Emergency Center Curbside Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that has placed a significant burden on health care systems in the United States. Michigan has been one of the top states affected by COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We describe the emergency center curbside testing procedure implemented at Beaumont Hospital, a large hospital in Royal Oak, MI, and aim to evaluate its safety and efficiency. METHODS: Anticipating a surge in patients requiring testing, Beaumont Health implemented curbside testing, operated by a multidisciplinary team of health care workers, including physicians, advanced practice providers, residents, nurses, technicians, and registration staff. We report on the following outcomes over a period of 26 days (March 12, 2020, to April 6, 2020): time to medical decision, time spent documenting electronic medical records, overall screening time, and emergency center return evaluations. RESULTS: In total, 2782 patients received curbside services. A nasopharyngeal swab was performed on 1176 patients (41%), out of whom 348 (29.6%) tested positive. The median time for the entire process (from registration to discharge) was 28 minutes (IQR 17-44). The median time to final medical decision was 15 minutes (IQR 8-27). The median time from medical decision to discharge was 9 minutes (IQR 5-16). Only 257 patients (9.2%) returned to the emergency center for an evaluation within 7 or more days, of whom 64 were admitted to the hospital, 11 remained admitted, and 4 expired. CONCLUSIONS: Our curbside testing model encourages the incorporation of this model at other high-volume facilities during an infectious disease pandemic.

Opioid ordering habits in the acute emergency department visit: Before and after implementation of departmental prescribing guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: At our emergency department (ED), opioid prescribing guidelines were implemented in September 2016. The opioid prescribing guidelines were adopted and revised from collective efforts and advocacy of the Michigan College of Emergency Physicians for ED-led opioid stewardship. We performed a retrospective before and after study to determine if opioid prescribing guidelines would change the use of intravenous opioids per patient and the morphine equivalent units (MEU) per patient in a suburban academic ED. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care level 1 trauma center with an annual ED volume of ≈ 130,000 visits. All intravenous orders of fentanyl, morphine, and hydromorphone for adult patients from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2017, were tabulated. A 3-month (August 2016-October 2016) washout period was used. Poisson and ordinary linear regression analyses were employed to evaluate any difference in number of intravenous opioids ordered before and after adoption of the guidelines. Within our opioid prescribing guidelines was also guidance for oral opioid orders within the ED and oral opioid prescriptions for discharge, although these elements were not included in this investigation. RESULTS: A total of 108,327 intravenous opioid orders were included in the final analysis. After adoption of the opioid prescribing guidelines, the expected number of intravenous opioids ordered dropped by 3.1% (eß, 0.969; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.779-1.209), and there was an additional decrease of 0.1% per month (eß, 0.999; 95% CI, 0.990-1.010). After the adoption of opioid prescribing guidelines, the average MEU dropped by 0.3 mg (95% CI, -0.47 to -0.13), and there was decrease of 0.01 mg per month (95% CI, -0.02 to -0.004). CONCLUSION: After the adoption of opioid prescribing guidelines, our analysis suggests that opioid prescribing guidelines are associated with clinically small but statistically significant changes in MEU ordered in ED. We cannot determine if this represented a continued trend of decreased opioid use or associated with the opioid prescribing guidelines.

Tamsulosin does not increase 1-week passage rate of ureteral stones in ED patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to determine if tamsulosin initiated in the emergency department (ED) decreases the time to ureteral stone passage at 1 week or time to pain resolution, compared to placebo. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of tamsulosin vs placebo in ED patients with ureterolithiasis on computed tomography. Patients were identified and enrolled between April 2007 and February 2009 and were randomized to either 0.4 mg of tamsulosin or placebo for 1 week. We contacted participants using a telephone survey on post-ED visit days 1, 2, 3, and 7. The primary outcome was time to stone passage, with secondary outcomes being maximum pain score and amount of pain medication required. RESULTS: Of the 127 patients enrolled during this study, 15 were lost to follow-up, and 12 required surgical interventions before the 7-day mark, leaving 100 patients for analysis. Of the 100 patients, 53 received tamsulosin and 47 received placebo. There was no difference between groups in percentage of male, mean age, initial serum creatinine, average stone size, stone location, and history of prior stone. The probability that the patient did not pass a stone at 7 days was not different between tamsulosin and placebo, 62.1% (95% confidence interval, 49.1%-75.1%) vs 54.4% (95% confidence interval, 40.3%-68.6%; P = .58). There was no significant difference in the high pain score (P = .12) or hydrocodone/acetaminophen intake (P = .76) between treatment groups at any of the time points. CONCLUSION: This study reveals no difference in the proportion of stone passage or high pain score and pain medication utilization at 7 days between tamsulosin and placebo.