COVID-19 vaccine controversy: A cross-sectional analysis of factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance amongst emergency department patients in New York City.

Objective: Understanding variables associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine confidence and hesitancy may inform strategies to improve vaccine uptake in clinical settings such as the emergency department (ED). We aim to identify factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and to assess patient attitudes surrounding offering COVID-19 vaccines in the ED. Methods: We conducted a survey of a convenience sample of patients and patient visitors over the age 18 years, who were native English or Spanish speakers. The survey was conducted from March through August 2021 at 3 EDs in New York City. The survey was administered via an electronic format, and participants provided verbal consent. Results: Our sample size was 377. Individuals with post-graduate degrees viewed vaccines positively (Prevalence Ratio [PR], 1.63; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.07-2.47).  Of the various high-risk medical conditions associated with adverse COVID-19 infection outcomes, diabetes was the only condition associated with more positive views of vaccines (PR, 1.37; CI, 1.17-1.59). Of all participants, 71.21% stated that they believed offering a COVID-19 vaccine in the ED was a good idea. Of unvaccinated participants, 21.80% stated they would get vaccinated if it were offered to them in the ED. Conclusion: EDs can serve as a safety net for vulnerable populations and can act as an access point for vaccination.

Identifying Injury Patterns Associated With Physical Elder Abuse: Analysis of Legally Adjudicated Cases.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Elder abuse is common and has serious health consequences but is underrecognized by health care providers. An important reason for this is difficulty in distinguishing between elder abuse and unintentional trauma. Our goal was to identify injury patterns associated with physical elder abuse in comparison with those of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with unintentional falls. METHODS: We partnered with a large, urban district attorney's office and examined medical, police, and legal records from successfully prosecuted cases of physical abuse of victims aged 60 years or older from 2001 to 2014. RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled patients who presented to a large, urban, academic ED after an unintentional fall. We matched 78 cases of elder abuse with visible injuries to 78 unintentional falls. Physical abuse victims were significantly more likely than unintentional fallers to have bruising (78% versus 54%) and injuries on the maxillofacial, dental, and neck area (67% versus 28%). Abuse victims were less likely to have fractures (8% versus 22%) or lower extremity injuries (9% versus 41%). Abuse victims were more likely to have maxillofacial, dental, or neck injuries combined with no upper and lower extremity injuries (50% versus 8%). Examining precise injury locations yielded additional differences, with physical elder abuse victims more likely to have injuries to the left cheek or zygoma (22% versus 3%) or on the neck (15% versus 0%) or ear (6% versus 0%). CONCLUSION: Specific, clinically identifiable differences may exist between unintentional injuries and those from physical elder abuse. This includes specific injury patterns that infrequently occur unintentionally.

Describing visible acute injuries: development of a comprehensive taxonomy for research and practice.

BACKGROUND: Little literature exists classifying and comprehensively describing intentional and unintentional acute injuries, which would be valuable for research and practice. In preparation for a study of injury patterns in elder abuse, our goal was to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of relevant types and characteristics of visible acute injuries and evaluate it in geriatric patients. METHODS: We conducted an exhaustive review of the medical and forensic literature focusing on injury types, descriptions, patterns and analyses. We then prepared iteratively, through consensus with a multidisciplinary, national panel of elder abuse experts, a comprehensive classification system to describe these injuries. RESULTS: We designed a three-step process to fully describe and classify visible acute injuries: (1) determining the type of injury, (2) assigning values to each of the characteristics common to all geriatric injuries and (3) assigning values to additional characteristics relevant for specific injuries. We identified nine unique types of visible injury and seven characteristics critical to describe all these injuries, including body region(s) and precise anatomic location(s). For each injury type, we identified two to seven additional critical characteristics, such as size, shape and cleanliness. We pilot tested it on 323 injuries on 83 physical elder abuse victims and 45 unintentional fall victims from our ongoing research to ensure that it would allow for the complete and accurate description of the full spectrum of visible injuries encountered and made modifications and refinements based on this experience. We then used the classification system to evaluate 947 injuries on 80 physical elder abuse victims and 195 unintentional fall victims to assess its practical utility. CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive injury taxonomy systematically integrates and expands on existing forensic and clinical research. This new classification system may help standardise description of acute injuries and patterns among clinicians and researchers.