Cash critical care time prices vary substantially by region and hospital ownership: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) patients may be billed for critical care time (current procedural terminology codes 99291 and 99292) if they receive at least 30 min of critical care services. We sought to determine the median cash (self-pay) prices for critical care time performed in the ED in the United States and assess for associations between hospital characteristics and prices. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of hospital cash prices for critical care time performed in the ED using the first 25 alphabetical states. For each hospital, we recorded hospital characteristics including state, control (nonprofit, governmental, or for-profit), size, teaching status, and system. We then searched for each hospital's cash prices for 99291 and 99292 using Turquoise and hospital websites. We determined the median price for 99291 nationally, regionally, and for large hospital systems. We performed multivariable quantile regression to assess for associations between hospital characteristics and prices for 99291. RESULTS: Of the 2629 eligible hospitals, 2245 (85.4%) and 1893 (72.0%) reported cash prices for 99291 and 99292, respectively. For 99291, the cash price ranged from $45 to $84,775 with a median of $1816 (IQR: $1039-3237). For 99292, the median price was $567 (IQR: $298-1008). On multivariable analysis, hospitals had higher cash prices for 99291 if they were located in the West, for-profit, or part of a large system. In particular, hospitals owned by Tenet Healthcare charged the most for 99291 (median $28,244). CONCLUSION: The cash prices for critical care time vary substantially based on hospital characteristics. In particular, for-profit hospitals and those in the West tend to charge the most. Given that patients who require critical care are unlikely to be able to choose the hospital to which they present, standardization of critical care time fees should be considered.

Implementation of an Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia Program in the Emergency Department of a Community Teaching Hospital.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to initiate an emergency department (ED)-based ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) program in our community teaching hospital system. Here, we present our development process and protocol. We also sought to assess the types, indications, and associated adverse event rates for the UGRA procedures in this study. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected quality assurance data from a case series of patients who underwent an UGRA procedure in the ED. In August 2020, we developed an UGRA program for our community teaching hospital and its 2 affiliated freestanding EDs. For quality assurance purposes, we tracked all UGRA procedures performed in the ED, and we specifically assessed adverse events using structured follow-up. We subsequently obtained approval from our institutional review board to perform chart reviews of the patients in our dataset to abstract additional data and formally perform a research study. We determined the frequency with which different UGRA procedures were performed, and we calculated the adverse event rate. RESULTS: Between August 24, 2020, and July 15, 2022, a total of 18 different sonographers performed and documented 229 UGRA procedures on 206 unique patients. This included 28 different types of procedures. Follow-up after disposition was successful in 82.0% of patients. In 2 cases, the patient reported no pain relief at all from the procedure, but no patients reported complications related to the procedure. CONCLUSION: We successfully initiated a robust ED-based UGRA program in our community teaching hospital system. Among patients with successful follow-up, no adverse events were identified.

Low CERVICAL-2 plane block, a proposed regional anesthetic technique for acute cholecystitis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute cholecystitis is a painful inflammatory disease of the gallbladder. The Low Cervical-2 Plane Block is a retrolaminar block that targets the C3, C4, and C5 spinal nerves, which provide sensory innervation to the gallbladder, in order to potentially provide analgesia to patients with pain associated with acute cholecystitis. METHODS: In this brief report, a softly embalmed cadaver was injected with a dye mixture bilaterally. RESULTS: Subsequent cadaveric dissection revealed spread of the injectate deep to the prevertebral fascia to the C4 lamina on the right side and the C5 lamina on the left side. Also, diffusion of the anesthetic over the ligamenta flava could spread inferiorly and laterally to the spinal nerve roots of C3-C5 and thus potentially target the direct sensory innervation of the gallbladder. CONCLUSION: The Low Cervical-2 Plane Block is a potentially effective modality for treating intractable pain from acute cholecystitis. However, further cadaveric injections are needed to confirm the exact extent of spread of anesthetic. Clinical application of the Low Cervical-2 Plane Block in patients with acute cholecystitis is needed to establish the efficacy of this theoretical technique.

The Implementation of a Prehospital Whole Blood Transfusion Program and Early Results.

INTRODUCTION: In far-forward combat situations, the military challenged dogma by using whole blood transfusions (WBTs) rather than component-based therapy. More recently, some trauma centers have initiated WBT programs with reported success. There are a few Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems that are using WBTs, but the vast majority are not. Given the increasing data supporting the use of WBTs in the prehospital setting, more EMS systems are likely to consider or begin WBT programs in the future. OBJECTIVE: A prehospital WBT program was recently implemented in Palm Beach County, Florida (USA). This report will discuss how the program was implemented, the obstacles faced, and the initial results. METHODS: This report describes the process by which a prehospital WBT program was implemented by Palm Beach County Fire Rescue and the outcomes of the initial case series of patients who received WBTs in this system. Efforts to initiate the prehospital WBT program for this system began in 2018. The program had several obstacles to overcome, with one of the major obstacles being the legal team's perception of potential liability that might occur with a new prehospital blood transfusion program. This obstacle was overcome through education of local elected officials regarding the latest scientific evidence in favor of prehospital WBTs with potential life-saving benefits to the community. After moving past this hurdle, the program went live on July 6, 2022. The initial indications for transfusion of cold-stored, low titer, leukoreduced O+ whole blood in the prehospital setting included traumatic injuries with systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 70mmHg or SBP < 90mmHg plus heart rate (HR) > 110 beats per minute. FINDINGS: From the date of onset through December 31, 2022, Palm Beach County Fire Rescue transported a total of 881 trauma activation patients, with 20 (2.3%) receiving WBT. Overall, nine (45%) of the patients who had received WBTs so far remain alive. No adverse events related to transfusion were identified following WBT administration. A total of 18 units of whole blood reached expiration of the unit's shelf life prior to transfusion. CONCLUSION: Despite a number of logistical and legal obstacles, Palm Beach County Fire Rescue successfully implemented a prehospital WBT program. Other EMS systems that are considering a prehospital WBT program should review the included protocol and the barriers to implementation that were faced.

A cross-sectional analysis of Yelp and Google reviews of hospitals in the United States.

Objective: Patient satisfaction is now an important metric in emergency medicine, but the means by which satisfaction is assessed is evolving. We sought to examine hospital ratings on Google and Yelp as compared to those on Medicare's Care Compare (CC) and to determine if certain hospital characteristics are associated with crowdsourced ratings. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of hospital ratings on Google and Yelp as compared to those on CC using data collected between July 8 and August 2, 2021. For each hospital, we recorded the CC ratings, Yelp ratings, Google ratings, and each hospital's characteristics. Using multivariable linear regression, we assessed for associations between hospital characteristics and crowdsourced ratings. We calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients for CC ratings versus crowdsourced ratings. Results: Among 3000 analyzed hospitals, the median hospital ratings on Yelp and Google were 2.5 stars (interquartile ratio [IQR], 2-3) and 3 stars (IQR, 2.7-3.5), respectively. The median number of Yelp and Google reviews per hospital was 13 and 150, respectively. The correlation coefficients for Yelp and Google ratings with CC's overall star ratings were 0.19 and 0.20, respectively. For Yelp and Google ratings with CC's patient survey ratings, correlation coefficients were 0.26 and 0.22, respectively. On multivariable analysis, critical access hospitals had 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.30) more Google stars and hospitals in the West had 0.12 (95% CI, 0.05-0.18) more Google stars than references standard hospitals. Conclusion: Patients use Google more frequently than Yelp to review hospitals. Median UnS hospital ratings on Yelp and Google are 2.5 and 3 stars, respectively. Crowdsourced reviews weakly correlate with CC ratings. Critical access hospitals and hospitals in the West have higher crowdsourced ratings.

Assessment of Trauma Team Activation Fees by US Region and Hospital Ownership.

Importance: Trauma centers must be readily equipped to handle a variety of life-threatening injuries and consequently may charge a fee for the activation of their trauma team. Regional and hospital-related variations in trauma activation fees across the US have not been formally assessed. Objective: To evaluate the variability of trauma activation fees from trauma centers across the US and examine whether certain hospital characteristics are associated with higher activation fees. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the American College of Surgeons website to identify all trauma centers in the US that were listed as verified from inception of the verification database through March 4, 2022 (N = 546). Five military hospitals were excluded, and trauma activation fees could not be found for 18 trauma centers; the remaining 523 hospitals were included in the analysis. Each hospital's publicly available chargemaster (a comprehensive list of a hospital's products, procedures, and services) was searched to obtain its trauma activation fees. Two levels of trauma activation fees were recorded: tier 1 (full activation) and tier 2 (partial activation). Hospital-specific data were obtained from the American Hospital Association website. All data were collected between January 2 and March 11, 2022. Linear regression analyses were performed to assess potential associations between hospital characteristics (type of control [for profit, government, church, or other nonprofit], hospital system [owner], number of staffed beds, and academic vs nonacademic status) and trauma activation fees. Main Outcomes and Measures: Median and mean trauma activation fees nationally and stratified by location, hospital system, and other hospital characteristics. Results: Of 523 trauma centers included in the analysis, most were located in the Midwest (180 centers) and West (129 centers). There were 176 adult level I trauma centers and 200 adult level II trauma centers; 69 centers had for-profit status, and 415 were academic. Overall, the median (IQR) tier 1 trauma activation fee was $9500 ($5601-$17 805), and the mean (SD) tier 1 trauma activation fee was $13 349 ($11 034); these fees ranged from $1000 to $61 734. Median (IQR) trauma activation fees were highest in the West ($18 099 [$10 741-$$27 607]), especially in California, where the median (IQR) activation fee was $24 057 ($15 979-$33 618). Trauma activation fees were also higher at for-profit hospitals, most of which were owned by the HCA Healthcare system, which had 43 trauma centers and a median (IQR) tier 1 trauma activation fee of $29 999 ($20 196-$37 589). Conclusions And Relevance: In this study, trauma activation fees varied widely among hospitals in the US. Regional variation in these fees was substantial, with hospitals in the West charging substantially more than those in other locations. In addition, for-profit hospitals charged more than other types of hospitals. These findings suggest that some patients with serious traumatic injuries will incur disproportionately high trauma activation fees depending on the trauma center to which they are brought. Therefore, standardization of trauma activation fees is warranted.

Discrepancies in Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity in COVID-19 Patients Receiving Casirivimab and Imdevimab.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported increased rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations and deaths in Black and Hispanic individuals. One contributing factor to this may be a difference in access to treatment. We thus sought to compare the outcomes of Black, non-Hispanic patients and Hispanic patients with White, non-Hispanic individuals using a group of patients with COVID-19 who received casirivimab/imdevimab. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from a previously published retrospective chart review of patients who received casirivimab/imdevimab for COVID-19 between December 9, 2020 and August 20, 2021, when they were treated at one of three facilities within a single hospital system. We compared the baseline characteristics (including age, sex, body mass index, duration of symptoms, and vaccination status) and outcomes of Black, non-Hispanic patients and Hispanic patients with those of White, non-Hispanic patients. Our primary outcome was the odds of a return visit to the emergency department (ED) within 28 days of treatment as assessed by multivariate logistic regression. We also assessed the rates of return visits to the ED for symptoms caused by COVID-19, hospitalizations, and hospitalizations from hypoxia. RESULTS: In total, 1318 patients received casirivimab/imdevimab for COVID-19 at the three study facilities. Of these, 410 (31.1%) identified themselves as White and non-Hispanic, 88 (6.7%) as Black and non-Hispanic, and 736 (55.8%) as Hispanic. Vaccination rates at the time of treatment were as follows: Black, non-Hispanic 10.2%, Hispanic 13.6%, and White, non-Hispanic 21.5%. On multivariate analysis, the odds of return visits to the ED within 28 days were higher for Black, non-Hispanic patients and Hispanic patients as compared with White, non-Hispanic patients, with odds ratios of 2.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-5.5, P = 0.003) and of 2.3 (95% CI 1.5-3.6, P = 0.0002), respectively. For hospitalizations caused by hypoxia within 28 days of treatment, the adjusted odds ratio for Black, non-Hispanic patients was 3.4 (95% CI 1.1-10.5, P = 0.03) as compared with White, non-Hispanic patients. There were no other statistically significant differences among groups in regard to subsequent hospitalizations within 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: Black, non-Hispanic patients and Hispanic patients are more likely to make a return visit to the ED within 28 days after casirivimab/imdevimab treatment for COVID-19 as compared with White, non-Hispanic patients. This holds true even when adjusting for higher vaccination rates among White, non-Hispanic individuals.

Ultrasound-Guided Trigger Point Injections for the Treatment of Neck and Back Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) with neck or back pain, which can be difficult to treat. We sought to compare ultrasound-guided trigger point injection (TPI) to standard medications for patients with neck or back pain. METHODS: We performed a single-center, open label, randomized controlled trial on ED patients with neck or back pain from myofascial pain syndrome comparing ultrasound-guided TPIs to those who received the combination of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and a muscle relaxant (MR). The primary outcome of this study was the reduction in mean pain score at the time of ED disposition. RESULTS: In total, we analyzed 196 patients. At the time of ED disposition, patients in the TPI group had a mean reduction in their pain scores of 45.0 mm as compared to 49.9 mm in the NSAID plus MR group (difference: 4.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.0 to 12.7], P = .22). At the first reassessment, patients in the TPI group had greater pain reduction by 10.7 mm (95% CI 3.1 to 18.4). The rate of rescue therapy use was higher in the NSAID plus MR group (difference: 17.5% [95% CI 4.4 to 36.2]). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in pain reduction at the time of ED disposition between patients randomized to the ultrasound-guided TPI group as compared to those who received an NSAID plus a MR. However, patients in the TPI group had greater pain reduction at the time of first reassessment and lower rates of rescue therapy use.

The use of additional imaging studies after biliary point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the test characteristics of biliary point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and to assess the usefulness of obtaining radiology ultrasound (RUS) or cholescintigraphy (HIDA) after biliary POCUS. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of emergency department patients who underwent biliary POCUS between May 4, 2018 and November 28, 2021. To be included, patients had to have at least one of the following confirmatory evaluations (considered in this order): surgery, HIDA, RUS, or abdominal CT scan. When a discrepancy existed between the POCUS and the RUS or HIDA, they were compared to a higher criterion standard (if available). RESULTS: Using 348 patients who had a confirmatory evaluation after biliary POCUS, we found the sensitivity and specificity of biliary POCUS for gallstones to be 97.0% (95% CI 92.6 to 99.2%) and 99.5% (95% CI 97.3 to 100%), respectively. For cholecystitis, the sensitivity and specificity were 83.8% (95% CI 72.9 to 91.6%) and 98.6% (95% CI 96.4 to 99.6%), respectively. RUS and POCUS were concordant in 72 (81.8%) of 88 cases in which the patient had both studies while HIDA and POCUS were concordant in 24 (70.6%) of 34 cases. POCUS was deemed correct in at least 50% of discrepant cases with RUS and at least 30% of discrepant cases with HIDA. CONCLUSION: Biliary POCUS has excellent sensitivity and specificity for cholelithiasis; it has lower sensitivity for cholecystitis, but the specificity remains high. Performing a confirmatory RUS or cholescintigraphy after a positive biliary POCUS adds little value, but additional imaging may be useful when POCUS is negative for cholecystitis.

Intra-Articular Lidocaine versus Procedural Sedation for Shoulder Dislocation Reduction: A Randomized Trial.

Introduction: Two common ways of providing anesthesia for shoulder dislocation reductions in the emergency department (ED) are intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) injections and procedural sedation (PS). We sought to compare PS with propofol or etomidate to IAL for shoulder dislocation reductions in the ED. Methods: This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18-70 years with anterior shoulder dislocations who presented to a single ED. We randomized patients to either PS or IAL for their shoulder dislocation reduction. The primary outcome measure was ED length of stay (LOS). Secondarily, we assessed patient satisfaction and the number of attempts required for successful reduction. Results: We identified 60 patients who met the criteria for enrollment, and were able to enroll 43. We randomized 23 patients to IAL and 20 to PS. In the IAL group, the mean ED LOS was 133 min as compared to 124 min for the PS group (difference 9 min [95% confidence interval (CI)-22-41], P = 0.54). Patients in the IAL group required an average of 1.9 reduction attempts as compared to 1.2 in the PS group (difference of 0.7 [95% CI 0.2-1.2]). The mean patient satisfaction scores were similar at 9.7 and 9.8 for the IAL and PS groups, respectively. Conclusions: This study lacked a sufficient sample size to detect small differences but found no statistically significant difference in mean ED LOS or patient satisfaction for patients who received IAL as compared to PS. Patients in the PS group required fewer attempts for successful reduction.

A Retrospective Analysis of Serum D-Dimer Levels for the Exclusion of Acute Aortic Dissection.

Purpose: Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a highly fatal disorder if not promptly diagnosed. Some international studies have suggested that serum d-dimer levels may be used to exclude AAD, but data are limited. We sought to confirm that d-dimer levels are elevated in American patients with AAD. Additionally, we sought to estimate the test characteristics of the d-dimer for AAD. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the Hospital Corporation of America database who arrived at the hospital between 2015 and 2019. We queried the database to find patients who had a diagnosis of AAD or (nonspecific) chest pain, and who also had a d-dimer performed within 24 hours of arrival at the hospital. The median d-dimer was compared in those diagnosed with AAD versus chest pain. We estimated the test characteristics of d-dimer for AAD at the standard cutoff value of 500 ng/mL. Results: In total, 48,902 patients met the criteria for analysis, including 572 with AAD and 48,330 with chest pain. The median d-dimers were 2455 ng/mL and 385 ng/mL for the AAD and chest pain groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Using a cutoff of 500 ng/mL, the sensitivity of the d-dimer was 91.1% and the specificity was 71.4%. Conclusion: Serum d-dimer values are higher in patients with AAD than in those with nonspecific chest pain. At the standard cutoff of 500 ng/mL, the serum d-dimer has a high sensitivity for AAD, but not high enough that d-dimer levels alone can be used in isolation to exclude AAD.

Assessment and Management of Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP) in the Emergency Department: Current Perspectives.

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is characterized by a platelet count less than 100 × 10^9/L without anemia or leukopenia. Patients with ITP may be asymptomatic, or they may have mild bleeding like petechiae, purpura, or epistaxis. In rare cases, they may present to the emergency department (ED) with life-threatening bleeding as a result of their thrombocytopenia. The emergency physician should thus be prepared to diagnose ITP and treat the bleeding that can result from it. The diagnosis of ITP requires excluding secondary causes of thrombocytopenia, and in the ED, the bare minimum workup for ITP includes a complete blood count and a peripheral blood smear. The peripheral blood smear should show a small number of large platelets with normal morphology, and there should not be an increased number of schistocytes. Many patients with ITP require no emergent treatment. However, if a patient with suspected ITP presents to the ED with critical hemorrhage, the emergency physician should initiate treatment with a platelet transfusion, corticosteroids, and intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) as soon as possible. For less severe bleeding, platelet transfusions are not recommended, and the treatment consists of corticosteroids by themselves or in conjunction with IVIG.

A Comparison of SARS-COV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Therapies in High-Risk Patients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Disease at a Single Academic Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are recombinant neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that decrease viral load in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and can decrease hospitalizations. Few data exist comparing these two therapies. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19 who met criteria for monoclonal antibody therapy. METHODS: We performed a single-center, open-label, prospective study in adult ED patients with confirmed COVID-19 and high-risk features for hospitalization. Enrolled patients received bamlanivimab or casirivimab/imdevimab, depending on the day of the week that they arrived. We observed patients for post-infusion-related reactions and contacted them on days 5, 10, and 30. The primary outcome was the number of hospitalizations through day 30. In addition, we compared groups with regard to return visits to the ED, symptom improvement, antibody-induced adverse events, and deaths. RESULTS: Between December 17, 2020 and January 17, 2021, 321 patients completed the study. We found no statistically significant difference in the rate of subsequent hospitalization between groups (bamlanivimab: n = 18 of 201 [8.9%] and casirivimab/imdevimab: n = 13 of 120 [10.8%]; p = 0.57). In addition, we found no statistically significant differences between groups regarding return visits to the ED or symptom improvement. One patient had a possible adverse reaction to the treatment, and 1 patient died. Both of these events occurred in the bamlanivimab group. CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant differences in rates of subsequent hospitalization or other outcomes for ED patients with COVID-19 when they received bamlanivimab as opposed to casirivimab/imdevimab. Adverse events were rare in both groups.

Ending the Pandemic: Are Rapid COVID-19 Tests a Step Forward or Back?

Some experts have promoted the use of rapid testing for COVID-19. However, with the current technologies available, continuing to replace laboratory-based, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests with rapid (point-of-care) tests may lead to an increased number of false negative tests. Moreover, the more rapid dissemination of false negative results that can occur with the use of rapid tests for COVID-19 may lead to increased spread of the novel coronavirus if patients do not understand the concept of false negative tests. One means of combatting this would be to tell patients who have a "negative" rapid COVID-19 test that their test result was "indeterminate."