Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Care with Population Health

Introduction: Suicidality is a growing problem in the US, and the emergency department (ED) is often the front line for the management and effective treatment of acutely suicidal patients. There is a dearth of interventions that emergency physicians may use to manage and effectively treat acutely suicidal patients. To the extent that recently described interventions are available for ED personnel, no review has been conducted to identify them. This scoping review is intended to fill this gap by systematically reviewing the literature to identify recently described interventions that can be administered in the ED to reduce symptoms and stabilize patients.

Methods: We conducted a search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL in January 2024 to identify papers published between 2013–2023 for original research trialing recent interventions for the effective treatment of suicidality in the ED. We assessed 16 full-text articles for eligibility, and nine met inclusion criteria. Included studies were evaluated for features and characteristics, the fit of the intervention to the ED environment, and interventional efficacy.

Results: Four studies assessed the efficacy of a single dose of the anesthetic/analgesic agent ketamine. Three studies assessed the efficacy of a brief psychosocial intervention delivered in the ED, two of which paired this intervention with the provision of follow-up care (postcard contact and referral assistance/case management, respectively). The remaining two studies trialed a brief, motivational interviewing-based intervention. Included studies had strong experimental designs (randomized controlled trials) but small sample sizes (average 57). Among the interventions represented across these nine studies, a single dose of ketamine and the brief psychosocial intervention Crisis Response Planning (CRP) show promise as ED-appropriate interventions for suicidality. Ketamine and CRP demonstrated the strongest fit to the ED environment and most robust efficacy findings.

Conclusion: This review identified one drug (ketamine) and four unique psychological/behavioral interventions that have been used to treat acute suicidality in the ED. There is currently insufficient evidence to suggest that these interventions will prove efficacious and well-suited to be delivered in the ED environment. Future studies should continue to test these interventions in the ED setting to determine their feasibility and efficacy.

Introduction: As fentanyl has become more readily available, opioid-related morbidity and mortality in the United States has increased dramatically. Preliminary studies suggest that high-affinity, partial mu-opioid receptor agonists such as the combination product buprenorphine-naloxone may reduce mortality from overdose and promote remission. With the escalating prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD), it is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of opioid agonists like buprenorphine-naloxone. This study examines mortality and remission rates for OUD patients prescribed buprenorphine-naloxone to determine the efficacy of this treatment toward these outcomes.

Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis using the US Collaborative Network database in TriNetX, examining de-identified medical records from nearly 92 million patients across 56 healthcare organizations. The study spanned the years from January 1, 2017–May 13, 2022. Cohort 1 included OUD patients who began buprenorphine-naloxone treatment within one-year post-diagnosis, while Cohort 2, the control group, consisted of OUD patients who were not administered buprenorphine. The study measured mortality and remission rates within a year of the index event, incorporating propensity score matching for age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Results: Prior to propensity matching, we identified a total of 221,967 patients with OUD. Following exclusions, 61,656 patients treated with buprenorphine-naloxone showed 34% fewer deaths within one year of diagnosis compared to 159,061 patients who did not receive buprenorphine (2.6% vs 4.0%; relative risk [RR] 0.661; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.627–0.698; P < 0.001). The remission rate was approximately 1.9 times higher in the buprenorphine-naloxone group compared to the control group (18.8% vs 10.1%; RR 1.862; 95% CI 1.812–1.914; P < 0.001). After propensity matching, the effect on mortality decreased but remained statistically significant (2.6% vs 3.0%; RR 0.868; 95% CI 0.813–0.927; P < 0.001) and the remission rate remained consistent (18.8% vs 10.4%; RR 1.812; 95% CI 1.750–1.876; P < 0.001). Number needed to treat for benefit was 249 for death and 12 for remission.

Conclusion: Buprenorphine-naloxone was associated with significantly reduced mortality and increased remission rates for patients with opioid use disorder and should be used as a primary treatment. The recognition and implementation of treatment options like buprenorphine-naloxone is vital in alleviating the impact of OUD.

Introduction: Pain is a major driver of visits to the emergency department (ED). Clinicians must consider not only the efficacy of treatment options but also subsequent healthcare utilization and patient-centered outcomes such as side effects from prescribed medications. Our goal in this study was to determine whether there was an association between acute pain treatment regimen (opioids, intranasal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], or both) and unscheduled healthcare visits following ED discharge.

Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of the Acute Management of Pain from the Emergency Department (AMPED) prospective, observational cohort study. We used Cox proportional hazards analysis to assess the relationship between treatment regimen and time to first unscheduled healthcare visit. Repeated measures logistic regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between treatment regimen and any unscheduled visits, and to evaluate whether this relationship was mediated by pain severity and/or medication side effects.

Results: Of 831 total enrolled participants, 141 (16.9%) experienced an unplanned healthcare visit within five days of ED discharge. A majority of these visits happened one day after the ED visit. Those who were treated with intranasal NSAIDs only were less likely to have an unscheduled healthcare visit compared to those who received opioids only, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 0.63. The higher odds of unscheduled healthcare visits with opioids were mediated by both the presence of side effects and higher pain levels, with AORs of 2.24 and 1.33, respectively.

Conclusion: Opioid treatment for acute pain is associated with increased unscheduled healthcare visits compared to those treated with intranasal ketorolac. This difference can be explained by higher levels of ongoing pain and greater medication side effects.

Introduction: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) has had a devastating impact on mental health and access to addiction treatment in the United States, including in California, which resulted in the highest rates of emergency department visits (ED) for opioid poisoning in 2020. As California slowly returns to pre-pandemic normalcy, it remains uncertain whether the rates of opioid-related events have slowed down over time. We hypothesized that the number of opioid-related ED visits were exacerbated after the period of the COVID-19 pandemic and continue at a high rate in the present.

Methods: In this analysis we searched the University of California (UC) Health Data Warehouse—a database of electronic health records from six UC health centers—for opioid-related ED visits, identifiying using the following International Classification of Diseases, 10th Ed, Clinical Modification codes: F11 codes, and T40.0*, T40.1*, T40.2*, T40.3*, T40.4*, T40.6*. Opioid overdose-associated visits were classified by types of opioids involved: heroin (T40.1*); prescription opioids (T40.2* or T40.3*); and synthetic opioids (T40.4*). We performed interrupted time analysis to estimate the immediate (level) change and change-in-time trend (trend change), from before (January 2018–October 2019) and during the pandemic (April 2020–December 2022). Monthly visit rates were evaluated with negative binomial regression adjusted for first-order autoregression and using all-cause ED counts as the offset. We present effect sizes as rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), tested at α = .05.

Results: Before COVID-19, a steadily increasing trend in ED visit rates was observed for all outcomes (P < 0.05) except synthetic opioids. Total opioid-related ED visit rates increased by 15% (RR 1.15, 95%CI 1.02–1.29, P = 0.20) immediately after March 2020 before decreasing by 0.5% every month, albeit without statistical significance (RR .995, 95% CI .991–1.00, P = 0.06). Similar trends were observed with prescription opioid overdoses, with a step increase of 44% (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.10–1.89, P = .008) before plateauing after March 2020 (RR 1.01, 95% CI .998–1.02, P = 0.12). After March 2020, ED visit rates for synthetic opioid overdoses were increasing steadily by 4% every month (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.06, P = .001), unlike with heroin, which was observed with an 8% monthly reduction (RR .92, 95% CI .90–.93, P < .001). No immediate increase in visit rates was observed for either opioid.

Conclusion: While opioid-related ED admissions among the UC health centers showed an overall decrease, prescription and synthetic opioid overdoses remained significantly higher than pre-pandemic trends as of December 2022. A multilevel approach to improve awareness of new opioid health policies could ameliorate these alarming rises in the post-pandemic era.

Introduction: Standard emergency medicine practice includes tetanus vaccine administration as part of wound care management for patients who are not fully immunized. Since there have been no available studies in the United States reaffirming the prevalence of Clostridium tetani (C tetani) since 1926, we sought to identify its prevalence in a major urban county in the US.

Methods: We sampled soil, rusted metal, concrete, and dog feces to determine the prevalence of C tetani in a single metropolitan county in the United States. Soil samples and swabs were collected from four locations: the soil of a public park and an elementary school; dog feces from a single public dog park; and rusted surfaces (metal and concrete) in common student areas of a university campus. The presence of C tetani in each sample was determined using a quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

Results: In total, 200 samples were collected, of which 37 (18.5%) tested positive for C tetani DNA. Among the 140 samples taken from the soil, just one (0.7%) tested positive for C tetani DNA. Of the 40 samples of rusted metal and concrete surfaces, 30 (75%) tested positive for C tetani, and six (30%) of the 20 samples from dog feces tested positive for C tetani.

Conclusion: We found that C tetani is frequently present on rusted metal and concrete surfaces but rarely in soil samples. Minor wounds contaminated with soil may be considered low risk for tetanus. However, future studies should assess the burden of C tetani in other similar urban, suburban, and rural environments to help determine the threat of C tetani more exactly.

Background: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) improves the prognosis of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). The six-factor RESCUE-IHCA score (resuscitation using ECPR during IHCA) was developed to predict outcomes of post-IHCA ECPR-treated adult patients. Our goal was to validate the score in an Asian medical center with a high volume and experience of ECPR performance and to compare the differences in patient characteristics between the current study and the original cohort in a 2022 observational study.

Method: For this single-center, retrospective cohort study we enrolled 324 ECPR-treated adult IHCA patients. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) to externally validate the RESCUE-IHCA score. The calibration of the model was tested by the decile calibration plot as well as Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit with an associated P-value.

Results: Of the 324 participants, 231 (71%) died before hospital discharge. The discriminative performance of the RESCUE-IHCA score was comparable with the originally validated cohort, with an AUC of 0.63. A prolonged duration of cardiac arrest was associated with an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.03, P = .006). An initial rhythm of ventricular tachycardia (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04–0.51, P = .003), ventricular fibrillation (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03–0.46, P = .003), and palpable pulse (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07–0.92, P = 0.04) were associated with a reduced mortality risk compared to asystole or pulseless electrical activity. In contrast to the original study, age (P = 0.28), resuscitation timing (P = 0.14), disease category (P = 0.18), and pre-existing renal insufficiency (P = 0.12) were not associated with in-hospital death.

Conclusion: In external validation, the RESCUE-IHCA score exhibited performance comparable to its original validation within the single-center population. Further investigation on hospital experience, time-of-day effect, and specific disease categories is warranted to improve the selection criteria for ECPR candidates during IHCA.

Introduction: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) accelerated the need for virtual learning including telesimulation. Many emergency medicine (EM) programs halted in-person simulation and trialed telesimulation, but specifics on its utilization and plans for future use are unknown. Telesimulation has been defined as “a process by which telecommunication and simulation resources are utilized to provide education, training, and/or assessment to learners at an off-site location.” Our objective in this study was to describe the patterns of telesimulation usage in EM residency programs during COVID-19-induced learning restrictions as well as its anticipated future utility.

Methods: We identified EM simulation leaders via the EMRA Match website, institutional websites, or personal contact with residency coordinators and directors, and invited them to participate by email. Participants completed a confidential, web-based survey consisting of multiple-choice items and one free-response question, developed by our study team with consideration of survey research best practices and Messick’s validity framework. We collected data between January–February 2022. We calculated descriptive statistics for multiple-choice items and examined the free-response answers for common themes.

Results: We obtained contact information for simulation leaders at 139 EM residency programs. Survey response rate was 65% (91/139). During in-person restrictions, 62% (56/91) of programs used telesimulation. Assuming all restrictions lifted, 38% (34/90) of respondents planned to continue to use telesimulation, compared to 9% (8/91) using telesimulation before COVID-19. Most respondents planned to use telesimulation for medical knowledge (26/34, 76%) and communication/teamwork-focused cases (23/34, 68%). In response to the free-response question regarding experience with and plans for use, we identified three major themes: 1) telesimulation is a valuable alternative to in-person learning; 2) telesimulation is an option for learners unable to participate in person; and 3) telesimulation is challenging for procedural education.

Conclusion: Despite the relatively limited use of telesimulation in EM residencies prior to COVID-19, an increased number of programs have plans to continue incorporating telesimulation into their curricula. This plan for continued use opens opportunities for further innovation and scholarship within simulation education. 

Introduction: Previous studies have shown that patients in the emergency department (ED) are frequently given incomplete discharge instructions that are written at least four grade levels above the recommended sixth-grade reading level, leading to poor understanding. Our aims in this study were to implement standardized discharge instructions containing six key components written at a more appropriate reading level for common emergency department (ED) diagnoses to improve patient understanding.

Methods: We conducted this study in a 20-bed ED at an urban Veteran’s Administration hospital. Data was collected via in-person patient and clinician interviews. Patient interviews were conducted after patients received their discharge instructions. We compared patient responses to clinician responses and marked them as incorrect, partially correct, or correct with a score of 0, 0.5, or 1, respectively. The maximum possible score for each interview was six. Six key components of discharge instructions were asked about: diagnosis; new medications; at-home care; duration of illness; reasons to return; and follow-up. There were 25 patients in the pre-intervention group and 20 in the intervention group with the standardized set of instructions. We performed a Mann-Whitney U test on the total interview scores in the control and intervention groups and conducted a sub-analysis on the individual scores for each of the six key components.

Results: The patients in the intervention demonstrated a statistically significant increase in patient-clinician correlation when compared to the patients in the pre-intervention group overall (P < 0.05), and two of the six key components of the discharge instructions individually showed statistically significant increase in patient-clinician correlation when standardized discharge instructions were used.

Conclusion: Patients who received the standardized discharge instructions had improved understanding of their discharge instructions. Future opportunities extending off this pilot study include expanding the number of diagnoses for which standardized instructions are used and investigating patient-centered outcomes related to these instructions.

Introduction: There are several options for receiving acute care besides emergency departments (ED), such as primary care physician (PCP) offices, urgent care centers (UCC), and telehealth services. It is unknown whether these alternative modes of care have decreased the number of ED visits for patients or whether they are considered before visiting the ED. A comprehensive study considering all potential methods of care is needed to address the evolving landscape of healthcare. Our goal was to identify any factors or barriers that may have influenced a patient’s choice to visit the ED as opposed to a UCC, PCP, another local ED, or use telehealth services.

Methods: We surveyed ED patients between three hospital sites in the greater Buffalo, NY, area. The survey consisted of questions regarding the patients’ reasons and rationale for choosing the ED over the alternative care options. The study also involved a health record review of the patients’ diagnoses, tests/procedures, consults, and final disposition after completion of the survey.

Results: Of the 590 patients consented and surveyed, 152 (25.7%) considered seeking care at a UCC, 18 (3.1%) considered telehealth services, and 146 (24.7%) attempted to contact their PCP. On the recommendation of their PCP, patients presented to the ED 110 (20.7%) times and on the recommendation of the clinician at the UCC 54 (9.2%) times. Patients’ perceived seriousness of their condition was the most common reason for their selected mode of transport to the ED and reason for choosing the ED as opposed to alternative care sites (PCP, UCC, telehealth). Based on criteria for an avoidable ED visit, 83 (14.1%) ED patients met these criteria.

Conclusion: Individuals prioritize the perceived severity of their condition when deciding where to seek emergency care. While some considered alternatives (PCP, UCC, telehealth services), uncertainties about their condition and recommendations from other clinicians led many to opt for ED care. Our findings suggest a potential gap in understanding the severity of symptoms and determining the most suitable place to seek medical care for these particular conditions.

Background: Increasingly, patient satisfaction scores are being used to assess emergency physicians. We sought to determine whether the patient satisfaction scores collected by our hospital system are lower for patients who are treated in the emergency department (ED) on night shifts as compared to those treated on day shifts.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of patient satisfaction scores from three EDs in Florida. We obtained satisfaction data from NRC Health (the company that provides our surveys) using a random sample of 1,000 completed surveys from patients treated in 2022; we also performed manual chart review to obtain clinical data. The satisfaction surveys asked patients how likely they would be to recommend the facility (from 0–10). Patients who provided a score of 9 or 10 were considered “promoters.” For our primary analysis, we compared the percentage of promoters for the day shift encounters (7 AM to 7 PM) to the night shift encounters (7 PM to 7 AM). We also performed a multivariable logistic regression analysis using several demographic and clinical variables to further assess the association between night shift arrival and satisfaction scores.

Results: Of the 1,000 surveys analyzed, 66.3% of patients arrived during the day shift, and 33.7%arrived during the night shift. Of those who arrived during the day shift, 525 (79.2%) were promoters compared to 228 (67.7%) of those who arrived during the night shift, a difference of 11.5% (95%confidence interval [CI] 5.7–17.4%), P < 0.001. On multivariable analysis, night shift arrival was associated with a lower chance of a patient being a promoter, with adjusted odds ratio 0.60 (95% CI 0.43–0.84), P = 0.003.

Conclusion: Patients who presented to the ED during the night shift were less likely to be promoters than patients who arrived during the day shift. Assessments of patient satisfaction data should account for time of visit and other facility-related and operational characteristics.

Introduction: The efficient utilization of resources is a crucial aspect of healthcare, particularly in both Level I and Level II American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers. The effect of resource allocation on emergency department length of stay (ED-LOS) of trauma patients has remained under-investigated. As ED crowding has become more prevalent, especially at quaternary care centers, an evaluation of the potential disparities in ED-LOS between Level I and Level II trauma centers is warranted. We hypothesized a longer ED-LOS at Level I centers compared to Level II centers.

Methods: We queried the 2017–2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Process (TQIP) database for trauma patients ≥18 years of age presenting to either a Level-I or -II center. The TQIP defines ED-LOS as the time from arrival until the time an ED disposition (admission or discharge) order is written. We excluded transferred patients and those with missing data regarding ACS trauma center verification level. We performed bivariate analyses, as well as subgroup analyses based on location of disposition.

Results: Of 2,225,067 trauma patients, 59.3% (1,318,497) received treatment at Level I centers. No significant differences were found in Injury Severity Scores between patients admitted to the operating room or non-intensive care unit (ICU) locations, or discharged home from Level-I and -II centers (all P < 0.05). The ED-LOS for trauma patients was longer at Level-I centers for all patient categories: overall (198 vs 145 minutes [min], P < 0.001), discharged home (286 vs 160 min, P < 0.001), non-ICU admissions (234 vs 164 min, P < 0.001), and those requiring surgery (126 vs 101 min, P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Even when treating patients with similar injury severity, trauma patients at Level I trauma centers had longer ED-LOS compared to Level II centers, irrespective of the patients’ final disposition (surgery, non-ICU admission, or discharge). To optimize resource utilization and alleviate ED saturation, further research must delve into the underlying causes of these discrepancies to identify best practices and solutions.

Background: Our primary objective evaluated the perception of emergency medical service (EMS) providers’ review of automated hospital outcome data. Secondarily, we assessed participation in outcome review as a means of microlearning to obtain continuing education (CE).

Methods: From October–December 2023, three high-volume EMS systems participated in a three-part intervention with results evaluated using a mixed-methods approach. First, EMS providers (emergency medical technicians and paramedics) were invited, via their electronic health record (EHR), to complete a presurvey evaluating their perceptions of reviewing outcomes. Then, EMS providers were notified about the opportunity to earn CE via a microlearning intervention, offering Commission on Accreditation for Pre-Hospital Continuing Education (CAPCE)-approved CE hours for completion of outcome reviews and associated learning modules. Finally, EMS providers were invited to complete a post-survey mirroring the pre-survey. Qualitative analyses identified themes among open-ended responses. Quantitative analyses examined perceptions between pre- and post- surveys.

Results: Of 843 providers contacted, 217 responded to the pre-survey (25.7%). The most endorsed rationale for reviewing outcomes included improving clinical knowledge (95%), improving patient care (94%), and knowing whether care made a difference (93%). Nearly all (91%) reported being more likely to review outcomes if CE were awarded. Among the 67 who completed the open-ended items, the three dominant themes included enhance personal confidence and competence (43%); acquire personal knowledge (39%); and operations (21%). Of 211 providers who participated in the intervention, 56 (27%) were awarded CE. A total of 152 providers responded to the post-survey, and the percentage who agreed that reviewing outcomes improves job satisfaction rose from 89% to 95% between pre- and post-surveys (P = 0.05).

Conclusion: EMS providers supported the personal and professional development and patient care improvement of reviewing patients’ outcomes with associated CE. Further study is warranted to evaluate the generalizability of these findings and the best user experience.

Introduction: Clinician burnout represents a significant occupational hazard among physicians, with a notably high prevalence among emergency physicians. The Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) was developed to comprehensively assess various aspects of doctors’ work experiences, including professional fulfillment. In this study we aimed to validate the Turkish version of the PFI (T-PFI), a 16-item instrument designed to measure physicians’ professional fulfillment and burnout.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we validated the T-PFI in two phases. The initial phase involved translating and culturally adapting the original PFI into Turkish. We evaluated the content validity of the translated version using item and scale content validity indices (I-CVI and S-CVI, respectively). The validated T-PFI was then distributed among a broad cohort of emergency physicians via an online survey to further assess its reliability and validity. The assessment tools included Cronbach α, confirmatory factor analysis, and content validity indices.

Results: Of 1,434 physicians who were sent the survey, 425 fully completed it (29.6%). There was an almost equal distribution of 215 females and 210 males. Only 9.6% of the participants reported high levels of professional fulfillment, whereas a significant majority (79.1%) were susceptible to burnout. The Cronbach α values for the professional fulfillment and overall burnout scales were 0.87 and 0.90, respectively. The content validity was confirmed by I-CVI values exceeding 0.80 and an S-CVI/average relevance of 0.92. The confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated an acceptable model fit after adjustments.

Conclusion: The T-PFI is a reliable and valid tool for assessing professional fulfillment and burnout among emergency physicians in Turkey. Effective interventions to mitigate burnout are essential to improve physician well-being in Turkish healthcare settings.

Introduction: We aimed to assess antibiotic stewardship by quantifying the use of first-dose intravenous (IV) vs oral-only antibiotics and the frequency with which antibiotic class was changed for discharged patients. Secondary aims included the following: evaluation of the relative length of stay (LOS); differences in prescribing patterns between clinician types; differences between academic and community settings; assessment of prescribing patterns among emergency department (ED) diagnoses; and frequency of return visits for patients in each group.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study including patients presenting to EDs with infections who were discharged from our Midwest healthcare system consisting of 17 community hospitals and one academic center. We included infection type, antibiotic class and route of administration, type of infection, LOS, return visit within two weeks, clinician type, and demographics. Data were collected between June 1, 2018–December 31, 2021 and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results: We had 77,204 ED visits for patients with infections during the study period, of whom 3,812 received IV antibiotics during their visit. There were more women (62.4%) than men included. Of the 3,812 patients who received IV antibiotics, 1,026 (34.3%) were discharged on a different class of antibiotics than they received. The most common changes were from IV cephalosporin to oral quinolone or penicillin. Patients treated with IV antibiotics prior to discharge had a longer LOS in the ED (median difference of 102 minutes longer for those who received IV antibiotics). There was not a significant difference in the use of IV antibiotics between the academic center and community sites included in the study.

Conclusion: Administering IV antibiotics as a first dose prior to oral prescriptions upon discharge is common, as is shifting classes from the IV dose to the oral prescription. This offers an opportunity for intervention to improve antibiotic stewardship for ED patients as well as reduce cost and length of stay.

Introduction: The workload of physicians increased due to the number of patients presenting with suspicion of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and the prolonged wait times in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. Signal peptide-CUB-EGF domain-containing protein 1 (SCUBE-1) is a protein present in platelets and endothelial cells; it is activated by inflammation from COVID-19 and may be associated with COVID-19’s known thrombotic risk. We aimed to determine whether SCUBE-1 levels are diagnostically correlated in suspected COVID-19 patients, and whether SCUBE-1 correlated with severity of disease and, therefore, might be useful to guide hospitalization/discharge decisions.

Methods: The suspected COVID-19 patients cared for at tertiary healthcare institutions for one year between May 2021–May 2022 were examined in this study. The subjects were both suspected COVID-19 patients not ultimately found to have COVID-19 and those who were diagnosed with COVID-19. By modifying the disease severity scoring systems present in COVID-19 guidelines in 2021, the COVID-19-positive patient group was classified as mild, moderate, severe, and critical, and compared using the SCUBE-1 levels. Moreover, SCUBE-1 levels were compared between the COVID-19 positive group and the COVID-19 negative group.

Results: A total of 507 patients were considered for the present study. After excluding 175 patients for incomplete data and alternate comorbid organ failure. we report on 332 patients (65.5%). Of these 332 patients, 80 (24.0%) were COVID-19 negative, and 252 (76.0%) were COVID-19 positive. Of 252 (100%) patients diagnosed with COVID-19, 74 (29.4%) were classified as mild, 95 (37.7%) moderate, 45 (17.8%) severe, and 38 (15.1%) critical. The SCUBE-1 levels were statistically different between COVID-19 positive (8.48 ± 7.42 nanograms per milliliter [ng/mL]) and COVID-19 negative (1.86 ± 0.92 ng/mL) patients (P < 0.001). In the COVID-19 positive group, SCUBE-1 levels increased with disease severity (mild = 3.20 ± 1.65 ng/mL, moderate = 4.78 ± 2.26 ng/mL, severe = 13.68 ± 3.95 ng/mL, and critical = 21.87 ± 5.39 ng/mL) (P < 0.001). The initial SCUBE-1 levels of discharged patients were significantly lower than those requiring hospitalization (discharged = 2.89 ng/mL [0.55–8.60 ng/mL]; ward admitted = 7.13 ng/mL [1.38–21.29 ng/mL], and ICU admitted = 21.19 ng/mL [10.58–37.86 ng/mL]) (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The SCUBE-1 levels were found to be differentiated between patients with and without COVID-19 and to be correlated with the severity of illness.

Introduction: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV—using antiretroviral medication in non-infected individuals to prevent HIV—has immense potential to slow the spread of the virus. However, uptake has been insufficient, and stark racial disparities exist in both HIV acquisition and PrEP usage, making PrEP access a health equity issue. A promising venue to engage high-risk populations in PrEP care is the emergency department (ED); however, existing ED PrEP initiatives have been costly or have had limited success. We hypothesize that two strategies could overcome these barriers: prescribing PrEP during an ED visit and providing patients with an initial supply of PrEP medication in the ED. Here, we describe the results of a qualitative study exploring multidisciplinary emergency clinicians and HIV clinicians’ needs and views about the feasibility of such an initiative.

Methods: We conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with multidisciplinary clinicians from an urban, safety-net medical center in the ED and the on-site HIV clinic that provides PrEP services.We performed thematic analysis to summarize challenges and potential solutions described by participants.

Results: Participants’ responses fell into three thematic categories: operational challenges; patient-level considerations; and potential impacts. Operational challenges highlighted the difficulty of PrEP initiation in a busy ED and clinician support needs. Patient-level considerations included the complex psychosocial needs of ED patients who could benefit from PrEP. Finally, participants anticipated that an ED-based PrEP initiation program could positively impact both individual patients and public health.

Conclusion: Interviews with emergency department and HIV clinic staff revealed important considerations and potential solutions for ED-initiated PrEP workflows. Clinicians in both specialties were enthusiastic about such an initiative, which could facilitate its success. This study lays the groundwork for the future design of an efficient and innovative workflow to leverage the ED as an essential entry point into HIV prevention services.

Objective: Food insecurity is a prevalent social risk among emergency department (ED) patients. Patients who may benefit from food insecurity resources may be identified via ED-based screening; however, many patients experience difficulty accessing resources after discharge. Co-locating resources in or near the ED may improve utilization by patients, but this approach remains largely unstudied. This study characterized the acceptance and use of a food voucher redeemable at a hospital food market for patients who screened positive for food insecurity during their ED visit.

Methods: This prospective cohort study, conducted at a single county-funded ED, included consecutive adult patients who presented on weekdays between 8 AM–8 PM from July–October 2022 and consented to research participation. We excluded patients who required resuscitation on arrival or could not provide written informed consent in English. Study participants completed a paper version of the two-question Hunger Vital Sign screening tool, administered by research staff. Participants who screened positive received a uniquely numbered $30 food voucher redeemable at the hospital’s co-located food market. Voucher redemption was quantified through regular evaluation of market receipt records at 30-day intervals. The primary outcome was the proportion of redeemed vouchers. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants screening positive for food insecurity, proportion of participants accepting vouchers, and associated descriptive statistics.

Results: Of the 396 eligible individuals approached, 377 (95.2%) consented and completed food insecurity screening. Most were middle-aged (median 53 years, interquartile range 30–58 years), 191 were female (50.4%), 242 were Black (63.9%), and 343 were non-Hispanic (91.0%). Of the participants, 228 (60.2%) screened positive for food insecurity and 224 received vouchers (98.2%), of which 86 were redeemed (38.4%) a median of nine days after the ED visit.

Conclusion: A high proportion of participants screened positive for food insecurity and accepted food vouchers; however, less than half of all vouchers were redeemed at the co-located food market. These results imply ED food voucher distribution for food insecurity is feasible, but co-location of resources alone may be insufficient in addressing the social risk and alludes to a limited understanding of facilitators and barriers to resource utilization following ED-based social needs screening.

Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is encountered in numerous traumatic and non-traumatic medical situations, and it requires immediate recognition and attention. Clinically, ICP typically presents with a headache that is most severe in the morning, aggravated by Valsalva-like maneuvers, and associated with nausea or vomiting. Papilledema is a well-recognized sign of increased ICP; however, emergency physicians often find it difficult to visualize the optic disc using ophthalmoscopy or to accurately interpret digital fundus photographs when using a non-mydriatic retinal camera. Emergency ultrasound can evaluate the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) and optic disc elevation to determine whether increased ICP is present, however, the studies have been small with different definitions and measurements of the ONSD. The ONSD threshold values for increased ICP have been reported anywhere from 4.8 to 6.3 millimeters. Neuroimaging is the next step in the evaluation of patients with papilledema or high clinical suspicion of increased ICP, as it can identify most structural causes or typical radiological patterns of increased ICP. Neuroradiographic signs of increased ICP can be helpful in suggesting idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), especially when papilledema is absent. Patients with papilledema and normal neuroimaging may undergo lumbar puncture as part of their clinical workup. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) opening pressure remains one of the most important investigations to establish the diagnosis of IIH. A CSF evaluation is also required to exclude other etiologies of elevated ICP such as infectious, inflammatory, and neoplastic meningitis. Invasive ICP measurement remains the standard to measure and monitor this condition.

Introduction: Child abuse is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children. The rate of missed child abuse in general emergency departments (ED), where 85% of children are evaluated, is higher than in pediatric EDs. We sought to evaluate the impact of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded child-abuse clinical decision support system (CA-CDSS) in the identification and evaluation of child maltreatment in a network of EDs three years after implementation.

Methods: We anonymously surveyed all 196 ED attending physicians and advanced practice practitioners (APP) in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center network. The survey evaluated practitioner awareness of, attitudes toward, and changes in clinical practice prompted by the CA-CDSS. We also assessed practitioner recognition and evaluation of sentinel injuries.

Results: Of the 71 practitioners (36%) who responded to the survey, 75% felt the tool raised child abuse awareness, and 72% had a face-to-face discussion with the child’s nurse after receiving a CA-CDSS alert. Among APPs, 72% consulted with the attending physician after receiving an alert. Many practitioners were unaware of at least one function of the CA-CDSS; 38% did not know who completed the child abuse screen (CAS); 54% were unaware that they could view the results of the CAS in the EHR, and 69% did not recognize the clinical decision support dashboard icon. Slightly over 20% of respondents felt that the CA-CDSS limited autonomy; and 4.5% disagreed with the recommendations in the physical abuse order set, which reflects American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines. Greater than 90% of respondents correctly identified an intraoral injury and torso bruise in an infant as sentinel injuries requiring an evaluation for abuse.

Conclusion: A child-abuse clinical decision support system embedded in the electronic health record was associated with communication among practitioners and was overall perceived as improving child abuse awareness in our system. Practitioners correctly recognized injuries concerning for abuse. Barriers to improving identification and evaluation of abuse include gaps in knowledge about the CA-CDSS and the presence of practitioners who disagree with the AAP recommendations for physical abuse evaluation and/or felt that clinical decision support in general limited their clinical autonomy.

Child maltreatment remains a concerning source of morbidity and mortality in the United States, where more than 600,000 children are victims of abuse each year, with well-described, long-term consequences for physical and mental health. However, the US child welfare system is characterized by systemic racism and inequity. Black and Native American children are more likely to be evaluated and reported for suspected abuse despite evidence that race does not independently change their risk of being abused. Once reported to child protective services (CPS), these children are more likely to be removed from their homes and less likely to be reunited with their families than White children. Much of the inequity in this system starts at the front door, where a growing body of research demonstrates that bias regularly infiltrates decision-making in the initial clinical evaluation and management of suspected abuse. Minority children presenting to emergency departments (ED) are more likely to receive diagnostic testing and are more likely to be referred to CPS.

In this editorial, we argue for the application of an equity lens to child protection in the ED. We discuss how emergency physicians can balance efforts to protect children from abuse with the imperative to protect children and families from the harms of an inequitable child welfare system. Our discussion concludes with concrete recommendations for emergency clinicians to participate in active bias mitigation and thoughtfully navigate their responsibilities as mandated reporters.