The emergency department trigger tool: Multicenter trigger query validation.

OBJECTIVES: We previously described derivation and validation of the emergency department trigger tool (EDTT) for adverse event (AE) detection. As the first step in our multicenter study of the tool, we validated our computerized screen for triggers against manual review, establishing our use of this automated process for selecting records to review for AEs. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of visits to three urban, academic EDs over 18 months by patients ≥ 18 years old. We reviewed 912 records: 852 with at least one of 34 triggers found by the query and 60 records with none. Two first-level reviewers per site each manually screened for triggers. After completion, computerized query results were revealed, and reviewers could revise their findings. Second-level reviewers arbitrated discrepancies. We compare automated versus manual screening by positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs), present population trigger frequencies, proportions of records triggered, and how often manual ratings were changed to conform with the query. RESULTS: Trigger frequencies ranged from common (>25%) to rare (1/1000) were comparable at U.S. sites and slightly lower at the Canadian site. Proportions of triggered records ranged from 31% to 49.4%. Overall query PPV was 95.4%; NPV was 99.2%. PPVs for individual trigger queries exceeded 90% for 28-31 triggers/site and NPVs were >90% for all but three triggers at one site. Inter-rater reliability was excellent, with disagreement on manual screening results less than 5% of the time. Overall, reviewers amended their findings 1.5% of the time when discordant with query findings, more often when the query was positive than when negative (47% vs. 23%). CONCLUSIONS: The EDTT trigger query performed very well compared to manual review. With some expected variability, trigger frequencies were similar across sites and proportions of triggered records ranged 31%-49%. This demonstrates the feasibility and generalizability of implementing the EDTT query, providing a solid foundation for testing the triggers' utility in detecting AEs.

Transdermal buprenorphine for in-hospital transition from full agonist opioids to sublingual buprenorphine: a retrospective observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with opioid use disorder may have difficulty transitioning from full-agonist opioids to sublingual buprenorphine due to the risk of precipitated opioid withdrawal. Novel strategies have been developed to facilitate this transition, including the use of micro-dosing with transdermal buprenorphine. We began using a transdermal buprenorphine transition strategy at our hospital in 2019. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study of patients treated with transdermal buprenorphine to facilitate transition from full-agonist opioids (prescribed or recreational) while hospitalized between January 2019 and December 2020. Patients were excluded if transdermal buprenorphine was given for pain, if they did not receive at least one dose of sublingual buprenorphine while hospitalized, or if their clinical course precluded analysis of their tolerance of the transition protocol. Data on the doses and timing of medications, symptoms during transition, and hospital outcomes were abstracted from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: We identified 41 cases that satisfied inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-five cases involved a transition from medically indicated opioids; of these, 8 cases involved a transition from methadone. Six cases involved a transition from illicit opioids used prior to hospital presentation. For patient transitioning from medically indicated opioids, the median milligram morphine equivalent (MME) on the day prior to transdermal buprenorphine application was 63.8 (range 0-900, IQR 153.8) and the median MME on the day of transdermal buprenorphine application was 34.5 (range 0-600, IQR 65.3). The median initial dose of sublingual buprenorphine administered was 8 mg (range 2-8mg, IQR 6mg), the median total first-day dose was 16mg (range 2-24mg, IQR 16mg), and the median total daily dose on the last day of follow-up was 16mg (range 2-24mg, IQR 16mg). In 38 cases, patients completed the transition to sublingual buprenorphine and were still taking buprenorphine at the time they left the hospital. The transition protocol was fairly well-tolerated, with 59% of cases tolerating it well and 32% tolerating it fairly. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the use of transdermal buprenorphine to facilitate transition to sublingual buprenorphine is generally well-tolerated, and may be helpful in hospitalized patients. We identified several areas for improvement in future practice by reviewing the clinical courses of patients who tolerated transition poorly. Limitations of the study include its retrospective chart review design, the lack of a standardized transition protocol during the study period, and the lack of standardized data in the medical record regarding patients' tolerance of the transition protocol. Future research should include prospective studies using a standardized protocol and structured, pre-planned assessments of opioid withdrawal during the transition period. CONCLUSION: The use of transdermal buprenorphine to facilitate induction of sublingual buprenorphine therapy in hospitalized patients with OUD was generally well-tolerated in this single-center retrospective observational study. Further prospective research is needed to demonstrate efficacy and optimize treatment protocols.