Why is naloxone prescription not more common in emergency departments? A survey of physician practices and attitudes.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency physicians (EPs) have a singular opportunity to prescribe naloxone and decrease fatal overdoses in opioid users. We surveyed EPs patterns of naloxone prescription and identified barriers to prescribing naloxone. DESIGN: Surveys were conducted at an emergency medicine conference from 2018 to 2019. We used a Likert scale for all questions and a chi-square or chi-square for trend tests to determine statistical significance. SETTING: Emergency medicine conferences and emergency departments. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one EPs were surveyed. INTERVENTION: Oral survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of naloxone prescription and EP attitude toward naloxone. RESULTS: 65.0 percent of residents and 33.3 percent of attending physicians had never prescribed naloxone to patients. 90.2 percent believed ED naloxone prescription is safe, 82.9 percent did not refrain from prescribing due to ethical concerns, and 73.2 percent believed it is not a waste of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Many resident physicians had never prescribed naloxone despite agreeing it was safe, ethical, and a productive use of resources. The time needed to counsel patients on naloxone use was a barrier to prescription, and various interventions are needed to make this practice more common.

Underreporting of alcohol use in trauma patients: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the inconsistencies between self-reported alcohol consumption and blood alcohol content (BAC) in trauma patients. We aimed to identify the incidence of positive BAC in trauma patients who reported a zero score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). We also sought to identify characteristics of individuals who were likely to negate alcohol use, yet yielded a positive BAC, to improve our ability to provide alcohol screening and healthcare to these at-risk alcohol consumers. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study from 2010 to 2018 at a university-based, level-one trauma emergency department. We identified 2581 adult trauma patients who reported a zero score on the AUDIT from the trauma registry. We collected BAC, age, gender, race, education level, mechanism of injury, language and injury severity score (ISS) from patient charts, and used descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression to analyze the data. Results: One hundred and thirty-one (5.08%) trauma patients who reported AUDIT of zero had a positive BAC. We found that being male (OR 1.53), assaulted or injured from a penetrating mechanism (OR 2.29) and having an ISS greater than 25 (OR 3.76) were independent positive predictors of trauma patients who reported an AUDIT of zero and had a positive BAC. Age (OR 0.99) was an independent negative predictor of trauma patients who reported an AUDIT of zero and had a positive BAC in this cohort. Conclusions: Inaccurate self-reporting of alcohol drinking behavior does exist in trauma patients. A composite of objective alcohol screening modalities, in addition to AUDIT, is needed to screen for alcohol use in this population. Healthcare providers should remain highly suspicious of alcohol-related injuries in individuals with the identified characteristics.

Emergency department patient experience: Same location, same provider, different scores by different survey methods.

BACKGROUND: Recent findings on emergency department (ED) patient experience surveys and concerns for the low response rates challenge the quality and reliability of the survey reports. We assessed the consistency of an ED patient experience survey report and identified the effects of patient demographics on ED patient experiences. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study at a university-based ED from July to December 2017. We obtained ED patient experience scores from an institutional version (IS) survey and the Press Ganey Associates-distributed survey (PGA). We compared top box scores from the two reports using frequency analysis and performed multivariable logistic regressions to identify associations between IS patient demographics and scores. RESULTS: We obtained 289 PGA and 234 IS responses. The IS reported significant, higher top box scores in doctor-specific patient questions compared to PGA (all four P-values < 0.01). Female, Christian and White patients were more likely to give top box scores (OR 3.07, OR 2.22 and OR 2.41, P-value < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: We found significant differences in ED patient experience scores between the IS and PGA surveys. We recommend that healthcare providers consider patient demographic variables when interpreting ED experience score reports. Multiple survey techniques and distribution methods may be adopted to best capture ED patient experiences.

Improving feedback by using first-person video during the emergency medicine clerkship.

PURPOSE: Providing feedback to students in the emergency department during their emergency medicine clerkship can be challenging due to time constraints, the logistics of direct observation, and limitations of privacy. The authors aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of first-person video, captured via Google Glass™, to enhance feedback quality in medical student education. MATERIAL AND METHODS: As a clerkship requirement, students asked patients and attending physicians to wear the Google Glass™ device to record patient encounters and patient presentations, respectively. Afterwards, students reviewed the recordings with faculty, who provided formative and summative feedback, during a private, one-on-one session. We introduced the intervention to 45, fourth-year medical students who completed their mandatory emergency medicine clerkships at a United States medical school during the 2015-2016 academic year. RESULTS: Students assessed their performances before and after the review sessions using standardized medical school evaluation forms. We compared students' self-assessment scores to faculty assessment scores in 14 categories using descriptive statistics and symmetric tests. The overall mean scores, for each of the 14 categories, ranged between 3 and 4 (out of 5) for the self-assessment forms. When evaluating the propensity of self-assessment scores toward the faculty assessment scores, we found no significant changes in all 14 categories. Although not statistically significant, one fifth of students changed perspectives of their clinical skills (history taking, performing physical exams, presenting cases, and developing differential diagnoses and plans) toward faculty assessments after reviewing the video recordings. CONCLUSION: First-person video recording still initiated the feedback process, allocated specific time and space for feedback, and possibly substituted for the direct observation procedure. Additional studies, with different outcomes and larger sample sizes, are needed to understand the effectiveness of first-person video in improving feedback quality.

Screening emergency department patients for opioid drug use: A qualitative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The opioid drug epidemic is a major public health concern and an economic burden in the United States. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the reliability and validity of screening instruments used in emergency medicine settings to detect opioid use in patients and to assess psychometric data for each screening instrument. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for articles published up to May 2018. The extracted articles were independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers. We extracted 1555 articles for initial screening and 95 articles were assessed for full-text eligibility. Six articles were extracted from the full-text assessment. RESULTS: Six instruments were identified from the final article list: Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain - Revised; Drug Abuse Screening Test; Opioid Risk Tool; Current Opioid Misuse Measure; an Emergency Medicine Providers Clinician Assessment Questionnaire; and an Emergency Provider Impression Data Collection Form. Screening instrument characteristics, and reliability and validity data were extracted from the six studies. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity between the studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of validity and reliability evidence in all six articles; and sensitivity, specificity and predictive values varied between the different instruments. These instruments cannot be validated for use in emergency medicine settings. There is no clear evidence to state which screening instruments are appropriate for use in detecting opioid use disorders in emergency medicine patients. There is a need for brief, reliable, valid and feasible opioid use screening instruments in the emergency medicine setting.