Emergency management of fever and neutropenia in children with cancer: A review.

INTRODUCTION: Care of pediatric cancer patients is increasingly being provided by physicians in community settings, including general emergency departments. Guidelines based on current evidence have standardized the care of children undergoing chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) presenting with fever and neutropenia (FN). OBJECTIVE: This narrative review evaluates the management of pediatric patients with cancer and neutropenic fever and provides comparison with the care of the adult with neutropenic fever in the emergency department. DISCUSSION: When children with cancer and FN first present for care, stratification of risk is based on a thorough history and physical examination, baseline laboratory and radiologic studies and the clinical condition of the patient, much like that for the adult patient. Prompt evaluation and initiation of intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics after cultures are drawn but before other studies are resulted is critically important and may represent a practice difference for some emergency physicians when compared with standardized adult care. Unlike adults, all high-risk and most low-risk children with FN undergoing chemotherapy require admission for parenteral antibiotics and monitoring. Oral antibiotic therapy with close, structured outpatient monitoring may be considered only for certain low-risk patients at pediatric centers equipped to pursue this treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are many similarities between the emergency approach to FN in children and adults with cancer, there are differences that every emergency physician should know. This review provides strategies to optimize the care of FN in children with cancer in all emergency practice settings.

COVID-19: A new barrier to treatment for opioid use disorder in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Start Treatment and Recover (STAR) is an emergency department (ED) program that expands access to medication for opioid use disorder by identifying patients with opioid use disorder and offering ED-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone and rapid access to outpatient treatment. We sought to determine the impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on STAR and the patients with opioid use disorder it serves. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of records comparing 2 periods: pre-pandemic (February 1, 2019-February 29, 2020) and pandemic (March 1, 2020-May 31, 2020). Variables evaluated included the number of STAR enrollments, ED census, percentage of census screening positive for opioid use disorder, number and percentage of ED overdose visits, and overdose fatalities by month. All analyses were conducted using 2-sample t tests to calculate the mean and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Comparing the pre-pandemic to the pandemic period, the mean monthly ED visits decreased from 5126.9 to 3306.7 (difference = -1820.3; 95% CI, -3406.3 to -234.2), STAR mean monthly enrollments decreased from 9.7 to 1.3 (difference = -8.4; 95% CI, -12.8 to -4.0), and statewide monthly opioid-related fatalities increased from 9.4 to 15.3 (difference = 5.9; 95% CI, 0.8 to 11.1). However, the percentage of individuals who presented to the ED with opioid use disorder or overdose remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Although overall ED visits declined during the pandemic period, the percentage of patients presenting with opioid use disorder or overdose remained constant, yet there was a dramatic decline in enrollment in ED-initiated medication for opioid use disorder and an increase in statewide monthly opioid-related fatalities. Strategies to maintain medication for opioid use disorder treatment options must be implemented for this vulnerable population during the ongoing pandemic.

Screening for Health-Related Social Needs of Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There has been increasing attention to screening for health-related social needs. However, little is known about the screening practices of emergency departments (EDs). Within New England, we seek to identify the prevalence of ED screening for health-related social needs, understand the factors associated with screening, and understand how screening patterns for health-related social needs differ from those for violence, substance use, and mental health needs. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2018 National Emergency Department Inventory-New England survey, which was administered to all 194 New England EDs during 2019. We used descriptive statistics to compare ED characteristics by screening practices, and multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with screening. RESULTS: Among the 166 (86%) responding EDs, 64 (39%) reported screening for at least one health-related social need, 160 (96%) for violence (including intimate partner violence or other violent exposures), 148 (89%) for substance use disorder, and 159 (96%) for mental health needs. EDs reported a wide range of social work resources to address identified needs, with 155 (93%) reporting any social worker availability and 41 (27%) reporting continuous availability. CONCLUSION: New England EDs are screening for health-related social needs at a markedly lower rate than for violence, substance use, and mental health needs. EDs have relatively limited resources available to address health-related social needs. We encourage research on the development of scalable solutions for identifying and addressing health-related social needs in the ED.

Change in opioid policies in New England emergency departments, 2014 vs 2018.

OBJECTIVE: The U.S. opioid epidemic persists, yet it is unclear if opioid-related emergency department (ED) policies have changed. We investigated: 1) the prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) prevention and treatment policies in New England EDs in 2018, and 2) how these policies have changed since 2014. METHODS: Using the National Emergency Department Inventory-USA, we identified and surveyed all New England EDs in 2015 and 2019 about opioid-related policies in 2014 and 2018, respectively. The surveys assessed OUD prevention policies (to use a screening tool, access the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program [PDMP], notify primary care providers, prescribe/dispense naloxone) and treatment policies (to refer to recovery resources, prescribe/dispense buprenorphine). RESULTS: Of 194 EDs open in 2018, 167 (86 %) completed the survey. Of 193 EDs open in 2018 and 2014, 147 (76 %) completed both surveys. In 2018, the most commonly-reported policy was accessing the PDMP (96 %); the least commonly-reported policy was prescribing/dispensing buprenorphine to at risk patients (37 %). EDs varied in prescribing/dispensing naloxone: 35 % of EDs offered naloxone to ≥80 % of patients at risk of opioid overdose versus 33 % of EDs to <10 % of patients at risk. Most EDs (74 %) reported prescribing/dispensing buprenorphine to <10 % of patients with OUD. Comparing 2018 to 2014, the greatest difference in policy use was in prescribing/dispensing naloxone (+55 %, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of opioid-related ED policies increased between 2014 and 2018. Continued effort is needed to understand the extent to which policy implementation translates to clinical care, and to best translate evidence-based policies into clinical practice.