Comparison of Length of Stay Between Children Admitted to an Observation Versus Inpatient Unit.

OBJECTIVES: Many children who require hospitalization are ideal candidates for care in pediatric observation units (POUs) rather than inpatient pediatric units. Differences in outcomes between children cared for in these 2 practice settings have not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, children aged 0 to 18 years admitted to a POU at a community hospital or inpatient unit at a children's hospital were enrolled if they met specific clinical criteria. Information regarding the current illness, medical history, and hospital course was collected. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was analyzed as the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included conversion to inpatient care for the POU group and return to pediatric emergency department within 7 days. Subgroup analysis was conducted on children presenting with respiratory illnesses. Propensity scores were used as a predictor in the final model. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one admissions, 92 to POU and 89 to an inpatient unit, were analyzed. Mean LOS was 24.4 hours (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.7-27.1) for observation and 43.2 hours (95% CI, 37.8-48.6) for inpatient (P < 0.01). Among the 126 children admitted for respiratory illnesses, the mean LOS was 32.3 hours (95% CI, 26.0-38.6) for observation and 48.1 hours (95% CI, 42.2-54.0) for inpatient (P < 0.01). Survival analysis demonstrated a 1.61 (95% CI, 1.07-2.42) fold shorter time to discharge among children admitted to observation compared with inpatient (P = 0.02) and a 1.70 (95% CI, 1.07-2.71) fold shorter time to discharge from observation compared with inpatient for respiratory illnesses (P = 0.03). Within 7 days of discharge, 2 (2%) patients from the observation group and 1 (1%) from the inpatient group returned to the pediatric emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that POU may provide the means toward efficient care for children in community settings with illnesses requiring brief hospitalizations. Future work including prospective investigations is needed to ascertain the generalizability of these findings.

URINE TOXICOLOGY PROFILES OF EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT PATIENTS WITH UNTREATED OPIOID USE DISORDER: A MULTI-SITE VIEW.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose deaths in 2021 were the highest ever, driven by fentanyl and polysubstance use. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to characterize drug use, assessed by urine drug screens (UDSs), in patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) presenting to 28 emergency departments (EDs) nationally and by region. METHODS: We analyzed UDSs from patients enrolled in the CTN-0099 ED-INNOVATION (Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine Validation) trial between July 12, 2020 and March 9, 2022. Participants were adult ED patients with OUD not engaged in addiction treatment with a UDS positive for an opioid, but negative for methadone. Sites were divided into "East" and "West" regions. RESULTS: A UDS was available for all 925 enrolled participants, 543 from East and 382 from West. Fentanyl was in 702 specimens (76%) (n = 485 [89%] East vs. n = 217 [57%] West; p < 0.01) and was the only opioid in 269 (29%). After fentanyl, the most common opioids were morphine (presumably heroin; n = 411 [44%]; n = 192 [35%] East vs. n = 219 [57%] West; p < 0.01) and buprenorphine (n = 329 [36%]; n = 186 [35%] East vs. n = 143 [37%] West; p = 0.32). The most common drugs found with opioids were stimulants (n = 545 [59%]), tetrahydrocannabinol (n = 417 [45%]), and benzodiazepines (n = 151 [16%]). Amphetamine-type stimulants were more common in West (n = 209 [55%] vs. East (n = 125 [23%]). Cocaine was more common in East (n = 223 [41%]) vs. West (n = 82 [21%]). The presence of multiple drugs was common (n = 759 [82%]). CONCLUSIONS: Most participants had UDS specimens containing multiple substances; a high proportion had fentanyl, stimulants, and buprenorphine. Regional differences were noted. Given the increased risk of death with fentanyl and polysubstance use, ED providers should be providing risk reduction counseling, treatment, and referral.

Early emergency department experience with 7-day extended-release injectable buprenorphine for opioid use disorder.

As the opioid overdose epidemic escalates, there is an urgent need for treatment innovations to address both patient and clinician barriers when initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department (ED). These include insurance status, logistical challenges such as the ability to fill a prescription and transportation, concerns regarding diversion, and availability of urgent referral sites. Extended-release buprenorphine (XR-BUP) preparations such as a new 7-day injectable could potentially solve some of these issues. We describe the pharmacokinetics of a new 7-day XR-BUP formulation and the feasibility of its use in the ED setting. We report our early experiences with this medication (investigational drug CAM2038), in the context of an ongoing clinical trial entitled Emergency Department-Initiated BUP VAlidaTION (ED INNOVATION), to inform emergency clinicians as they consider incorporating this medication into their practice. The medication was approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2018 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2023 for those 18 years or older for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD). We report our experience with approximately 800 ED patients with OUD who received the 7-day XR-BUP preparation in the ED between June 2020 and July 2023.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network Meeting Report: Advancing Emergency Department Initiation of Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.

Opioid use disorder and opioid overdose deaths are a major public health crisis, yet highly effective evidence-based treatments are available that reduce morbidity and mortality. One such treatment, buprenorphine, can be initiated in the emergency department (ED). Despite evidence of efficacy and effectiveness for ED-initiated buprenorphine, universal uptake remains elusive. On November 15 and 16, 2021, the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network convened a meeting of partners, experts, and federal officers to identify research priorities and knowledge gaps for ED-initiated buprenorphine. Meeting participants identified research and knowledge gaps in 8 categories, including ED staff and peer-based interventions; out-of-hospital buprenorphine initiation; buprenorphine dosing and formulations; linkage to care; strategies for scaling ED-initiated buprenorphine; the effect of ancillary technology-based interventions; quality measures; and economic considerations. Additional research and implementation strategies are needed to enhance adoption into standard emergency care and improve patient outcomes.

Perspectives on and experiences of emergency department-initiated buprenorphine among clinical pharmacists: A multi-site qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical pharmacists are well positioned to enhance efforts to promote emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Among clinical pharmacists in urban EDs, we sought to characterize barriers and facilitators for ED-initiated buprenorphine to inform future implementation efforts and enhance access to this highly effective OUD treatment. METHODS: This study was conducted as a part of Project ED Health (CTN-0069, NCT03023930), a multisite effectiveness-implementation study aimed at promoting ED-initiated buprenorphine that was conducted between April 2017 and July 2020. Data collection and analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework to assess perspectives on the relationship between 3 elements: evidence for buprenorphine, the ED context, and facilitation needs to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. The study used an iterative coding process to identify overlapping themes within these 3 domains. RESULTS: The study conducted eight focus groups/interviews across four geographically disparate EDs with 15 pharmacist participants. We identified six themes. Themes related to evidence included (1) varied levels of comfort and experience among pharmacists with ED-initiated buprenorphine that increased over time and (2) a perception that patients with OUD have unique challenges that require guidance to optimize ED care. With regards to context, clinical pharmacists identified: (3) their ability to clarify scope of ED care in the context of unique pharmacology, formulations, and regulations of buprenorphine to ED staff, and that (4) their presence promotes successful program implementation and quality improvement. Participants identified facilitation needs including: (5) training to promote practice change and (6) ways to leverage already existing pharmacy resources outside of the ED. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacists play a unique and critical role in the efforts to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. We identified 6 themes that can inform pharmacist-specific interventions that could aid in the successful implementation of this practice.

Implementation Facilitation to Promote Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused. Objective: To evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022. Exposure: A 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed. Results: A total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

Study protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of a peer navigator intervention for emergency department patients with nonfatal opioid overdose.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) after a nonfatal opioid-involved overdose are at high risk for future overdose and death. Responding to this risk, the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene operates the Relay initiative, which dispatches trained peer "Wellness Advocates" to meet patients in the ED after a suspected opioid-involved overdose and follow them for up to 90 days to provide support, education, referrals to treatment, and other resources using a harm reduction framework. METHODS: In this article, we describe the protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of Relay. Study participants are recruited from four NYC EDs and are randomized to receive the Relay intervention or site-directed care (the control arm). Outcomes are assessed through survey questionnaires conducted at 1-, 3-, and 6-months after the baseline visit, as well as through administrative health data. The primary outcome is the number of opioid-related adverse events, including any opioid-involved overdose or any other substance use-related ED visit, in the 12 months post-baseline. Secondary and exploratory outcomes will also be analyzed, as well as hypothesized mediators and moderators of Relay program effectiveness. CONCLUSION: We present the protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of a peer-delivered OD prevention intervention in EDs. We describe how the study was designed to minimize disruption to routine ED operations, and how the study was implemented and adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT04317053].

Relationship of hepatitis C risk to hepatitis C test acceptance among adult patients participating in an ED hepatitis C screening programme.

BACKGROUND: It is possible that adult ED patients consider their hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk factor history when deciding whether to accept HCV screening. To help address this question, we examined whether self-reporting any HCV risk was more common among ED patients who agreed than who declined HCV screening. Among ED patients who agreed to HCV screening, we also assessed if self-reporting any HCV risk was more common among those whose HCV antibody (Ab) and HCV viral load (VL) test results were positive. METHODS: This study was conducted among adult patients ≥18 years old participating in a universal, ED-based HCV screening programme in New York City between 22 January 2019 and 9 April 2020. Participants were surveyed about their HCV risk factors. Differences in the frequencies of self-reporting any HCV risk were compared according to HCV screening acceptance and by HCV Ab and VL status. RESULTS: Of the 4658 ED patients surveyed, 2846 (61%) accepted and 1812 (39%) declined HCV screening. Among these participants, 38% reported at least one HCV risk factor, most commonly injection drug use. Self-reporting any HCV risk was not more common among those who accepted versus declined HCV screening (40% vs 37%, p<0.7) but was more common among those with HCV Ab positive versus negative test results (36% vs 6%, p<0.001) and HCV VL positive versus negative results (95% vs 5%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: HCV risk factors were self-reported by more than one-third of ED patients but were not more commonly present among those who accepted HCV screening.

Missed Opportunities for HIV and Hepatitis C Screening Among Emergency Department Patients With Untreated Opioid Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency of emergency department (ED) HIV and hepatitis C (HCV) screening in a high-risk cohort of ED patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: This analysis used data from a prospective, observational study of English-speaking adults with untreated OUD enrolled from April 2017 to December 2018 in 4 urban, academic EDs. Two cohorts were defined for this analysis by self-reported negative/unknown status for HIV (cohort 1) and HCV (cohort 2). Sites featured structured screening programs throughout the entire enrollment period for HIV and during at least part of the enrollment period for HCV. We calculated the proportion tested for HIV and HCV during the study enrollment ED visit. RESULTS: Among 394 evaluated ED patients, 328 of 394 (83.2%) were not tested for HIV or HCV and 244 of 393 (62.1%) lacked a usual medical care provider. In cohort 1, 375 reported negative or unknown HIV status; 59/375 (15.7%) overall and 33/218 (15.1%) of those reporting recent injection drug use were tested for HIV. In cohort 2, 231 reported negative of unknown HCV status; 22/231 (9.5%) overall and 9/98 (9.2%) of those reporting recent injection drug use were tested for HCV. The proportion tested by the ED ranged from 3% to 25% for HIV and 4% to 32% for HCV across study sites. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency department HIV and HCV screening remains infrequent among patients with untreated OUD, including those who inject drugs, even in EDs committed to screening. Targeted HIV/HCV screening should be considered as an adjunct strategy until the ideal of universal screening is more fully achieved.

Models for Implementing Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine With Referral for Ongoing Medication Treatment at Emergency Department Discharge in Diverse Academic Centers.

There has been a substantial rise in the number of publications and training opportunities on the care and treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder over the past several years. The American College of Emergency Physicians recently published recommendations for providing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder, but barriers to implementing this clinical practice remain. We describe the models for implementing ED-initiated buprenorphine at 4 diverse urban, academic medical centers across the country as part of a federally funded effort termed "Project ED Health." These 4 sites successfully implemented unique ED-initiated buprenorphine programs as part of a comparison of implementation facilitation to traditional educational dissemination on the uptake of ED-initiated buprenorphine. Each site describes the elements central to the ED process, including screening, treatment initiation, referral, and follow-up, while harnessing organizational characteristics, including ED culture. Finally, we discuss common facilitators to program success, including information technology and electronic medical record integration, hospital-level support, strong connections with outpatient partners, and quality improvement processes.

Emergency Department Utilization Patterns in Patients with Opioid-Related Emergency Department Visits.

Opioid-related Emergency Department (ED) visits have surged over the past decade. There is limited data on ED utilization patterns of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). An improved understanding of utilization may underscore missed opportunities for screening, intervention and referral.This was a retrospective 2:1 matched case-control study conducted at a single urban ED. Cases were patients with an opioid-related index ED visit from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018. Controls were patients with a non-opioid related index ED visit from June 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019. The primary outcome was the association between the number of ED visits in the 24-month period surrounding the index visit (12 months prior and 12 months following) and having an opioid-related index ED visit.There were a total of 224 cases. One or more visits preceding (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.17, 2.26) and following the index visit (OR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.91, 3.78) was significantly associated with case status. Following adjustment, a higher number of visits preceding (aOR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.43) and following the index visit (aOR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.23, 1.57) remained significantly associated with case status.Patients with an opioid-related index ED visit had significantly higher rates of ED utilization 12 months before and after the index visit when compared to a matched control population. These findings suggest that there are significant opportunities for ED intervention and referral to treatment both prior to and following an opioid-related ED visit in this patient population.

Perspectives About Emergency Department Care Encounters Among Adults With Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency departments (EDs) are increasingly initiating treatment for patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) and linking them to ongoing addiction care. To our knowledge, patient perspectives related to their ED visit have not been characterized and may influence their access to and interest in OUD treatment. Objective: To assess the experiences and perspectives regarding ED-initiated health care and OUD treatment among US patients with untreated OUD seen in the ED. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study, conducted as part of 2 studies (Project ED Health and ED-CONNECT), included individuals with untreated OUD who were recruited during an ED visit in EDs at 4 urban academic centers, 1 public safety net hospital, and 1 rural critical access hospital in 5 disparate US regions. Focus groups were conducted between June 2018 and January 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data collection and thematic analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) implementation science framework with evidence (perspectives on ED care), context (ED), and facilitation (what is needed to promote change) elements. Results: A total of 31 individuals (mean [SD] age, 43.4 [11.0] years) participated in 6 focus groups. Twenty participants (64.5%) identified as male and most 13 (41.9%) as White; 17 (54.8%) reported being unemployed. Themes related to evidence included patients' experience of stigma and perceived minimization of their pain and medical problems by ED staff. Themes about context included the ED not being seen as a source of OUD treatment initiation and patient readiness to initiate treatment being multifaceted, time sensitive, and related to internal and external patient factors. Themes related to facilitation of improved care of patients with OUD seen in the ED included a need for on-demand treatment and ED staff training. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, patients with OUD reported feeling stigmatized and minimized when accessing care in the ED and identified several opportunities to improve care. The findings suggest that strategies to address stigma, acknowledge and treat pain, and provide ED staff training should be implemented to improve ED care for patients with OUD and enhance access to life-saving treatment.

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine protocols: A national evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder is an evidence-based practice, but limited data exist on BUP initiation practices in real-world settings. We sought to characterize protocols for BUP initiation among a geographically diverse sample of emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: In December 2020, we reviewed prestudy clinical BUP initiation protocols from all EDs participating in CTN0099 Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION (ED-INNOVATION). We abstracted information on processes for identification of treatment-eligible patients, BUP administration, and discharge care. RESULTS: All participating ED-INNOVATION sites across 22 states submitted protocols; 31 protocols were analyzed. Identification of treatment-eligible patients: Most EDs 22 (71%) relied on clinician judgment to determine appropriateness of BUP treatment with only 7 (23%) requiring decision support tools or diagnosis checklists. Before BUP initiation, 27 (87%) protocols required a documented Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score; 4 (13%) required a clinical diagnosis of withdrawal with optional COWS score. Twenty-seven (87%) recommended a minimum COWS score of 8 for ED-initiated BUP. BUP administration: Initial BUP dose ranged from 2-16 mg (mode = 4). For continued withdrawal symptoms, 27 (87%) protocols recommended an interval of 30-60 minutes between first and second BUP dose. Total BUP dose in the ED ranged from 8 to 32 mg. Discharge care: Twenty-eight (90%) protocols recommended a BUP prescription (mode 16 mg daily) at discharge. Naloxone prescription and/or provision was suggested in 23 (74%) protocols. CONCLUSIONS: In this geographically diverse sample of EDs, protocols for ED-initiated BUP differed between sites. Future work should evaluate the association between this variation and patient outcomes.

The design and conduct of a randomized clinical trial comparing emergency department initiation of sublingual versus a 7-day extended-release injection formulation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: Project ED Innovation.

ED-INNOVATION (Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION) is a Hybrid Type-1 Implementation-Effectiveness multisite emergency department (ED) study funded through The Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM Initiative, or NIH HEAL InitiativeSM efforts to increase access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). We use components of Implementation Facilitation to enhance adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) at approximately 30 sites. Subsequently we compare the effectiveness of two BUP formulations, sublingual (SL-BUP) and 7-day extended-release injectable (CAM2038, XR-BUP) in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of approximately 2000 patients with OUD on the primary outcome of engagement in formal addiction treatment at 7 days. Secondary outcomes assessed at 7 and 30 days include self-reported opioid use, craving and satisfaction, health service utilization, overdose events, and engagement in formal addiction treatment (30 days) and receipt of medications for OUD (at 7 and 30 days). A sample size of 1000 per group provides 90% power at the 2-sided significance level to detect a difference in the primary outcome of 8% and accommodates a 15% dropout rate. We will compare the cost effectiveness of the two treatments on the primary outcome using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We will also conduct an ancillary study in approximately 75 patients experiencing minimal to no opioid withdrawal who will undergo XR-BUP initiation. If the ancillary study demonstrates safety, we will expand the eligibility criteria for the RCT to include individuals with minimal to no opioid withdrawal. The results of these studies will inform implementation of ED-initiated BUP in diverse EDs which has the potential to improve treatment access.

Conceptualizing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with opioid use disorder: an application of the social ecological model.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unparalleled societal disruption with wide ranging effects on individual liberties, the economy, and physical and mental health. While no social strata or population has been spared, the pandemic has posed unique and poorly characterized challenges for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). Given the pandemic's broad effects, it is helpful to organize the risks posed to specific populations using theoretical models. These models can guide scientific inquiry, interventions, and public policy. Models also provide a visual image of the interplay of individual-, network-, community-, structural-, and pandemic-level factors that can lead to increased risks of infection and associated morbidity and mortality for individuals and populations. Such models are not unidirectional, in that actions of individuals, networks, communities and structural changes can also affect overall disease incidence and prevalence. In this commentary, we describe how the social ecological model (SEM) may be applied to describe the theoretical effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). This model can provide a necessary framework to systematically guide time-sensitive research and implementation of individual-, community-, and policy-level interventions to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals with OUD.

Health-Related Social Needs Among Emergency Department Patients with HIV.

Little research has examined the health-related social needs of emergency department (ED) patients who have HIV. We surveyed a random sample of public hospital ED patients and compared the social needs of patients with and without HIV. Social needs were high among all ED patients, but patients with HIV reported significantly higher levels of food insecurity (65.0% vs. 50.3%, p = 0.01) and homelessness or living doubled up (33.8% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.01) than other patients. Our findings suggest the importance of assessing social needs in ED-based interventions for patients with HIV.

RESUMEN: Pocas investigaciones han examinado las necesidades sociales relacionadas con la salud de los pacientes del departamento de emergencias que tienen VIH. Encuestamos una muestra aleatoria de pacientes del departamento de emergencias de un hospital público y comparamos las necesidades sociales de los pacientes con y sin VIH. Las necesidades sociales eran altas entre todos los pacientes, pero los pacientes con VIH informaron niveles significativamente más altos de inseguridad alimentaria (65.0% vs. 50.3%, p = 0.01) y estado sin hogar o compartir una habitación (33.8% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.01) que otros pacientes. Nuestros resultados sugieren la importancia de evaluar las necesidades sociales en las intervenciones en departamentos de emergencias para pacientes con VIH.

Emergency department patients with untreated opioid use disorder: A comparison of those seeking versus not seeking referral to substance use treatment.

BACKGROUND Little is known regarding the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of emergency department (ED) patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) and the relationship of those characteristics with whether they were seeking a referral to substance use treatment at the time of their ED visit. METHODS Using data collected from 2/2017-1/2019 from participants enrolled in Project ED Health (CTN-0069), we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of patients with untreated moderate to severe OUD presenting to one of four EDs in Baltimore, New York City, Cincinnati, or Seattle. Sociodemographic and clinical correlates, and International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes related to opioid withdrawal, injection-related infection, other substance use, overdose, and OUD of those seeking and not seeking a referral to substance use treatment on presentation were compared using univariate analyses. RESULTS Among 394 study participants, 15.2 % (60/394) came to the ED seeking a referral to substance use treatment. No differences in age, gender, education, health insurance status or housing stability were detected between those seeking and not seeking referral to substance use treatment. Those seeking a referral to substance use treatment were less likely to have urine toxicology testing positive for amphetamine [17 % (10/60) vs 31 % (104/334), p = 0.023] and methamphetamine [23 % (14/60) vs 40 % (132/334), p = 0.017] compared to those not seeking a referral. CONCLUSION Most patients with untreated OUD seen in the EDs were not seeking a referral to substance use treatment. Active identification, treatment initiation, and coding may improve ED efforts to address untreated OUD.