Barriers and Facilitators to Harm Reduction for Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Study of People With Lived Experience.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although an increasing number of emergency departments (ED) offer opioid agonist treatment, naloxone, and other harm reduction measures, little is known about patient perspectives on harm reduction practices delivered in the ED. The objective of this study was to identify patient-focused barriers and facilitators to harm reduction strategies in the ED. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of individuals in Massachusetts diagnosed with opioid use disorder. We developed an interview guide, and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process using reflexive thematic analysis. After initial interviews and coding, we triangulated the results among a focus group of 4 individuals with lived experience. RESULTS: We interviewed 25 participants with opioid use disorder, 6 recruited from 1 ED and 19 recruited from opioid agonist treatment clinics. Key themes included accessibility of harm reduction supplies, lack of self-care resulting from withdrawal and hopelessness, the impact of stigma on the likelihood of using harm reduction practices, habit and knowledge, as well as the need for user-centered harm reduction interventions. CONCLUSION: In this study, people with lived experience discussed the characteristics and need for user-centered harm reduction strategies in the ED that centered on reducing stigma, treatment of withdrawal, and availability of harm reduction materials.

Influence of Patient and Clinician Gender on Emergency Department HEART Scores: A Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Observational Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinical decision aids can decrease health care disparities. However, many clinical decision aids contain subjective variables that may introduce clinician bias. The HEART score is a clinical decision aid that estimates emergency department (ED) patients' cardiac risk. We sought to explore patient and clinician gender's influence on HEART scores. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a prospective observational trial, we examined a convenience sample of adult ED patients at one institution presenting with acute coronary syndrome symptoms. We compared ED clinician-generated HEART scores with researcher-generated HEART scores blinded to patient gender. The primary outcome was agreement between clinician and researcher HEART scores by patient gender overall and stratified by clinician gender. Analyses used difference-in-difference (DiD) for continuous score and prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) for binary (low versus moderate/high risk) score comparison. RESULTS: All 336 clinician-patient pairs from the original study were included. In total, 47% (158/336) of patients were women, and 52% (174/336) were treated by a woman clinician. The DiD between clinician and researcher HEART scores among men versus women patients was 0.24 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.48). Compared with researchers, men clinicians assigned a higher score to men versus women patients (DiD 0.51 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.87]), whereas women clinicians did not (DiD 0.00 [95% CI -0.33 to 0.33]). Agreement was the highest among women clinicians (PABAK 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81) and lowest among men clinicians assessing men patients (PABAK 0.47; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.66). CONCLUSION: Patient and clinician gender may influence HEART scores. Researchers should strive to understand these influences in developing and implementing this and other clinical decision aids.

Emergency Department Visits for Nonfatal Opioid Overdose During the COVID-19 Pandemic Across Six US Health Care Systems.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: People with opioid use disorder are vulnerable to disruptions in access to addiction treatment and social support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study objective was to understand changes in emergency department (ED) utilization following a nonfatal opioid overdose during COVID-19 compared to historical controls in 6 healthcare systems across the United States. METHODS: Opioid overdoses were retrospectively identified among adult visits to 25 EDs in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island from January 2018 to December 2020. Overdose visit counts and rates per 100 all-cause ED visits during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared with the levels predicted based on 2018 and 2019 visits using graphical analysis and an epidemiologic outbreak detection cumulative sum algorithm. RESULTS: Overdose visit counts increased by 10.5% (n=3486; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.18% to 17.0%) in 2020 compared with the counts in 2018 and 2019 (n=3020 and n=3285, respectively), despite a 14% decline in all-cause ED visits. Opioid overdose rates increased by 28.5% (95% CI 23.3% to 34.0%) from 0.25 per 100 ED visits in 2018 to 2019 to 0.32 per 100 ED visits in 2020. Although all 6 studied health care systems experienced overdose ED visit rates more than the 95th percentile prediction in 6 or more weeks of 2020 (compared with 2.6 weeks as expected by chance), 2 health care systems experienced sustained outbreaks during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Despite decreases in ED visits for other medical emergencies, the numbers and rates of opioid overdose-related ED visits in 6 health care systems increased during 2020, suggesting a widespread increase in opioid-related complications during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanded community- and hospital-based interventions are needed to support people with opioid use disorder and save lives during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Management of Postabortion Complications for the Emergency Medicine Clinician.

Although induced abortion is generally a safe outpatient procedure, many patients subsequently present to the emergency department, concerned about a postabortion complication. It is helpful for emergency physicians to understand the medications and procedures used in abortion care in the United States to effectively and efficiently triage and treat women presenting with potential complications from an abortion. Furthermore, because many states are experiencing increased abortion restrictions that limit access to care, emergency medicine physicians may encounter more patients presenting after self-managed abortions, which presents additional challenges. This article reviews the epidemiology and background of abortion care, including the range of symptoms and adverse effects that are within the scope of an uncomplicated procedure. This review also offers a comprehensive overview of management of abortion complications, including algorithms for more common complications and descriptions of less common but more severe adverse events. The article concludes with a recognition of the social stigma and legal regulations unique to abortion care.

A Prospective Evaluation of Clinical HEART Score Agreement, Accuracy, and Adherence in Emergency Department Chest Pain Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The HEART score is a risk stratification aid that may safely reduce chest pain admissions for emergency department patients. However, differences in interpretation of subjective components potentially alters the performance of the score. We compared agreement between HEART scores determined during clinical practice with research-generated scores and estimated their accuracy in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled adult ED patients with symptoms concerning for acute coronary syndrome at a single tertiary center. ED clinicians submitted their clinical HEART scores during the patient encounter. Researchers then independently interviewed patients to generate a research HEART score. Patients were followed by phone and chart review for major adverse cardiac events. Weighted kappa; unweighted Cohen's kappa; prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK); and test probabilities were calculated. RESULTS: From November 2016 to June 2019, 336 patients were enrolled, 261 (77.7%) were admitted, and 30 (8.9%) had major adverse cardiac events. Dichotomized HEART score agreement was 78% (kappa 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.58; PABAK 0.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65) with the lowest agreement in the history (72%; WK 0.14, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.22) and electrocardiogram (85%; WK 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.49) components. Compared with researchers, clinicians had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 88.4% to 100%) (versus 86.7%, 95% CI 69.3% to 96.2%) and 27.8% specificity (95% CI 22.8% to 33.2%) (versus 34.6%, 95% CI 29.3% to 40.3%) for major adverse cardiac events. Four participants with low research HEART scores had major adverse cardiac events. CONCLUSION: ED clinicians had only moderate agreement with research HEART scores. Combined with uncertainties regarding accuracy in predicting major adverse cardiac events, we urge caution in the widespread use of the HEART score as the sole determinant of ED disposition.

No evidence of increasing COVID-19 in health care workers after implementation of high flow nasal cannula: A safety evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Initial recommendations discouraged high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in COVID-19 patients, driven by concern for healthcare worker (HCW) exposure. Noting high morbidity and mortality from early invasive mechanical ventilation, we implemented a COVID-19 respiratory protocol employing HFNC in severe COVID-19 and HCW exposed to COVID-19 patients on HFNC wore N95/KN95 masks. Utilization of HFNC increased significantly but questions remained regarding HCW infection rate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of employee infections in our healthcare system using the Employee Health Services database and unit records of employees tested between March 15, 2020 and May 23, 2020. We assessed the incidence of infections before and after the implementation of the protocol, stratifying by clinical or non-clinical role as well as inpatient COVID-19 unit. RESULTS: During the study period, 13.9% (228/1635) of employees tested for COVID-19 were positive. Forty-six percent of infections were in non-clinical staff. After implementation of the respiratory protocol, the proportion of positive tests in clinical staff (41.5%) was not higher than that in non-clinical staff (43.8%). Of the clinicians working in the high-risk COVID-19 unit, there was no increase in infections after protocol implementation compared with clinicians working in COVID-19 units that did not use HFNC. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of increased COVID-19 infections in HCW after the implementation of a respiratory protocol that increased use of HFNC in patients with COVID-19; however, these results are hypothesis generating.

Risk Factors for Severe Opioid-Related Adverse Events in a National Cohort of Medical Hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are a leading cause of adverse drug events in the hospital. Guidelines recommend that physicians assess the risks of opioids and discuss them with patients when considering opioid use. There are no studies examining patient- and prescribing-related risk factors for opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) in hospitalized medical patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify independent risk factors for severe ORADEs in hospitalized medical patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Medical patients hospitalized at US, non-federal, and acute care facilities, with at least one pharmacy charge for an opioid during hospitalization. We excluded patients with metastatic malignancy, hospice, or palliative care billing codes. MAIN MEASURES: We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to identify risk factors for severe ORADEs, defined by a pharmacy charge for naloxone. Candidate risk factors were chosen a priori, based on clinical grounds and prior literature. KEY RESULTS: Among 731,208 hospitalizations (median age 60, 56.5% female), a severe ORADE occurred in 2727 (0.4%). Independent risk factors included patient characteristics (advanced age, female gender), comorbidities (congestive heart failure, opioid abuse/dependence, non-opioid drug abuse/dependence, psychosis, depression, obstructive sleep apnea), organ failures on admission (respiratory failure, shock/hypotension, renal failure, hepatic failure, acidosis, and neurologic failure), medication co-administrations (antipsychotics and short-acting benzodiazepines), and characteristics of the opioid prescriptions themselves (total dose for the day, parenteral route of administration, and receipt of multiple types of opioids in a day). Although a risk prediction model derived from these factors performed well on stratified k-fold cross-validation (average c-statistics 0.68-0.71), the low incidence of the outcome limited the positive predictive value of the risk score. CONCLUSIONS: In this national cohort of medical patients, we identified several risk factors for ORADEs that can be used to inform physician decision-making, conversations with patients about risk, and development and targeting of harm reduction strategies for at-risk populations.

The Stay S.A.F.E. Strategy for Managing Interruptions Reduces Distraction Time in the Simulated Clinical Setting.

Interruptions occurring during the delivery of health care are frequent and create a serious threat to patient safety. It is important to test strategies directed at decreasing the negative effects of interruptions. The purpose of this pilot study was to test the Stay S.A.F.E. strategy for managing interruptions. A pretest, posttest quasi-experimental design was used to test the primary hypothesis that the Stay S.A.F.E. interruption management strategy would significantly (P < .05) reduce distraction time away from a primary task following an interruption. Twenty nurses with a median of 12 years of experience (range: 1-45 years) participated in the study. There was a significant decrease in the amount of time that participants were distracted away from the primary task between the pretest (134.47 seconds, SD = 6.87) and posttest (6.08 seconds, SD = 1.27) periods; P = .0004. The results of this study suggest that the Stay S.A.F.E. interruption management strategy was effective in reducing the length of time participants were distracted from the primary task in a simulated clinical setting. In addition, nurses confirmed the reports of others that interruptions are frequent, dangerous, and result in errors.

Rare manifestation of pulmonary benign metastasizing leiomyoma: Respiratory failure.

We report a case of a 42-year-old woman diagnosed with pulmonary benign metastasizing leiomyomatosis with a random nodular pattern on image and with a rare clinical condition progressing with respiratory failure and severe hypoxemia. This study is relevant due to the rarity of the tomographic pattern and the patient's clinical presentation. There is no treatment guideline for this comorbidity, which further increases the importance of publishing case reports in the literature.

Impact of the Communities That HEAL Intervention on Buprenorphine-Waivered Practitioners and Buprenorphine Prescribing: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the HCS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Buprenorphine significantly reduces opioid-related overdose mortality. From 2002 to 2022, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) required qualified practitioners to receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Agency to prescribe buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder. During this period, waiver uptake among practitioners was modest; subsequent changes need to be examined. Objective: To determine whether the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention increased the rate of practitioners with DATA 2000 waivers and buprenorphine prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of the HEALing Communities Study, a multisite, 2-arm, parallel, community-level, cluster randomized, open, wait-list-controlled comparison clinical trial was designed to assess the effectiveness of the CTH intervention and was conducted between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2023, in 67 communities in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, accounting for approximately 8.2 million adults. The participants in this trial were communities consisting of counties (n = 48) and municipalities (n = 19). Trial arm randomization was conducted using a covariate constrained randomization procedure stratified by state. Each state was balanced by community characteristics including urban/rural classification, fatal opioid overdose rate, and community population. Thirty-four communities were randomized to the intervention and 33 to wait-list control arms. Data analysis was conducted between March 20 and September 29, 2023, with a focus on the comparison period from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Intervention: Waiver trainings and other educational trainings were offered or supported by the HEALing Communities Study research sites in each state to help build practitioner capacity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver (overall, and stratified by 30-, 100-, and 275-patient limits) per 100 000 adult residents aged 18 years or older during July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, were compared between the intervention and wait-list control communities. The rate of buprenorphine prescribing among those waivered practitioners was also compared between the intervention and wait-list control communities. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. Results: A total of 8 166 963 individuals aged 18 years or older were residents of the 67 communities studied. There was no evidence of an effect of the CTH intervention on the adjusted rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver (adjusted relative rate [ARR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.14) or the adjusted rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver who actively prescribed buprenorphine (ARR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.10). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the CTH intervention was not associated with increases in the rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver or buprenorphine prescribing among those waivered practitioners. Supporting practitioners to prescribe buprenorphine remains a critical yet challenging step in the continuum of care to treat opioid use disorder. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04111939.

Methadone Induction for a Patient With Precipitated Withdrawal in the Emergency Department: A Case Report.

In the era of illicit fentanyl, reports on difficulties with buprenorphine inductions for patients with opioid use disorder are emerging. Methadone is the only other approved medication treatment with efficacy similar to buprenorphine but without risks of precipitated withdrawal. Unfortunately, outpatient methadone inductions can take days to weeks to complete, due in part to regulations that limit administration to opioid treatment programs. We describe a patient with opioid use disorder who presented to the emergency department in precipitated withdrawal who completed a same-day methadone induction with next-day dosing at an opioid treatment program as part of an emergency department methadone protocol. As opioid-related deaths rise, emergency department-initiated methadone is feasible for patients with opioid use disorder.

Racial and ethnic disparities in emergency department-initiated buprenorphine across five health care systems.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose deaths have disproportionately impacted Black and Hispanic populations, in part due to disparities in treatment access. Emergency departments (EDs) serve as a resource for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), many of whom have difficulty accessing outpatient addiction programs. However, inequities in ED treatment for OUD remain poorly understood. METHODS: This secondary analysis examined racial and ethnic differences in buprenorphine access using data from EMBED, a study of 21 EDs across five health care systems evaluating a clinical decision support system for initiating ED buprenorphine. The primary outcome was receipt of buprenorphine, ED administered or prescribed. Hospital type (academic vs. community) was evaluated as an effect modifier. Hierarchical models with cluster effects for site and clinician were used to assess buprenorphine receipt by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Black patients were less likely to receive buprenorphine (6.4% [51/801] vs. White patients 8.5% [268/3154], odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.78). This association persisted after adjusting for age, insurance, gender, clinician X-waiver, hospital type, and urbanicity (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.84) but not when discharge diagnosis was included (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56-1.02). Hispanic patients were more likely to receive buprenorphine (14.8% [122/822] vs. non-Hispanic patients, 11.6% [475/4098]) in unadjusted (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09-1.83) and adjusted models (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08-1.83) but not including discharge diagnosis (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99-1.77). Odds of buprenorphine were similar in academic and community EDs by race (interaction p = 0.97) and ethnicity (interaction p = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Black patients with OUD were less likely to receive buprenorphine whereas Hispanic patients were more likely to receive buprenorphine in academic and community EDs. Differences were attenuated with discharge diagnosis, as fewer Black and non-Hispanic patients were diagnosed with opioid withdrawal. Barriers to medication treatment are heterogenous among patients with OUD; research must continue to address the multiple drivers of health inequities at the patient, clinician, and community level.

"This is part of emergency medicine now": A qualitative assessment of emergency clinicians' facilitators of and barriers to initiating buprenorphine.

OBJECTIVES: Despite evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine for the treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), incorporation into clinical practice has been highly variable. We explored barriers and facilitators to the prescription of buprenorphine, as perceived by practicing ED clinicians. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of ED clinicians. An interview guide was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Theoretical Domains Framework implementation science frameworks. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized. RESULTS: We interviewed 25 ED clinicians from 11 states in the United States. Participants were diverse with regard to years in practice and practice setting. While outer setting barriers such as the logistic costs of getting a DEA-X waiver and lack of clear follow-up for patients were noted by many participants, individual-level determinants driven by emotion (stigma), beliefs about consequences and roles, and knowledge predominated. Participants' responses suggested that implementation strategies should address stigma, local culture, knowledge gaps, and logistic challenges, but that a particular order to addressing barriers may be necessary. CONCLUSIONS: While some participants were hesitant to adopt a "new" role in treating patients with medications for OUD, many already had and gave concrete strategies regarding how to encourage others to embrace their attitude of "this is part of emergency medicine now."

"Just give them a choice": Patients' perspectives on starting medications for opioid use disorder in the ED.

OBJECTIVES: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) prescribed in the emergency department (ED) have the potential to save lives and help people start and maintain recovery. We sought to explore patient perspectives regarding the initiation of buprenorphine and methadone in the ED with the goal of improving interactions and fostering shared decision making (SDM) around these important treatment options. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) regarding ED visits and their experiences with MOUD. The interview guide was based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, a framework for examining decisional needs and tailoring decisional support, and the research team's experience with MOUD and SDM. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process using both the Ottawa Framework and a social-ecological framework. Themes were identified and organized and implications for clinical care were noted and discussed. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants were interviewed, seven in person in the ED and 19 via video conferencing software. The majority had tried both buprenorphine and methadone, and almost all had been in an ED for an issue related to opioid use. Participants reported social, pharmacological, and emotional factors that played into their decision making. Regarding buprenorphine, they noted advantages such as its efficacy and logistical ease and disadvantages such as the need to wait to start it (risk of precipitated withdrawal) and that one could not use other opioids while taking it. Additionally, participants felt that: (1) both buprenorphine and methadone should be offered; (2) because "one person's pro is another person's con," clinicians will need to understand the facets of the options; (3) clinicians will need to have these conversations without appearing judgmental; and (4) many patients may not be "ready" for MOUD, but it should still be offered. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants were supportive of offering buprenorphine in the ED, many felt that methadone should also be offered. They felt that treatment should be tailored to an individual's needs and circumstances and clarified what factors might be important considerations for people with OUD.

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.

The Impact of a Medical Education Research Faculty Development Program on Career Development, Through the Lens of Social Cognitive Career Theory.

OBJECTIVES: The Medical Education Research Certificate at the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (MERC at CORD), a specialized adaptation of the Association of American Medical Colleges MERC program, provides faculty development in education research in emergency medicine. However, its long-term influence on career development remains unknown. Our study explored the impact of MERC at CORD on career development through the lens of social cognitive career (SCC) theory. METHODS: This was a prospective qualitative study using a constructivist/interpretivist paradigm to assess long-term career development outcomes. A purposeful randomized stratified sampling strategy of MERC at CORD graduates (2011-2014) ensured diversity of representation (sex, region, number of research publications, and project group leadership). Subjects were invited by e-mail to participate in semistructured phone interviews. Thematic analysis by two independent reviewers followed an iterative process until saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twelve graduates were interviewed. All engaged with MERC at CORD early in their careers with minimal previous education research experience. Currently, all hold medical education leadership positions. Graduates had a mean of 19.3 publications (range = 9-43). Themes explaining reasons for participating in MERC at CORD include: desire for education research skills, recommendation of mentors/colleagues, and accessibility. Themes citing the program's value to career development include networking/collaboration, mentorship, informational framework to build upon, and the application of theoretical knowledge through experiential learning. MERC at CORD impacted career development aligning with the core domains of SCC theory including self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals. CONCLUSION: MERC at CORD enhanced the long-term career development of participants by providing a core knowledge framework in a mentored, experiential learning environment. Participants identified themes aligned with SCC theory as influential in their long-term career advancement in medical education including the development of education research skills, successful completion of education research, career acceleration, promotion, niche development, and formulation of professional goals.

Trends in Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Admissions in Health Care Systems in 5 States in the First Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.

Importance: As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread throughout the US in the early months of 2020, acute care delivery changed to accommodate an influx of patients with a highly contagious infection about which little was known. Objective: To examine trends in emergency department (ED) visits and visits that led to hospitalizations covering a 4-month period leading up to and during the COVID-19 outbreak in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study of 24 EDs in 5 large health care systems in Colorado (n = 4), Connecticut (n = 5), Massachusetts (n = 5), New York (n = 5), and North Carolina (n = 5) examined daily ED visit and hospital admission rates from January 1 to April 30, 2020, in relation to national and the 5 states' COVID-19 case counts. Exposures: Time (day) as a continuous variable. Main Outcomes and Measures: Daily counts of ED visits, hospital admissions, and COVID-19 cases. Results: A total of 24 EDs were studied. The annual ED volume before the COVID-19 pandemic ranged from 13 000 to 115 000 visits per year; the decrease in ED visits ranged from 41.5% in Colorado to 63.5% in New York. The weeks with the most rapid rates of decrease in visits were in March 2020, which corresponded with national public health messaging about COVID-19. Hospital admission rates from the ED were stable until new COVID-19 case rates began to increase locally; the largest relative increase in admission rates was 149.0% in New York, followed by 51.7% in Massachusetts, 36.2% in Connecticut, 29.4% in Colorado, and 22.0% in North Carolina. Conclusions and Relevance: From January through April 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic intensified in the US, temporal associations were observed with a decrease in ED visits and an increase in hospital admission rates in 5 health care systems in 5 states. These findings suggest that practitioners and public health officials should emphasize the importance of visiting the ED during the COVID-19 pandemic for serious symptoms, illnesses, and injuries that cannot be managed in other settings.

Safety Assessment of a Noninvasive Respiratory Protocol for Adults With COVID-19.

As evidence emerged supporting noninvasive strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory distress, we implemented a noninvasive COVID-19 respiratory protocol (NCRP) that encouraged high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and self-proning across our healthcare system. To assess safety, we conducted a retrospective chart review evaluating mortality and other patient safety outcomes after implementation of the NCRP protocol (April 3, 2020, to April 15, 2020) for adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with preimplementation outcomes (March 15, 2020, to April 2, 2020). During the study, there were 469 COVID-19 admissions. Fewer patients underwent intubation after implementation (10.7% [23 of 215]), compared with before implementation (25.2% [64 of 254]) (P < .01). Overall, 26.2% of patients died (24% before implementation vs 28.8% after implementation; P = .14). In patients without a do not resuscitate/do not intubate order prior to admission, mortality was 21.8% before implementation vs 21.9% after implementation. Overall, we found no significant increase in mortality following implementation of a noninvasive respiratory protocol that decreased intubations in patients with COVID-19.

Cladosterigma: an enigmatic fungus, previously considered a basidiomycete, now revealed as an ascomycete member of the Gomphillaceae.

Cladosterigma clavariellum has been treated as a basidiomycete since its first description by Spegazzini in 1886 as Microcera clavariella. After further morphological studies, between 1919 and 2011, it remained among the basidiomycetes, most recently as incertae sedis in the order Cryptobasidiales. Our studies, based on light and scanning electron microscopy, supported by multilocus phylogenetic analyses-second-largest subunit of RNA polymerase II (RPB2), translation elongation factor 1-alpha (TEF1), small subunit (18S), large subunit (28S), and nuclear internal transcribed spacers (ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 = ITS) of the nuclear rDNA sequences, and mitochondrial rDNA small subunit (mtSSU)-finally determined the phylogenetic placement of Cladosterigma as the first nonlichenicolous mycoparasitic member of the Gomphillaceae within the Graphidales, an ascomycete order previously composed predominantly of lichen-forming fungi.