An Adaptive Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Emergency Department Acupuncture for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Management.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute musculoskeletal pain in emergency department (ED) patients is frequently severe and challenging to treat with medications alone. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of adding ED acupuncture to treat acute episodes of musculoskeletal pain in the neck, back, and extremities. METHODS: In this pragmatic 2-stage adaptive open-label randomized clinical trial, Stage 1 identified whether auricular acupuncture (AA; based on the battlefield acupuncture protocol) or peripheral acupuncture (PA; needles in head, neck, and extremities only), when added to usual care was more feasible, acceptable, and efficacious in the ED. Stage 2 assessed effectiveness of the selected acupuncture intervention(s) on pain reduction compared to usual care only (UC). Licensed acupuncturists delivered AA and PA. They saw and evaluated but did not deliver acupuncture to the UC group as an attention control. All participants received UC from blinded ED providers. Primary outcome was 1-hour change in 11-point pain numeric rating scale. RESULTS: Stage 1 interim analysis found both acupuncture styles similar, so Stage 2 continued all 3 treatment arms. Among 236 participants randomized, demographics and baseline pain were comparable across groups. When compared to UC alone, reduction in pain was 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7 to 2.6) points greater for AA+UC and 1.2 (95% CI: 0.3 to 2.1) points greater for PA+UC patients. Participants in both treatment arms reported high satisfaction with acupuncture. CONCLUSION: ED acupuncture is feasible and acceptable and can reduce acute musculoskeletal pain better than UC alone.

Promotion of Influenza Vaccination in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccine uptake is low among underserved populations whose primary health care access occurs in emergency departments. We sought to determine whether implementation of two interventions would increase 30-day influenza vaccine uptake in unvaccinated patients in the emergency department. METHODS: This three-group, prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial compared two interventions with a control group in noncritically ill, adult patients in the emergency department who were not vaccinated for influenza in the current vaccine season. The unit of randomization was individual calendar days. Participants received either Intervention M (an influenza vaccine messaging platform consisting of a video, one-page flyer, and scripted message, followed by a vaccine acceptance question and provider notification if participants indicated vaccine acceptance), Intervention Q (no messaging but the vaccine acceptance question and provider notification), or control (usual care/no intervention). The primary outcome was receipt of an influenza vaccine at 30 days ascertained by electronic health record review and telephone follow-up, comparing the Intervention M group with the control group. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of 30-day vaccine uptake in Intervention Q versus control and Intervention M versus Intervention Q. RESULTS: Between October 2022 and February 2023, a total of 767 trial participants were enrolled at six emergency departments in five U.S. cities. Median age was 46 years; 353 (46%) participants were female, 274 (36%) were African American, and 158 (21%) were Latinx; 126 (16%) lacked health insurance, and 244 (32%) lacked primary care. The Intervention M, Intervention Q, and control groups had 30-day vaccine uptakes of 41%, 32%, and 15%, respectively (P<0.0001 for Intervention M vs. control). Comparing Intervention M versus Intervention Q, the adjusted difference in 30-day vaccine uptake was 8.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 17.6 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of influenza vaccine messaging platforms (video clips, printed materials, and verbal scripts) improved 30-day vaccine uptake among unvaccinated patients in the emergency department. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05836818.).

Impact of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine mandate on parental likelihood to vaccinate children: Exploring school-related concerns and vaccination decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of a hypothetical school-entry COVID-19 vaccine mandate on parental likelihood to vaccinate their child. METHODS: We collected demographics, COVID-19-related school concerns, and parental likelihood to vaccinate their child from parents of patients aged 3-16 years seen across nine pediatric Emergency Departments from 06/07/2021 to 08/13/2021. Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared pre- and post-mandate vaccination likelihood. Multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses explored associations between parental concerns with baseline and change in vaccination likelihood, respectively. RESULTS: Vaccination likelihood increased from 43% to 50% with a hypothetical vaccine mandate (Z = -6.69, p < 0.001), although most parents (63%) had no change, while 26% increased and 11% decreased their vaccination likelihood. Parent concerns about their child contracting COVID-19 was associated with greater baseline vaccination likelihood. No single school-related concern explained the increased vaccination likelihood with a mandate. CONCLUSION: Parental school-related concerns did not drive changes in likelihood to vaccinate with a mandate.

Associations Between Management Pathway and Opioid Prescriptions for Patients Entering the Emergency Department With Neck and Back Pain.

Objective: To determine associations between post-emergency department (ED) management pathways and downstream opioid prescriptions in patients seeking care for incident neck and/or back pain. Patients and Methods: We identified patients seeking first-time ED care for neck and/or back pain from January 1, 2013, through November 6, 2017. We reported demographic characteristics and opioid prescriptions across management pathways using descriptive statistics and assessed the relative risk of any opioid prescription 12 months post-ED visit among 5 different post-ED management pathways using Poisson regression adjusted for patient demographic characteristics. Results: Within 12 months after the index ED visit, 58.0% (n=10,949) were prescribed an opioid, with most patients prescribed an opioid within the first week (average daily morphine milligram equivalents of 6.8 mg (SD 9.6 mg). The morphine milligram equivalents decreased to 0.7 mg (SD 8.2 mg) by week 4 and remained consistently less than 1 mg between week 4 and 12 months. Compared with the ED to primary care provider pathway, the relative risk of opioid prescription between 7 days and 12 months after the index ED visit was similar for the ED to physical therapy pathway, higher for both the ED to hospital admission or repeat ED visit pathway (30% increase; relative risk (RR), 1.3; 95% CI, 1.17-1.44) and the ED to specialist pathway (19% increase; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.33), and lower in the ED with no follow-up visits pathway (41% decrease; RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.54-0.65). Conclusion: In general, more conservative care was associated with lower opioid prescription rates, and escalated care was associated with higher opioid prescription rates.

COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Hesitancy in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Little is known about COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. We sought to determine the uptake of booster vaccines, as well as the prevalence of and reasons for booster hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey study of adult patients at 5 safety-net hospital EDs in 4 US cities from mid-January to mid-July 2022. Participants were fluent in English or Spanish and had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine. We assessed the following parameters: (1) the prevalence of nonboosted status and reasons for not getting a booster; (2) the prevalence of booster vaccine hesitancy and reasons for hesitancy; and (3) the association of hesitancy with demographic variables. RESULTS: Of 802 participants, 373 (47%) were women, 478 (60%) were non-White, 182 (23%) lacked primary care, 110 (14%) primarily spoke Spanish, and 370 (46%) were publicly insured. Of the 771 participants who completed their primary series, 316 (41%) had not received a booster vaccine; the primary reason for nonreceipt was lack of opportunity (38%). Of the nonboosted participants, 179 (57%) expressed hesitancy, citing need for more information (25%), concerns about side effects (24%), and the belief that a booster was unnecessary after the initial series (20%). In the multivariable analysis, Asian participants were less likely to be booster hesitant than White participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.93), non-English-speaking participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than English-speaking participants (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.71), and Republican participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than Democrat participants (aOR 6.07, 95% CI 4.21 to 8.75). CONCLUSION: Of almost half of this urban ED population who had not received a COVID-19 booster vaccine, more than one third stated that lack of opportunity to receive one was the primary reason. Furthermore, more than half of the nonboosted participants were booster hesitant, with many expressing concerns or a desire for more information that may be addressed with booster vaccine education.

Barriers and Best Practices for the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Emergency Medicine.

Patient-reported outcome measures are commonly used in clinical trials and have been incorporated into routine clinical care in select specialties but have not been widely implemented in emergency medicine research and clinical care. We describe measurement-related barriers to patient-reported outcome measure use in the emergency department; administrative and practical considerations; implications of developing novel emergency medicine-specific patient-reported outcome measures; and key considerations for the use of patient-reported outcome measures in emergency medicine research and clinical care. Despite the unique barriers of the ED environment, potential solutions include the use of ED-validated patient-reported outcome measures when available; adapting existing short-form, multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures previously validated in diverse populations, ideally using computer-adapted testing; and collecting responses during anticipated wait times. With this work, we aim to inform barriers and best practices to the use of patient-reported outcome measures in emergency medicine research and clinical care to support future, more widespread implementation of patient-reported outcome measures within emergency care. The successful adoption of patient-reported outcome measures for diverse ED patient populations within the unique constraints of the acute care environment may help researchers, clinicians, and policymakers improve the quality and patient-centeredness of acute care.

Effect of COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging Platforms in Emergency Departments on Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Large segments of the US population's primary health care access occurs in emergency departments (EDs). These groups have disproportionately high COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and lower vaccine uptake. Objective: To determine whether provision of COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs increases COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 7 hospital EDs in 4 US cities from December 6, 2021, to July 28, 2022. Noncritically ill adult patients who had not previously received COVID-19 vaccines were enrolled. Interventions: A 3-pronged COVID-19 vaccine messaging platform (an English- or Spanish-language 4-minute video; a 1-page informational flyer; and a brief, scripted message from an ED physician or nurse) was delivered during patient waiting times. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary outcomes were (1) COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, assessed by survey responses in the ED, and (2) receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days, ascertained by ED confirmation of vaccination, electronic health record review, and telephone follow-up. Results: Of the 496 participants enrolled (221 during intervention weeks and 275 during control weeks), the median (IQR) age was 39 (30-54) years, 205 (41.3%) were female, 193 (38.9%) were African American, 97 (19.6%) were Latinx, and 218 (44.0%) lacked primary care physicians. More intervention group participants, compared with control participants, stated that they would accept the vaccine in the ED (57 [25.8%] vs 33 [12.0%]; adjusted difference, 11.9 [95% CI, 4.5-19.3] percentage points; number needed to treat [NNT], 8 [95% CI, 5-22]). More intervention group participants than control participants received a COVID-19 vaccine within 30 days of their ED visit (44 [20.0%] vs 24 [8.7%]; adjusted difference, 7.9 [95% CI, 1.7-14.1] percentage points; NNT, 13 [95% CI, 7-60]). The intervention group had greater outcome effect sizes than the control group in participants who lacked a primary care physician (acceptance, 38 of 101 [37.6%] vs 16 of 117 [13.7%] [P for interaction = .004]; uptake, 31 of 101 [30.7%] vs 11 of 117 [9.4%] [P for interaction = .006]), as well as in Latinx persons (acceptance, 23 of 52 [44.2%] vs 5 of 48 [10.4%] [P for interaction = .004]; uptake, 22 of 52 [42.3%] vs 4 of 48 [8.3%] [P for interaction < .001]). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cluster randomized clinical trial showed that with low NNT, implementation of COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs leads to greater vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. Broad implementation in EDs could lead to greater COVID-19 vaccine delivery to underserved populations whose primary health care access occurs in EDs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05142332.

Perspectives of COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant emergency department patients to inform messaging platforms to promote vaccine uptake.

OBJECTIVES: Efforts to promote COVID-19 vaccine acceptance must consider the critical role of the emergency department (ED) in providing health care to underserved patients. Focusing on patients who lacked primary care, we sought to elicit the perspectives of unvaccinated ED patients regarding COVID-19 vaccination concerns and potential approaches that might increase their vaccine acceptance. METHODS: We conducted this qualitative interview study from August to November 2021 at four urban EDs in San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Durham, North Carolina; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We included ED patients who were ≥18 years old, fluent in English or Spanish, had not received a COVID-19 vaccine, and did not have primary care physicians or clinics. We excluded patients who were unable to complete an interview, in police custody, under suspicion of active COVID-19 illness, or presented with a psychiatric chief complaint. We enrolled until we reached thematic saturation in relevant domains. We analyzed interview transcripts with a content analysis approach focused on identifying concerns about COVID-19 vaccines and ideas regarding the promotion of vaccine acceptance and potential trusted messengers. RESULTS: Of 65 patients enrolled, 28 (43%) identified as female, their median age was 36 years (interquartile range 29-49), and 12 (18%) interviews were conducted in Spanish. Primary concerns about COVID-19 vaccines included risk of complications, known and unknown side effects, and fear of contracting COVID-19 from vaccines. Trust played a major role for patients in deciding which sources to use for vaccine information and in engendering vaccine acceptance. Health care providers and family or friends were commonly cited as trusted messengers of information. CONCLUSIONS: We characterized concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, uncovered themes that may promote vaccine acceptance, and identified trusted messengers-primarily health care professionals. These data may inform the development of nuanced COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among underserved ED populations.

Acupuncture for acute musculoskeletal pain management in the emergency department and continuity clinic: a protocol for an adaptive pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic musculoskeletal pain causes a significant burden on health and quality of life and may result from inadequate treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain. The emergency department (ED) represents a novel setting in which to test non-pharmacological interventions early in the pain trajectory to prevent the transition from acute to chronic pain. Acupuncture is increasingly recognised as a safe, affordable and effective treatment for pain and anxiety in the clinic setting, but it has yet to be established as a primary treatment option in the ED. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic clinical trial uses a two-stage adaptive randomised design to determine the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of acupuncture initiated in the ED and continued in outpatient clinic for treating acute musculoskeletal pain. The objective of the first (treatment selection) stage is to determine the more effective style of ED-based acupuncture, auricular acupuncture or peripheral acupuncture, as compared with no acupuncture. All arms will receive usual care at the discretion of the ED provider blinded to treatment arm. The objective of the second (effectiveness confirmation) stage is to confirm the impact of the selected acupuncture arm on pain reduction. An interim analysis is planned at the end of stage 1 based on probability of being the best treatment, after which adaptations will be considered including dropping the less effective arm, sample size re-estimation and unequal treatment allocation ratio (eg, 1:2) for stage 2. Acupuncture treatments will be delivered by licensed acupuncturists in the ED and twice weekly for 1 month afterward in an outpatient clinic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been reviewed and approved by the Duke University Health System Institutional Review Board. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results will be disseminated through peer-review publications and public and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04290741.

Willingness to use nonpharmacologic treatments for musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives: Pain is an individual experience that should incorporate patient-centered care. This study seeks to incorporate patient perspectives toward expanding nonpharmacologic treatment options for pain from the emergency department (ED). Methods: In this cross-sectional study of adult patients in ED with musculoskeletal neck, back, or extremity pain, patient-reported outcomes were collected including willingness to try and prior use of various nonpharmacologic pain treatments, sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, functional outcomes, psychological distress, and nonmusculoskeletal symptoms. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression identified variables associated with (1) willingness to try and (2) having previously tried nonpharmacologic treatments. Results: Responses were analyzed from 206 adults, with a mean age of 45.4 (SD 16.4) years. The majority (90.3%) of patients in ED were willing to try at least one form of nonpharmacologic pain treatment, with 70.4%, 81.6%, and 70.9% willing to try respective subcategories of active (eg, exercise), passive (eg, heat), and psychosocial (eg, prayer) modalities. Only 56.3% of patients had previously tried any, with 35.0%, 52.4%, and 41.3% having tried active, passive, and psychosocial modalities, respectively. Patient-level factors associated with willingness included pain in upper back, more severe pain-related symptoms, and functional impairments. The factor most consistently associated with treatment use was health care provider encouragement to do so. Conclusions: Patients in ED report high willingness to try nonpharmacologic treatments for pain. Higher pain severity and interference may indicate greater willingness, while health care provider encouragement correlated with treatment use. These findings may inform future strategies to increase the introduction of nonpharmacologic treatments from the ED.

Factors Associated With Parental Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Multicenter Pediatric Emergency Department Cross-Sectional Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: During the delta surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021, we sought to identify characteristics and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in parents of pediatric emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey-based study of the parents of children aged 3 to 16 years presenting to 1 of 9 pediatric EDs from June to August 2021 to assess the parental acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines. Using multiple variable regression, we ascertained which factors were associated with parental and pediatric COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. RESULTS: Of 1,491 parents approached, 1,298 (87%) participated, of whom 50% of the parents and 27% of their children aged 12 years or older and older were vaccinated. Characteristics associated with parental COVID-19 vaccination were trust in scientists (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.65 to 7.15), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 2.66, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.58), college degree (aOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85), increasing parental age (aOR 1.80, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.22), a friend or family member hospitalized because of COVID-19 (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.72), and higher income (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.00). Characteristics associated with pediatric COVID-19 vaccination (children aged ≥12 years) or intended COVID-19 pediatric vaccination, once approved for use, (children aged <12 years) were parental trust in scientists (aOR 5.37, 95% CI 3.65 to 7.88), recent influenza vaccination (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.77), trust in the media (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.37), parental college degree (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.20), and increasing parental age (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.57). CONCLUSION: Overall COVID-19 vaccination acceptance was low. Trust in scientists had the strongest association with parental COVID-19 vaccine acceptance for both themselves and their children.

PROmotion of COvid-19 VA(X)ccination in the Emergency Department-PROCOVAXED: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We conducted in-depth interviews to characterize reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients and developed messaging platforms that may address their concerns. In this trial, we seek to determine whether provision of these COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs will be associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. METHODS: This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating our COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in seven hospital EDs (mix of academic, community, and safety-net EDs) in four US cities. Within each study site, we randomized 30 1-week periods to the intervention and 30 1-week periods to the control. Adult patients who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine are eligible with these exclusions: (1) major trauma, intoxication, altered mental status, or critical illness; (2) incarceration; (3) psychiatric chief complaint; and (4) suspicion of acute COVID-19 illness. Participants receive an orally administered Intake survey. During intervention weeks, participants then receive three COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms (4-min video, one-page informational flyer and a brief, scripted face-to-face message delivered by an ED physician or nurse); patients enrolled during non-intervention weeks do not receive these platforms. Approximately, an hour after intake surveys, participants receive a Vaccine Acceptance survey during which the primary outcome of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the ED is ascertained. The other primary outcome of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 32 days is ascertained by electronic health record review and phone follow-up. To determine whether provision of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with a 7% increase in vaccine acceptance and uptake, we will need to enroll 1290 patients. DISCUSSION: Highlighting the difficulties of trial implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic in acute care settings, our novel trial will lay the groundwork for delivery of public health interventions to vulnerable populations whose only health care access occurs in EDs. CONCLUSIONS: Toward addressing vaccine hesitancy in vulnerable populations who seek care in EDs, our cluster-RCT will determine whether implementation of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients. TRIAL STATUS: We began enrollment in December 2021 and expect to continue through 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05142332 . Registered 02 December 2021.

Facemasks: Perceptions and use in an ED population during COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Facemask use is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most surveys assessing perceptions and practices of mask use miss the most vulnerable racial, ethnic, and socio-economic populations. These same populations have suffered disproportionate impacts from the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, access, and practices of mask wearing across 15 urban emergency department (ED) populations. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of ED patients from December 2020 to March 2021 at 15 geographically diverse, safety net EDs across the US. The primary outcome was frequency of mask use outside the home and around others. Other outcome measures included having enough masks and difficulty obtaining them. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89%) agreed to participate; nine had missing data pertaining to the primary outcome, leaving 2,292 included in the final analysis. A total of 79% of respondents reported wearing masks "all of the time" and 96% reported wearing masks over half the time. Subjects with PCPs were more likely to report wearing masks over half the time compared to those without PCPs (97% vs 92%). Individuals experiencing homelessness were less likely to wear a mask over half the time compared to those who were housed (81% vs 96%). CONCLUSIONS: Study participants reported high rates of facemask use. Respondents who did not have PCPs and those who were homeless were less likely to report wearing a mask over half the time and more likely to report barriers in obtaining masks. The ED may serve a critical role in education regarding, and provision of, masks for vulnerable populations.

Use of the consolidated framework for implementation research in a mixed methods evaluation of the EQUIPPED medication safety program in four academic health system emergency departments.

Background: Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department (EQUIPPED) is an effective quality improvement program initially designed in the Veterans Administration (VA) health care system to reduce potentially inappropriate medication prescribing for adults aged 65 years and older. This study examined factors that influence implementation of EQUIPPED in EDs from four distinct, non-VA academic health systems using a convergent mixed methods design that operationalized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity of delivery served as the primary implementation outcome. Materials and methods: Four EDs implemented EQUIPPED sequentially from 2017 to 2021. Using program records, we scored each ED on a 12-point fidelity index calculated by adding the scores (1-3) for each of four components of the EQUIPPED program: provider receipt of didactic education, one-on-one academic detailing, monthly provider feedback reports, and use of order sets. We comparatively analyzed qualitative data from focus groups with each of the four implementation teams (n = 22) and data from CFIR-based surveys of ED providers (108/234, response rate of 46.2%) to identify CFIR constructs that distinguished EDs with higher vs. lower levels of implementation. Results: Overall, three sites demonstrated higher levels of implementation (scoring 8-9 of 12) and one ED exhibited a lower level (scoring 5 of 12). Two constructs distinguished between levels of implementation as measured through both quantitative and qualitative approaches: patient needs and resources, and organizational culture. Implementation climate distinguished level of implementation in the qualitative analysis only. Networks and communication, and leadership engagement distinguished level of implementation in the quantitative analysis only. Discussion: Using CFIR, we demonstrate how a range of factors influence a critical implementation outcome and build an evidence-based approach on how to prime an organizational setting, such as an academic health system ED, for successful implementation. Conclusion: This study provides insights into implementation of evidence-informed programs targeting medication safety in ED settings and serves as a potential model for how to integrate theory-based qualitative and quantitative methods in implementation studies.

United States Emergency Department Use of Medications with Pharmacogenetic Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (ED) use many medications with a range of therapeutic efficacy and potential significant side effects, and many medications have dosage adjustment recommendations based on the patient's specific genotype. How frequently medications with such pharmaco-genetic recommendations are used in United States (US) EDs has not been studied. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the 2010-2015 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). We reported the proportion of ED visits in which at least one medication with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) recommendation of Level A or B evidence was ordered. Secondary comparisons included distributions and 95% confidence intervals of age, gender, race/ethnicity, ED disposition, geographical region, immediacy, and insurance status between all ED visits and those involving a CPIC medication. RESULTS: From 165,155 entries representing 805,726,000 US ED visits in the 2010-2015 NHAMCS, 148,243,000 ED visits (18.4%) led to orders of CPIC medications. The most common CPIC medication was tramadol (6.3%). Visits involving CPIC medications had higher proportions of patients who were female, had private insurance and self-pay, and were discharged from the ED. They also involved lower proportions of patients with Medicare and Medicaid. CONCLUSION: Almost one fifth of US ED visits involve a medication with a pharmacogenetic recommendation that may impact the efficacy and toxicity for individual patients. While direct application of genotyping is still in development, it is important for emergency care providers to understand and support this technology given its potential to improve individualized, patient-centered care.

Moving toward patient-centered care in the emergency department: Patient-reported expectations, definitions of success, and importance of improvement in pain-related outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Musculoskeletal pain is a common emergency department (ED) presentation, and patient-centered care may improve quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and outcomes. Our objective was to investigate the expectations, definitions of success, and priorities of ED patients with musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics of adult ED patients (n = 210) with musculoskeletal pain. Patients completed the Patient-Centered Outcomes Questionnaire to quantify usual, desired, expected, and successful levels of pain and interference with daily activities, fatigue, and emotion from 0 (none) to 100 (worst imaginable). They also reported the importance of improvement in each domain. Cluster analysis identified subgroups by importance ratings. Patients were asked their willingness to try various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. Fully completed surveys were analyzed (n = 174). RESULTS: Most patients desired 100% resolution in each domain and defined treatment success as substantial (median = 63.2%-76.5%) reductions but expected only moderate (median = 45%-53.7%) improvements across all domains. Patients with previous pain episodes had similar desired levels but less stringent definitions of success and expectations for improvement. Cluster analysis identified three patient subgroups by importance ratings of each domain: (1) multiple domains important (n = 118) with high importance attached to all four domains, (2) pain and function important (n = 34) with high importance primarily for pain and interference with daily activities, and (3) only pain important (n = 22). Regardless of subgroup, there was a high willingness to use a variety of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. DISCUSSION: ED patients with musculoskeletal pain have expectations and goals that include addressing impairments in function, improving quality of life, and reducing pain. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that: (1) patient subgroups by outcome priorities may exist that could inform multimodal, personalized approaches from the ED and (2) patients are flexible in which treatments they are willing to try to meet their individual goals.

The Rapid Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination in Emergency Departments for Underserved Patients Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt. RESULTS: Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED. CONCLUSION: ED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.

Increasing Naloxone Prescribing in the Emergency Department Through Education and Electronic Medical Record Work-Aids.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits for opioid overdose continue to rise. Evidence-based harm reduction strategies for opioid use disorder (OUD), such as providing home naloxone, can save lives, but ED implementation remains challenging. METHODS: The researchers aimed to increase prescribing of naloxone to ED patients with OUD and opioid overdose by employing a model for improvement methodology, a multidisciplinary team, and high-reliability interventions. Monthly naloxone prescribing rates among discharged ED patients with opioid overdose and OUD-related diagnoses were tracked over time. Interventions included focused ED staff education on OUD and naloxone, and creation of electronic medical record (EMR)-based work-aids, including a naloxone Best Practice Advisory (BPA) and order set. Autoregressive interrupted time series was used to model the impact of these interventions on naloxone prescribing rates. The impact of education on ED staff confidence and perceived barriers to prescribing naloxone was measured using a published survey instrument. RESULTS: After adjusting for education events and temporal trends, ED naloxone BPA and order set implementation was associated with a significant immediate 21.1% increase in naloxone prescribing rates, which was sustained for one year. This corresponded to increased average monthly prescribing rates from 1.5% before any intervention to 28.7% afterward. ED staff education had no measurable impact on prescribing rates but was associated with increased nursing perceived importance and increased provider confidence in prescribing naloxone. CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase in naloxone prescribing rates was achieved after implementation of high-reliability EMR work-aids and staff education. Similar interventions may be key to wider ED staff engagement in harm reduction for patients with OUD.