or nutrients. Lack of reliable access to a sufficient quantity of nutritious food is a specific health-related social need that can be assessed rapidly and, when unmet, is a direct risk factor for malnutrition and may be indicative of a broader range of unmet health-related social needs. We conducted a cross-sectional study to characterise malnutrition and food insecurity amongst older adults receiving emergency department (ED) care using brief, validated measures and to assess the burden of a broader range of health-related social needs amongst these patients. Patients were asked about their need for and willingness to receive a range of social services. The study was conducted in an academic ED serving a racially and socioeconomically diverse population in the Southeastern United States. A convenience sample of noncritically ill adults aged 60 years and older was approached between November 2018 and April 2019. Study patients (n = 127) were predominantly non-Hispanic white (67%), community dwelling (91%) and urban residents (66%) with 28% screening positive for malnutrition risk, 16% for food insecurity and 5% for both. Of those at risk for malnutrition, 25 (69%) reported ≥2 unmet health-related social needs and 14 (38%) were receptive to social services. Amongst food insecure patients, 18 (90%) reported additional unmet health-related social needs and 13 (65%) were receptive to receiving social services. In conclusion, a brief set of questions can identify subgroups of older ED patients who are food insecure or at risk for malnutrition. Individuals who screen positive for food insecurity have a high burden of unmet health-related social needs.

Prevalence and Economic Burden of Malnutrition Diagnosis Among Patients Presenting to United States Emergency Departments.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a potentially remediable condition that when untreated contributes to poor health and economic outcomes. While assessment of malnutrition risk is improving, its identification rate and economic burden in emergency departments (EDs) is largely unknown. We sought to determine prevalence and economic burden of diagnosed malnutrition among patients presenting to U.S. EDs. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample data. Malnutrition prevalence was confirmed via International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, diagnosis codes. The economic burden was assessed by comparing probability of hospitalization and the average total charges between propensity-score matched visits with and without a malnutrition diagnosis. RESULTS: Data from 238 million ED visits between 2006 and 2014 were analyzed. Over this period, the prevalence of diagnosed malnutrition increased for all demographic categories assessed. For older adults (≥65 years), the prevalence increased from 2.5% (2006) to 3.6% (2014). Older age, high-income community residence, Western region, urban areas, and Medicare coverage were associated with higher diagnosis prevalence. Malnutrition diagnosis was associated with a 4.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.93 to 4.55) times higher odds of hospitalization and $21,892 higher mean total charges (95% CI = $19,593 to $24,192). CONCLUSIONS: While malnutrition is currently diagnosed at a low rate in U.S. EDs, the economic burden of malnutrition is substantial in this care setting. Given the potential for systematic malnutrition screening and treatment protocols to alleviate this burden, future research is warranted.

Characteristics, clinical care, and disposition barriers for mental health patients boarding in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Lack of mental health resources, such as inpatient psychiatric beds, has increased frequency and duration of boarding for mental health patients presenting to U.S. emergency departments (EDs). The purpose of this study is to describe characteristics of mental health patients with an ED length of stay of one week or longer and to identify barriers to their disposition. METHODS: This study was conducted in an academic ED in which emergency psychiatric evaluations and care are provided by a Psychiatric Emergency Services (PES) team contained within the Department of Emergency Medicine. Prolonged boarding was defined as an ED length of stay of 7 days or more. Pediatric, adult, and geriatric mental health patients with prolonged ED boarding from January 1 to August 31, 2019 were included. This study includes prospective data collection of the boarding group and retrospective identification and data collection of a comparison group of non-barding patients over the same 8-month period to compare patient characteristics and outcomes for each group. RESULTS: Between January 1 and August 31, 2019, the PES team completed 2,745 new assessments of mental health patients, of whom 39 met criteria for prolonged ED boarding. The following characteristics were associated with boarding: child (8%), male (64%), having Medicaid (49%) or both Medicaid and Medicare (18%), and having either a neurodevelopmental (15%) or neurocognitive disorder (15%) with a median stay of 18 days. Barriers to discharge included being declined from all state inpatient psychiatric hospitals (69%), declined from community living environments (21%), or declined from both (10%). The most common ED non-boarding patients were: Caucasian (64%), have a diagnosis of unspecified mental disorder (including suicidal ideation) or other specified mental disorder (59%) and have private insurance (42%) with a median stay of 1 day. CONCLUSION: In this study of mental health patients with prolonged ED stays, the primary barrier to disposition was the lack of patient acceptance to inpatient psychiatric hospitals, community settings, or other housing. Early identification of potential prolonged boarding, quality treatment and care for those patients, and effective case management, may resolve the ongoing challenges of boarding within the ED.

Identification and characterization of older emergency department patients with high-risk alcohol use.

BACKGROUND: High-risk alcohol use in the elderly is a common but underrecognized problem. We tested a brief screening instrument to identify high-risk individuals. METHODS: This was a prospective, cross-sectional study conducted at a single emergency department. High-risk alcohol use was defined by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) guidelines as >7 drinks/week or >3 drinks/occasion. We assessed alcohol use in patients aged ≥ 65 years using the timeline follow back (TLFB) method as a reference standard and a new, 2-question screener based on NIAAA guidelines. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE) screens were used for comparison. We collected demographic information from a convenience sample of high- and low-risk drinkers. RESULTS: We screened 2250 older adults and 180 (8%) met criteria for high-risk use. Ninety-eight high-risk and 124 low-risk individuals were enrolled. The 2-question screener had sensitivity of 98% (95% CI, 93%-100%) and specificity of 87% (95% CI, 80%-92%) using TLFB as the reference. It had higher sensitivity than the AUDIT or CAGE tools. The high-risk group was predominantly male (65% vs 35%, P < 0.001). They drank a median of 14 drinks per week across all ages from 65 to 92. They had higher rates of prior substance use treatment (17% vs 2%, P < 0.001) and current tobacco use (24% vs 9%, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: A rapid, 2-question screener can identify high-risk drinkers with higher sensitivity than AUDIT or CAGE screening. It could be used in concert with more specific questionnaires to guide treatment.