Frequency of Persistent Opioid Use 6 Months After Exposure to IV Opioids in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: As rates of opioid use disorder in the general population have increased, some have questioned whether IV opioids should be used routinely for treatment of acute severe pain in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVES: We determined the incidence of persistent opioid use among opioid-naïve patients exposed to IV opioids in the ED. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in two EDs in the Bronx, NY. Opioid-naïve adults with severe pain who received IV opioids in the ED were followed-up 6 months later by telephone interview and review of the state opioid prescription database. We defined persistent opioid use as filling 6 or more prescriptions for opioids in the 6 months following the ED visit or an average of one prescription per month. RESULTS: We screened 1555 patients. Of these, 506 patients met entry criteria and provided analyzable data. Morphine was the IV opioid most frequently administered in the ED (478, 94%), followed by hydromorphone (20, 4%). Of the 506, 8 (2%) received both IV morphine and hydromorphone and 63 (12%) participants were prescribed an opioid for use after the ED visit. One patient/506 (0%) met our apriori criteria for persistent opioid use within 6 months. CONCLUSION: Among 506 opioid naïve ED patients administered IV opioids for acute severe pain, only one used opioids persistently during the subsequent 6 months.

A randomized controlled trial of ibuprofen versus ketorolac versus diclofenac for acute, nonradicular low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the first-line medication for acute low back pain (LBP). It is unclear if the choice of NSAID impacts outcomes. We compared ibuprofen, ketorolac, and diclofenac for the treatment of acute, nonradicular LBP. METHODS: This was a three-armed, double-blind, comparative effectiveness study, in which we enrolled patients at the conclusion of an ED visit for musculoskeletal LBP and determined outcomes by telephone 5 days later. Patients were randomized to receive a 5-day supply of 600 mg of ibuprofen, 10 mg of ketorolac, or 50 mg of diclofenac, each to be used every 8 h as needed. Every participant also received LBP education. The primary outcome was improvement in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), a 24-item instrument on which lower scores indicate better LBP functional outcomes, between ED visit and day 5. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, measured using the descriptors none, mild, moderate, and severe, and the presence of stomach irritation. RESULTS: A total of 868 patients were screened and 66 patients were enrolled in each of the three arms. Baseline characteristics were similar. Improvements in RMDQ by day 5 were as follows: ibuprofen 9.4, ketorolac 11.9, and diclofenac 10.9 (p = 0.34). Mild or no pain on day 5 was as follows: ibuprofen 38 of 61 (62%), ketorolac 47 of 59 (80%), and diclofenac 45 of 62 (71%; 95% CI for rounded mean difference of 17% between ibuprofen and ketorolac = 1, 33%, p = 0.04, number needed to treat = 6 [95% CI = 3-69]). Stomach irritation was reported by 16 of 62 (26%) ibuprofen patients versus three of 61 (5%) in the ketorolac arm and six of 64 (9%) in the diclofenac arm (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: There were no important differences between groups with regard to the primary outcome. These data do not rule out that possibility that ketorolac results in better pain relief and less stomach irritation than ibuprofen.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Naproxen With or Without Orphenadrine or Methocarbamol for Acute Low Back Pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In US emergency departments (EDs), patients with low back pain are often treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants. We compare functional outcomes among patients randomized to a 1-week course of naproxen+placebo versus naproxen+orphenadrine or naproxen+methocarbamol. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients presenting with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain were enrolled. The primary outcome was improvement on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) between ED discharge and 1 week later. All patients were given 14 tablets of naproxen 500 mg, to be used twice a day, as needed for low back pain. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive a 1-week supply of orphenadrine 100 mg, to be used twice a day as needed, methocarbamol 750 mg, to be used as 1 or 2 tablets 3 times per day as needed, or placebo. All patients received a standardized 10-minute low back pain educational session before discharge. RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients were randomized. Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable. The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+placebo improved by 10.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9 to 12.9). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+orphenadrine improved by 9.4 points (95% CI 7.4 to 11.5). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+methocarbamol improved by 8.1 points (95% CI 6.1 to 10.1). None of the between-group differences surpassed our threshold for clinical significance. Adverse events were reported by 17% (95% CI 10% to 28%) of placebo patients, 9% (95% CI 4% to 19%) of orphenadrine patients, and 19% (95% CI 11% to 29%) of methocarbamol patients. CONCLUSION: Among ED patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain, combining naproxen with either orphenadrine or methocarbamol did not improve functional outcomes compared with naproxen+placebo.

Generalizability and Effectiveness of Butterfly Phlebotomy in Reducing Hemolysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to test the hypothesis that exclusive use of butterfly needles for phlebotomy, compared with sample collection via intravenous (IV) catheter, will reduce rates of sample hemolysis. METHODS: This was an observational study of hemolysis rates before and after implementation of a "butterfly-only" phlebotomy protocol. Weekly hemolysis rates, generated by the central laboratory, were collected and the proportion of hemolyzed specimens before and after protocol implementation were compared. RESULTS: Prior to institution of the butterfly-only protocol, 11.3% of specimens sent from the emergency department were reported as hemolyzed. During the postintervention period, only 4.3% of specimens were hemolyzed for a proportionate decrease of 62% and an absolute decrease of 7.0% (95% confidence interval = 6.6% to 7.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a butterfly-only phlebotomy protocol cuts hemolysis rates by more than half when compared with IV catheter phlebotomy.

Naproxen With Cyclobenzaprine, Oxycodone/Acetaminophen, or Placebo for Treating Acute Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for more than 2.5 million visits to US emergency departments (EDs) annually. These patients are usually treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, opioids, or skeletal muscle relaxants, often in combination. OBJECTIVE: To compare functional outcomes and pain at 1 week and 3 months after an ED visit for acute LBP among patients randomized to a 10-day course of (1) naproxen + placebo; (2) naproxen + cyclobenzaprine; or (3) naproxen + oxycodone/acetaminophen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized, double-blind, 3-group study was conducted at one urban ED in the Bronx, New York City. Patients who presented with nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP of 2 weeks' duration or less were eligible for enrollment upon ED discharge if they had a score greater than 5 on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The RMDQ is a 24-item questionnaire commonly used to measure LBP and related functional impairment on which 0 indicates no functional impairment and 24 indicates maximum impairment. Beginning in April 2012, a total of 2588 patients were approached for enrollment. Of the 323 deemed eligible for participation, 107 were randomized to receive placebo and 108 each to cyclobenzaprine and to oxycodone/acetaminophen. Follow-up was completed in December 2014. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were given 20 tablets of naproxen, 500 mg, to be taken twice a day. They were randomized to receive either 60 tablets of placebo; cyclobenzaprine, 5 mg; or oxycodone, 5 mg/acetaminophen, 325 mg. Participants were instructed to take 1 or 2 of these tablets every 8 hours, as needed for LBP. They also received a standardized 10-minute LBP educational session prior to discharge. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was improvement in RMDQ between ED discharge and 1 week later. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were comparable among the 3 groups. At baseline, median RMDQ score in the placebo group was 20 (interquartile range [IQR],17-21), in the cyclobenzaprine group 19 (IQR,17-21), and in the oxycodone/acetaminophen group 20 (IQR,17-22). At 1-week follow-up, the mean RMDQ improvement was 9.8 in the placebo group, 10.1 in the cyclobenzaprine group, and 11.1 in the oxycodone/acetaminophen group. Between-group difference in mean RMDQ improvement for cyclobenzaprine vs placebo was 0.3 (98.3% CI, -2.6 to 3.2; P = .77), for oxycodone/acetaminophen vs placebo, 1.3 (98.3% CI, -1.5 to 4.1; P = .28), and for oxycodone/acetaminophen vs cyclobenzaprine, 0.9 (98.3% CI, -2.1 to 3.9; P = .45). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular LBP presenting to the ED, adding cyclobenzaprine or oxycodone/acetaminophen to naproxen alone did not improve functional outcomes or pain at 1-week follow-up. These findings do not support use of these additional medications in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01587274.

Randomized clinical trial of an intravenous hydromorphone titration protocol versus usual care for management of acute pain in older emergency department patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid titration is an effective strategy for treating pain; however, titration is generally impractical in the busy emergency department (ED) setting. Our objective was to test a rapid, two-step, hydromorphone titration protocol against usual care in older patients presenting to the ED with acute severe pain. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial of patients 65 years of age and older presenting to an adult, urban, academic ED with acute severe pain. The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01429285). Patients randomized to the hydromorphone titration protocol initially received 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients randomized to usual care received any dose of any intravenous opioid. At 15 min, patients in both groups were asked, 'Do you want more pain medication?' Patients in the hydromorphone titration group who answered 'yes' received a second dose of 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients in the usual care group who answered 'yes' had their ED attending physician notified, who then could administer any (or no) additional medication. The primary efficacy outcome was satisfactory analgesia defined a priori as the patient declining additional analgesia at least once when asked at 15 or 60 min after administration of the initial opioid. Dose was calculated in morphine equivalent units (MEU: 1 mg hydromorphone = 7 mg morphine). The need for naloxone to reverse adverse opioid effects was the primary safety outcome. RESULTS: 83.0 % of 153 patients in the hydromorphone titration group achieved satisfactory analgesia compared with 82.5 % of 166 patients in the usual care group (p = 0.91). Patients in the hydromorphone titration group received lower mean initial doses of opioids at baseline than patients in the usual care group (3.5 MEU vs. 4.7 MEU, respectively; p ≤ 0.001) and lower total opioids through 60 min (5.3 MEU vs. 6.0 MEU; p = 0.03). No patient needed naloxone. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose titration of intravenous hydromorphone in increments of 0.5 mg provides comparable analgesia to usual care with less opioid over 60 min.

Predicting 7-day and 3-month functional outcomes after an ED visit for acute nontraumatic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Recent work has shown that two-thirds of patients report functional disability 1 week after an emergency department (ED) visit for nontraumatic musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP). Nearly half of these patients report functional disability 3 months later. Identifying high-risk predictors of functional disability at each of these 2 time points will allow emergency clinicians to provide individual patients with an evidence-based understanding of their risk of protracted symptoms. OBJECT: The aim of the present study was to determine whether 5 high-risk features previously identified in various primary care settings predict poor functional outcomes among patients in the ED. The hypothesized predictors are as follows: LBP-related functional disability at baseline, radicular signs, depression, a work-related injury, or a history of chronic or recurrent LBP before the index episode. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of patients in the ED with a chief complaint of nontraumatic LBP, which the ED attending physician classified as musculoskeletal. We interviewed patients in the ED before discharge and performed a baseline assessment of functional disability using the 24-item Roland-Morris questionnaire. We also trichotomized the patient's baseline history of LBP into chronic (defined as 30 straight days with continuous LBP or a history of acute exacerbations more frequently than once per week); episodic (acute exacerbations more frequently than once per year but less frequently than once per week), or rarely/never (less frequently than once per year or no history of LBP). We performed telephone follow-up 1 week and 3 months after ED discharge using a scripted closed-question data collection instrument. The primary outcome was any functional limitation attributable to LBP at 1 week and 3 months, defined as a score greater than zero on the Roland-Morris questionnaire. We used logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, and educational level, to assess the independent association between functional disability and each of the 5 hypothesized predictors listed above. RESULTS: We approached 894 patients for participation and included 556. We obtained follow-up on 97% and 92% of our sample at 1 week and 3 months, respectively. Two of the 5 hypothesized variables predicted functional disability at both time points: higher baseline Roland-Morris score (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-6.9) and chronic LBP (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.8) were associated with 7-day functional disability. These same 2 variables predicted functional disability 3 months after ED discharge-higher baseline Roland-Morris score (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.9) and chronic LBP (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.2). The remaining 3 hypothesized predictors (depression, radicular signs, and on-the-job injury) did not predict functional outcome at either time point. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the ED with worse baseline functional impairment and a history of chronic LBP are 2 to 4 times most likely to have poor short- and longer-term outcomes.

One-week and 3-month outcomes after an emergency department visit for undifferentiated musculoskeletal low back pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Nearly 3 million patients present to US emergency departments (EDs) annually with undifferentiated musculoskeletal low back pain. Little is known about short- and longer-term outcomes in this group. We seek to describe the pain and functional outcomes 1 week and 3 months after discharge in a sample of ED patients presenting with undifferentiated musculoskeletal low back pain. METHODS: We used a prospective observational descriptive cohort design, enrolling ED patients with a chief complaint of low back pain classified as musculoskeletal in origin by the ED attending physician. We defined low back pain as pain originating in the posterior back between the tips of the scapulae and upper buttocks and excluded any patient with a traumatic back injury occurring within the previous month. We interviewed patients in the ED and then by telephone follow-up 1 week and 3 months after ED discharge, using a scripted closed-question data collection instrument. Our primary outcome was functional limitation attributable to low back pain assessed with a validated scale. Secondary outcomes included pain and analgesic use during the 24 hours before each follow-up telephone call. RESULTS: During a 9-month period beginning in July 2009, we approached 894 patients, of whom 556 were enrolled. We obtained follow-up on 97% of our sample at 1 week and 92% at 3 months. One week after ED discharge, 70% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66% to 74%) of patients reported back pain-related functional impairment, 59% (95% CI 55% to 63%) reported moderate or severe low back pain, and 69% (95% CI 65% to 73%) reported analgesic use within the previous 24 hours. Three months after ED discharge, 48% (95% CI 44% to 52%) of patients reported functional impairment, 42% (95% CI 38% to 46%) reported moderate or severe pain, and 46% (95% CI 44% to 50%) reported analgesic use within the previous 24 hours. CONCLUSION: There is substantial short- and longer-term morbidity and ongoing analgesic use among patients who present to an ED with undifferentiated musculoskeletal low back pain.

Success of a safe and simple algorithm to reduce use of CT pulmonary angiography in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine whether the radiation exposure to patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) could be decreased by safely increasing the use of ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scanning and decreasing the use of CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) through an educational intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Collaborative educational seminars were held among the radiology, nuclear medicine, and emergency medicine departments in December 2006 and January 2007 regarding the radiation dose and accuracies of V/Q scanning and CTPA for diagnosing PE. To reduce radiation exposure, an imaging algorithm was introduced in which emergency department patients with a clinical suspicion of PE underwent chest radiography. If the chest radiograph was normal, V/Q scanning was recommended, otherwise CTPA was recommended. We retrospectively tallied the number and results of CTPA and V/Q scanning and calculated mean radiation effective dose before and after the intervention. False-negative findings were defined as subsequent thromboembolism within 90 days. RESULTS: The number of CTPA examinations performed decreased from 1,234 in 2006 to 920 in 2007, and the number of V/Q scans increased from 745 in 2006 to 1,216 in 2007. The mean effective dose was reduced by 20%, from 8.0 mSv in 2006 to 6.4 mSv in 2007 (p < 0.0001). The patients who underwent CTPA and V/Q scanning in 2006 were of similar age. In 2007, the patients who underwent V/Q scanning were significantly younger. There was no significant difference in the false-negative rate (range, 0.8-1.2%) between CTPA and V/Q scanning in 2006 and 2007. CONCLUSION: The practice patterns of physicians changed in response to an educational intervention, resulting in a reduction in radiation exposure to emergency department patients with suspected PE without compromising patient safety.

Randomized clinical trial comparing a patient-driven titration protocol of intravenous hydromorphone with traditional physician-driven management of emergency department patients with acute severe pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We test the null hypothesis that the "1+1" hydromorphone patient-driven protocol is clinically and statistically equivalent in safety and efficacy to that of traditional physician-driven administration of opioids for emergency department (ED) treatment of acute severe pain. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial of nonelderly adults presenting to an urban academic ED with acute pain of sufficient severity to warrant intravenous (IV) opioids in the judgment of the attending physician. Patients randomized to the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven protocol received 1 mg IV hydromorphone followed by a second 1-mg dose 15 minutes later if the patient responded affirmatively to the question, "Do you want more pain medication?" Patients in the physician-driven group received any IV opioid in the dose chosen by the ED attending physician, with any additional analgesia provided at the discretion of that physician. The primary outcome was the difference in improvement in pain between the 2 groups at 60 minutes, as measured by a validated and reproducible numeric rating scale. Secondary outcomes included incidence of oxygen desaturation, hypoventilation, hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and use of naloxone. RESULTS: The mean decrease in numeric rating scale pain scores for the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven group was 5.6 versus 4.5 in the physician-driven group. The difference of 1.1 numeric rating scale units (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 1.9) was statistically significant but fell 0.2 numeric rating scale units short of the 1.3 numeric rating scale unit threshold required to attain clinically significant efficacy. Safety profiles were similarly satisfactory in both groups. Ninety-four percent of the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven group achieved adequate analgesia (as defined by the patient) within 60 minutes of protocol initiation. CONCLUSION: The 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven protocol is statistically superior and at least as clinically efficacious and safe as traditional physician-driven treatment of ED patients with acute severe pain. More than 9 of 10 patients randomized to the study protocol achieved satisfactory pain control, as defined by the patient, within an hour or less.

A randomized trial of diphenhydramine as prophylaxis against metoclopramide-induced akathisia in nauseated emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Akathisia, an adverse effect observed at times after administration of parenteral metoclopramide, is an unpleasant symptom complex characterized by restlessness and agitation. Some try to limit the development of akathisia by coadministering diphenhydramine when using parenteral metoclopramide. The goal of this investigation is to determine whether concomitant administration of diphenhydramine 25 mg decreased the rate of development of akathisia after administration of 10 mg or 20 mg of intravenous metoclopramide. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, factorial design trial. Patients who presented to our emergency department with a primary or secondary chief complaint of nausea were randomized to one of the following 4 groups: (1) metoclopramide 10 mg+diphenhydramine 25 mg; (2) metoclopramide 10 mg+placebo; (3) metoclopramide 20 mg+diphenhydramine 25 mg; (4) metoclopramide 20 mg+placebo. The medications were inserted into a 50-mL bag of normal saline solution and administered as an intravenous drip during 15 minutes. Primary outcome was development of akathisia within 60 minutes of medication administration, as measured by blinded assessors using a short akathisia instrument, or use of rescue medication for treatment of akathisia by blinded clinical staff. Patients were also asked at baseline and 30 minutes later whether they felt restless. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-nine patients were randomized and 286 patients were included in the final analysis. Within 1 hour of medication administration, 17 of 143 patients randomized to diphenhydramine (12%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 8% to 18%) and 17 of 143 (12%; 95% CI 8% to 18%) randomized to placebo developed akathisia (95% CI for difference of 0%: -8% to 8%). Thirteen of 143 patients randomized to metoclopramide 10 mg (9%; 95% CI 5% to 15%) and 21 of 143 randomized to metoclopramide 20 mg (15%; 95% CI 10% to 22%) developed akathisia (95% CI for difference of 6%: -2% to 14%). In those administered prophylactic diphenhydramine, odds of akathisia relative to placebo were 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0). Odds of akathisia in those administered 20 mg of metoclopramide relative to the 10-mg dose were 1.7 (95% CI 0.8 to 3.6). Among patients who received 20 mg of metoclopramide, subjective restlessness was reported by 7 of 72 (9.7%) patients who received diphenhydramine and 14 of 71 (19.7%) patients who received placebo (95% CI for difference of 10%: -2% to 22%). CONCLUSION: Routine prophylaxis with diphenhydramine to prevent akathisia is unwarranted when intravenous metoclopramide is administered over 15 minutes. For patients administered 20 mg of metoclopramide, prophylactic diphenhydramine may decrease subjective restlessness.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of single-dose IM corticosteroid for radicular low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with radicular low back pain who present to an emergency department (ED) within 1 week of pain onset. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that a single intramuscular 160 mg dose of methylprednisolone acetate would improve pain and functional outcomes 1 month after ED discharge if the corticosteroid were administered early in disease symptomotology. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for acute, radicular low back pain, though their role in this disease process is ill-defined. To date, this medication class has only been studied in a highly selected group of patients requiring hospitalization. METHODS.: Adults between the ages of 21 and 50 who presented to an ED with low back pain and a positive straight leg raise test were enrolled. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity on an 11 point numerical rating scale 1 month after ED visit. Secondary outcomes 1 month after ED discharge included analgesic use, functional disability, and adverse medication effects. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-seven patients were approached for participation, 133 were eligible, and 82 were randomized. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The primary outcome, a comparison of the mean improvement in pain intensity, favored methylprednisolone by 1.3 (P = 0.10). Some secondary outcomes favored methylprednisolone, such as use of analgesic medication within the previous 24 hours (22% vs. 43%, 95% CI for difference of 20%: 0%-40%) and functional disability (19% vs. 49%, 95% CI for difference of 29%: 9%-49%). Adverse medication effects 1 week after ED discharge were reported by 32% of methylprednisolone and 24% of placebo patients (95% CI for difference of 9%: -12% to 30%). CONCLUSION: This study was a negative study, though there was a suggestion of benefit of methylprednisolone acetate in a population of young adults with acute radicular low back pain. Further work with a larger sample of patients is needed.

No racial or ethnic disparity in treatment of long-bone fractures.

Studies of data from the 1990s are often cited as evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in pain management. Subsequent evidence supporting this association has not been consistent. The objective was to assess whether there are racial or ethnic disparities in receipt of analgesics for pain from long-bone fractures more recently and in a different region of the United States. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 449 patients. Twenty-three percent (53/235) of Hispanic patients, 31% (41/133) of African American patients, and 26% (21/81) of white patients did not receive analgesics. Compared with white patients, the relative risk of not receiving analgesics was 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.03) for African Americans and 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.47) for Hispanic patients after controlling for age, sex, mechanism, marital status, mode of arrival, fracture reduction, fracture type, disposition, and insurance status. We did not find evidence of racial or ethnic disparities in the management of pain from long-bone fractures.

Preliminary report of a palliative care and case management project in an emergency department for chronically ill elderly patients.

The Palliative Care Service at Montefiore Medical Center (MMC) established a pilot project in the emergency department (ED) to identify chronically ill older adults in need of palliative care, homecare, and hospice services and to link such patients with these services. Two advance practice nurses conducted consultations on elderly patients who were found to have one or more "palliative care triggers" on initial screening. A standardized medical record abstraction form was developed. Service utilization and survival were evaluated using the Clinical Information Systems of MMC. Activity of daily living items were developed from the Outcome and Assessment Information Set and the Palliative Care Performance Scale (PPS). Risk factors for hospitalization and use of the ED were taken from the SIGNET model risk screening tool. Physical and emotional symptoms were evaluated using the 28-item Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale short form. Preliminary outcomes and characteristics are presented for 291 patients who completed the intake needs assessment questionnaire. Almost one third (30.9%) of the study cohort died during the project period. Most of the deaths occurred beyond the medical center (7.7% died in the medical center and 23.3% outside the medical center). Thirty percent of patients who died were enrolled on a hospice. Survival time was predicted by the presence of dyspnea, clinician prediction of death on the current hospitalization, psychosocial distress, and PPS scores. Chronically ill patients visiting an urban community ED had complex medical and psychosocial problems with limited support systems and homecare services. Significant proportions of such patients can be expected to have limited likelihood of survival. The presence of palliative homecare and hospice outreach services in the ED in urban community hospitals may provide an effective strategy for linkage of elderly patients at the end of life with otherwise underutilized services.

Effects of the August 2003 blackout on the New York City healthcare delivery system: a lesson for disaster preparedness.

BACKGROUND: On August 14, 2003, the United States and Canada suffered the largest power failure in history. We report the effects of this blackout on New York City's healthcare system by examining the following: 1) citywide 911 emergency medical service (EMS) calls and ambulance responses; and 2) emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions to one of New York City's largest hospitals. METHODS: Citywide EMS calls and ambulance responses were categorized by 911 call type. Montefiore Medical Center (MMC) ED visits and hospital admissions were categorized by diagnosis and physician-reviewed for relationship to the blackout. Comparisons were made to the week pre- and postblackout. RESULTS: Citywide EMS calls numbered 5,299 on August 14, 2003, and 5,021 on August 15, 2003, a 58% increase (p < .001). During the blackout, there were increases in "respiratory" (189%; p < .001), "cardiac" (68%; p = .016), and "other" (40%; p < .001) EMS call categories, but when expressed as a percent of daily totals, "cardiac" was no longer significant. The MMC-ED reflected this surge with only "respiratory" visits significantly increased (expressed as percent of daily total visits; p < .001). Respiratory device failure (mechanical ventilators, positive pressure breathing assist devices, nebulizers, and oxygen compressors) was responsible for the greatest burden (65 MMC-ED visits, with 37 admissions) as compared with 0 pre- and postblackout. CONCLUSIONS: The blackout dramatically increased EMS and hospital activity, with unexpected increases resulting from respiratory device failures in community-based patients. Our findings suggest that current capacity to respond to public health emergencies could be easily overwhelmed by widespread/prolonged power failure(s). Disaster preparedness planning would be greatly enhanced if fully operational, backup power systems were mandated, not only for acute care facilities, but also for community-based patients dependent on electrically powered lifesaving devices.