An Outcome Comparison Between Geriatric and Nongeriatric Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe diagnosis rates and compare common process outcomes between geriatric emergency departments (EDs) and nongeriatric EDs participating in the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR). METHODS: We conducted an observational study of ED visits in calendar year 2021 within the CEDR by older adults. The analytic sample included 6,444,110 visits at 38 geriatric EDs and 152 matched nongeriatric EDs, with the geriatric ED status determined based on linkage to the American College of Emergency Physicians' Geriatric ED Accreditation program. Stratified by age, we assessed diagnosis rates (X/1000) for 4 common geriatric syndrome conditions and a set of common process outcomes including the ED length of stay, discharge rates, and 72-hour revisit rates. RESULTS: Across all age categories, geriatric EDs had higher diagnosis rates than nongeriatric EDs for 3 of the 4 following geriatric syndrome conditions of interest: urinary tract infection, dementia, and delirium/altered mental status. The median ED site-level length of stay for older adults was lower at geriatric EDs compared with that at nongeriatric EDs, whereas 72-hour revisit rates were similar across all age categories. Geriatric EDs exhibited a median discharge rate of 67.5% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 60.8% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 55.6% for adults aged >85 years. Comparatively, the median discharge rate at nongeriatric ED sites was 69.0% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 64.2% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 61.3% for adults aged >85 years. CONCLUSION: Geriatric EDs had higher geriatric syndrome diagnosis rates, lower ED lengths of stay, and similar discharge and 72-hour revisit rates when compared with nongeriatric EDs in the CEDR. These findings provide the first benchmarks for emergency care process outcomes in geriatric EDs compared with nongeriatric EDs.

Translating COVID-19 knowledge to practice: Enhancing emergency medicine using the "wisdom of crowds".

In the spring of 2020, emergency physicians found themselves in new, uncharted territory as there were few data available for understanding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In response, knowledge was being crowd sourced and shared across online platforms. The "wisdom of crowds" is an important vehicle for sharing information and expertise. In this article, we explore concepts related to the social psychology of group decisionmaking and knowledge translation. We then analyze a scenario in which the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), a professional medical society, used the wisdom of crowds (via the EngagED platform) to disseminate clinically relevant information and create a useful resource called the "ACEP COVID-19 Field Guide." We also evaluate the crowd-sourced approach, content, and attributes of EngagED compared to other social media platforms. We conclude that professional organizations can play a more prominent role using the wisdom of crowds for augmenting pandemic response efforts.

Sepsis Presenting in Hospitals versus Emergency Departments: Demographic, Resuscitation, and Outcome Patterns in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Differences between hospital-presenting sepsis (HPS) and emergency department-presenting sepsis (EDPS) are not well described. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to (1) quantify the prevalence of HPS versus EDPS cases and outcomes; (2) compare HPS versus EDPS characteristics at presentation; (3) compare HPS versus EDPS in process and patient outcomes; and (4) estimate risk differences in patient outcomes attributable to initial resuscitation disparities. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive-sample cohort. SETTING: Nine hospitals from October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016. PATIENTS: All hospitalized patients with sepsis or septic shock, as defined by simultaneous (1) infection, (2) ≥2 Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and (3) ≥1 acute organ dysfunction criterion. EDPS met inclusion criteria while physically in the emergency department (ED). HPS met the criteria after leaving the ED. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed overall HPS versus EDPS contributions to case prevalence and outcomes, and then compared group differences. Process outcomes included 3-hour bundle compliance and discrete bundle elements (eg, time to antibiotics). The primary patient outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of 11,182 sepsis hospitalizations, 2,509 (22.4%) were hospital-presenting. HPS contributed 785 (35%) sepsis mortalities. HPS had more frequent heart failure (OR: 1.31, CI: 1.18-1.47), renal failure (OR: 1.62, CI: 1.38-1.91), gastrointestinal source of infection (OR: 1.84, CI: 1.48-2.29), euthermia (OR: 1.45, CI: 1.10-1.92), hypotension (OR: 1.85, CI: 1.65-2.08), or impaired gas exchange (OR: 2.46, CI: 1.43-4.24). HPS were admitted less often from skilled nursing facilities (OR: 0.44, CI: 0.32-0.60), had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 0.53, CI: 0.36-0.78), tachypnea (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.58-0.98), or acute kidney injury (OR: 0.82, CI: 0.68-0.97). In a propensity-matched cohort (n = 3,844), HPS patients had less than half the odds of 3-hour bundle compliant care (17.0% vs 30.3%, OR: 0.47, CI: 0.40-0.57) or antibiotics within three hours (66.2% vs 83.8%, OR: 0.38, CI: 0.32-0.44) vs EDPS. HPS was associated with higher mortality (31.2% vs 19.3%, OR: 1.90, CI: 1.64-2.20); 23.3% of this association was attributable to differences in initial resuscitation (resuscitation-adjusted OR: 1.69, CI: 1.43-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: HPS differed from EDPS by admission source, comorbidities, and clinical presentation. These patients received markedly less timely initial resuscitation; this disparity explained a moderate proportion of mortality differences.

Expert Consensus Guidelines for Stocking of Antidotes in Hospitals That Provide Emergency Care.

We provide recommendations for stocking of antidotes used in emergency departments (EDs). An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, medical toxicology, critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, hospital pharmacy, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric critical care medicine, poison centers, hospital administration, and public health) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for both the quantity of antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable timeframe for its delivery. The panel recommended consideration of 45 antidotes; 44 were recommended for stocking, of which 23 should be immediately available. In most hospitals, this timeframe requires that the antidote be stocked in a location that allows immediate availability. Another 14 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine its specific need for antidote stocking. Antidote administration is an important part of emergency care. These expert recommendations provide a tool for hospitals that offer emergency care to provide appropriate care of poisoned patients.

Predictors, Prevalence, and Outcomes of Early Crystalloid Responsiveness Among Initially Hypotensive Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of responsiveness to initial fluid challenge among hypotensive sepsis patients is unclear. To avoid fluid overload, and unnecessary treatment, it is important to differentiate these phenotypes. We aimed to 1) determine the proportion of hypotensive sepsis patients sustaining favorable hemodynamic response after initial fluid challenge, 2) determine demographic and clinical risk factors that predicted refractory hypotension, and 3) assess the association between timeliness of fluid resuscitation and refractoriness. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective, multisite, observational, consecutive-sample cohort. SETTING: Nine tertiary and community hospitals over 1.5 years. PATIENTS: Inclusion criteria 1) suspected or confirmed infection, 2) greater than or equal to two systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, 3) systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg, greater than 40% decrease from baseline, or mean arterial pressure less than 65 mm Hg. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sex, age, heart failure, renal failure, immunocompromise, source of infection, initial lactate, coagulopathy, temperature, altered mentation, altered gas exchange, and acute kidney injury were used to generate a risk score. The primary outcome was sustained normotension after fluid challenge without vasopressor titration. Among 3,686 patients, 2,350 (64%) were fluid responsive. Six candidate risk factors significantly predicted refractoriness in multivariable analysis: heart failure (odds ratio, 1.43; CI, 1.20-1.72), hypothermia (odds ratio, 1.37; 1.10-1.69), altered gas exchange (odds ratio, 1.33; 1.12-1.57), initial lactate greater than or equal to 4.0 mmol/L (odds ratio, 1.28; 1.08-1.52), immunocompromise (odds ratio, 1.23; 1.03-1.47), and coagulopathy (odds ratio, 1.23; 1.03-1.48). High-risk patients (≥ three risk factors) had 70% higher (CI, 48-96%) refractory risk (19% higher absolute risk; CI, 14-25%) versus low-risk (zero risk factors) patients. Initiating fluids in greater than 2 hours also predicted refractoriness (odds ratio, 1.96; CI, 1.49-2.58). Mortality was 15% higher (CI, 10-18%) for refractory patients. CONCLUSIONS: Two in three hypotensive sepsis patients were responsive to initial fluid resuscitation. Heart failure, hypothermia, immunocompromise, hyperlactemia, and coagulopathy were associated with the refractory phenotype. Fluid resuscitation initiated after the initial 2 hours more strongly predicted refractoriness than any patient factor tested.

Delayed Second Dose Antibiotics for Patients Admitted From the Emergency Department With Sepsis: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: 1) Determine frequency and magnitude of delays in second antibiotic administration among patients admitted with sepsis; 2) Identify risk factors for these delays; and 3) Exploratory: determine association between delays and patient-centered outcomes (mortality and mechanical ventilation after second dose). DESIGN: Retrospective, consecutive sample sepsis cohort over 10 months. SETTING: Single, tertiary, academic medical center. PATIENTS: All patients admitted from the emergency department with sepsis or septic shock (defined: infection, ≥ 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, hypoperfusion/organ dysfunction) identified by a prospective quality initiative. EXCLUSIONS: less than 18 years old, not receiving initial antibiotics in the emergency department, death before antibiotic redosing, and patient refusing antibiotics. INTERVENTIONS: We determined first-to-second antibiotic time and delay frequency. We considered delay major for first-to-second dose time greater than or equal to 25% of the recommended interval. Factors of interest were demographics, recommended interval length, comorbidities, clinical presentation, location at second dose, initial resuscitative care, and antimicrobial activity mechanism. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 828 sepsis cases, 272 (33%) had delay greater than or equal to 25%. Delay frequency increased dose dependently with shorter recommended interval: 11 (4%) delays for 24-hour intervals (median time, 18.52 hr); 31 (26%) for 12-hour intervals (median, 10.58 hr); 117 (47%) for 8-hour intervals (median, 9.60 hr); and 113 (72%) for 6-hour intervals (median, 9.55 hr). In multivariable regression, interval length significantly predicted major delay (12 hr: odds ratio, 6.98; CI, 2.33-20.89; 8 hr: odds ratio, 23.70; CI, 8.13-69.11; 6 hr: odds ratio, 71.95; CI, 25.13-206.0). Additional independent risk factors were inpatient boarding in the emergency department (odds ratio, 2.67; CI, 1.74-4.09), initial 3-hour sepsis bundle compliance (odds ratio, 1.57; CI, 1.07-2.30), and older age (odds ratio, 1.16 per 10 yr, CI, 1.01-1.34). In the exploratory multivariable analysis, major delay was associated with increased hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.61; CI, 1.01-2.57) and mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 2.44; CI, 1.27-4.69). CONCLUSIONS: Major second dose delays were common, especially for patients given shorter half-life pharmacotherapies and who boarded in the emergency department. They were paradoxically more frequent for patients receiving compliant initial care. We observed association between major second dose delay and increased mortality, length of stay, and mechanical ventilation requirement.

The Development of Best Practice Recommendations to Support the Hiring, Recruitment, and Advancement of Women Physicians in Emergency Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Women in medicine continue to experience disparities in earnings, promotion, and leadership roles. There are few guidelines in place defining organization-level factors that promote a supportive workplace environment beneficial to women in emergency medicine (EM). We assembled a working group with the goal of developing specific and feasible recommendations to support women's professional development in both community and academic EM settings. METHODS: We formed a working group from the leadership of two EM women's organizations, the Academy of Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM) and the American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP). Through a literature search and discussion, working group members identified four domains where organizational policies and practices supportive of women were needed: 1) global approaches to supporting the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in EM; 2) recruitment, hiring, and compensation of women emergency physicians; 3) supporting development and advancement of women in EM; and 4) physician health and wellness (in the context of pregnancy, childbirth, and maternity leave). Within each of these domains, the working group created an initial set of specific recommendations. The working group then recruited a stakeholder group of EM physician leaders across the country, selecting for diversity in practice setting, geographic location, age, race, and gender. Stakeholders were asked to score and provide feedback on each of the recommendations. Specific recommendations were retained by the working group if they achieved high rates of approval from the stakeholder group for importance and perceived feasibility. Those with >80% agreement on importance and >50% agreement on feasibility were retained. Finally, recommendations were posted in an open online forum (blog) and invited public commentary. RESULTS: An initial set of 29 potential recommendations was created by the working group. After stakeholder voting and feedback, 16 final recommendations were retained. Recommendations were refined through qualitative comments from stakeholders and blog respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Using a consensus building process that included male and female stakeholders from both academic and community EM settings, we developed recommendations for organizations to implement to create a workplace environment supportive of women in EM that were perceived as acceptable and feasible. This process may serve as a model for other medical specialties to establish clear, discrete organization-level practices aimed at supporting women physicians.

Entropy: a conceptual approach to measuring situation-level workload within emergency care and its relationship to emergency department crowding.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) crowding correlates with patient safety. Difficulties quantifying crowding and providing solutions were highlighted in the recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report calling for the application of advanced industrial engineering (IE) research techniques to evaluate ED crowding. ED personnel workload is a related concept, with potential reciprocal effects between the two. Collaboration between emergency medicine and IE is needed to address crowding and ED personnel workload. OBJECTIVE: We review ED crowding and workload literature, relationships between workload and ED crowding, and the potential application of information theory as implemented in IE frameworks entitled "entropy" in evaluating both topics. DISCUSSION: IE techniques have applications for emergency medicine and have been successful in helping improve ED operations. Lean and Six Sigma applications are some of these techniques. Existing ED workload measures don't account for all aspects of work in the ED (acuity, efficiency, tasks, etc.) Crowding scales, such as NEDOCS (National ED Overcrowding Study) and EDWIN (ED Work Index), fail to predict ED crowding. A new measurement "entropy" may provide a more comprehensive evaluation of ED workload and may predict work overload seen with crowding. Entropy measures task-based work and the information flow involved. By assigning an entropy value to patient type-specific tasks, we might predict when the ED is overwhelmed, and crowded. CONCLUSIONS: IE techniques provide solutions to the ED crowding problem and improve ED workload. We propose a technique novel to medicine: "Entropy," derived from information theory, which may provide insight into ED personnel workload, its potential for measuring ED crowding, and possibly, in predicting an overwhelming situation.

Emergency department waiting room: many requests, many insured and many primary care physician referrals.

BACKGROUND: Increase in waiting time often results in patients leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen, ultimately decreasing patient satisfaction. We surveyed low-acuity patients in the ED waiting room to understand their preferences and expectations. METHODS: An IRB approved, 42-item survey was administered to 400 adult patients waiting in the ED waiting room for >15 min from April to August 2010. Demographics, visit reasons, triage and waiting room facility preferences were collected. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 38.9 years (SD = 14.8), and 52.5% were females. About 53.8% of patients were employed, 79.4% had access to a primary care physician (PCP), and 17% did not have any medical insurance. The most common complaint was pain. A total of 44.4% respondents reported that they believed their problems were urgent and required immediate attention, prompting them to come to the ED, while 14.6% reported that they could not get a timely PCP appointment, and 42.9% were actually referred by their PCP to come to the ED. About 57.7% of patients considered leaving the ED if the waiting times were too long. The mean acceptable waiting time before leaving ED was 221 min (SD = 194; median 180 min, IQR 120-270). A total of 39.1% survey respondents reported being most comfortable being triaged by a physician. Respondents were least comfortable being triaged by residents. On analyzing waiting room expectations for the survey respondents, we found that 70% of the subjects wanted a better estimate of waiting time and 43.5% wanted better information on reasons for the long wait. CONCLUSION: Contrary to popular belief, at our ED a large proportion of low-acuity patients has a PCP and is medically insured. Providing patients with appropriate reasons for the wait, an accurate estimate of waiting time and creating separate areas to examine minor illness/injuries would increase patient satisfaction within our population subset.

Acute encephalopathy with concurrent respiratory and metabolic disturbances in first known parenteral human administration of flunixin meglumine and acepromazine maleate.

BACKGROUND: Flunexin is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug approved for veterinary use in horses and cattle. Acepromazine is a phenothiazine derivative used in horses, dogs, and cats. Human exposure to these substances is rare. CASE REPORT: We report a case of a human injection of two equine medications, flunixin and acepromazine, which resulted in altered mental status, respiratory alkalosis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and elevation of liver transaminases in a 43-year-old woman who worked as a horse trainer. The patient intentionally self-injected these medications and subsequently presented to the Emergency Department with altered mental status and lethargy. The patient required hospitalization for metabolic abnormalities, including respiratory alkalosis, and suffered a gastrointestinal bleed requiring blood transfusion. The patient ultimately recovered with supportive measures. We believe this to be the first case of concomitant injection of flunixin and acepromazine in a human. CONCLUSIONS: This report explains a case of parenteral administration of two equine medications and the subsequent complications in a patient that presented to the Emergency Department. Human exposure to veterinary medications cannot be predicted by their effect in animals due to variations in absorption, distribution, and metabolism. Physicians should be aware that individuals who work with animals may have access to large quantities of veterinary medicine. This case also exemplifies the challenges that Emergency Physicians face on a daily basis, and generates additional consideration for overdoses and intoxications from medications that are not considered commonplace in humans.

Acute human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection presenting with fever, elevated amylase/lipase, and hematologic abnormalities.

BACKGROUND: Many cases of acute human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (AHI) present to the Emergency Department (ED). Early diagnosis allows a patient to modify their behavior and seek early treatment. The Emergency Physician should know that the antibody response may be absent. OBJECTIVE: We report a case of AHI and review its presentation to increase the awareness of this important diagnosis. CASE REPORT: A 20-year-old black man who had a history of sex with men initially presented to the ED with a chief complaint of blood per rectum when he passed stool, and chills for the prior few days. His work-up was normal, including a rapid HIV screen, and he was discharged. He returned 2 weeks later with constipation, fatigue, myalgias, decreased urination, chills, and a productive cough. His physical examination was unremarkable, HIV antibody test was negative, but his laboratory tests showed an elevation of creatine phosphokinase, amylase, and lipase. His blood count showed a normal hematocrit and white blood cell count, but there were juvenile and vacuolated white cells and giant platelets reported. HIV viral load was reported as > 1,000,000 copies/mL. CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY: This case illustrates that AHI can present as a non-specific illness. Patients at risk should be screened for HIV. However, AHI can occur before there is a significant antibody response. In such cases, a viral load test may help make the diagnosis, allowing for early treatment and patient counseling.