Search

Racism in emergency medicine (EM) health care research is pervasive but often underrecognized. To understand the current state of research on racism in EM health care research, we developed a consensus working group on this topic, which concluded a year of work with a consensus-building session as part of the overall Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) consensus conference on diversity, equity, and inclusion: Developing a Research Agenda for Addressing Racism in Emergency Medicine, held on May 10, 2022. In this article, we report the development, details of preconference methods and preliminary results, and the final consensus of the Healthcare Research Working Group. Preconference work based on literature review and expert opinion identified 13 potential priority research questions that were refined through an iterative process to a list of 10. During the conference, the subgroup used consensus methodology and a consensus dollar (contingent valuation) approach to prioritize research questions. The subgroup identified three research gaps: remedies for racial bias and systematic racism, biases and heuristics in clinical care, and racism in study design, and we derived a list of six high-priority research questions for our specialty.

An overwhelming body of evidence points to an inextricable link between race and health disparities in the United States. Although race is best understood as a social construct, its role in health outcomes has historically been attributed to increasingly debunked theories of underlying biological and genetic differences across races. Recently, growing calls for health equity and social justice have raised awareness of the impact of implicit bias and structural racism on social determinants of health, healthcare quality, and ultimately, health outcomes. This more nuanced recognition of the role of race in health disparities has, in turn, facilitated introspective racial disparities research, root cause analyses, and changes in practice within the medical community. Examining the complex interplay between race, social determinants of health, and health outcomes allows systems of health to create mechanisms for checks and balances that mitigate unfair and avoidable health inequalities.As one of the specialties most intertwined with social medicine, emergency medicine (EM) is ideally positioned to address racism in medicine, develop health equity metrics, monitor disparities in clinical performance data, identify research gaps, implement processes and policies to eliminate racial health inequities, and promote anti-racist ideals as advocates for structural change. In this critical review our aim was to (a) provide a synopsis of racial disparities across a broad scope of clinical pathology interests addressed in emergency departments—communicable diseases, non-communicable conditions, and injuries—and (b) through a race-conscious analysis, develop EM practice recommendations for advancing a culture of equity with the potential for measurable impact on healthcare quality and health outcomes.

Introduction: Clinical trial recruitment and retention of individuals who use substances are challenging in any setting and can be particularly difficult in emergency department (ED) settings. This article discusses strategies for optimizing recruitment and retention in substance use research conducted in EDs.Methods: Screening, Motivational Assessment, Referral, and Treatment in Emergency Departments (SMART-ED) was a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) protocol designed to assess the impact of a brief intervention with individuals screening positive for moderate to severe problems related to use of non-alcohol, non-nicotine drugs. We implemented a multisite, randomized clinical trial at six academic EDs in the United States and leveraged a variety of methods to successfully recruit and retain study participants throughout the 12-month study course. Recruitment and retention success is attributed to appropriate site selection, leveraging technology, and gathering adequate contact information from participants at their initial study visit.Results: The SMART-ED recruited 1,285 adult ED patients and attained follow-up rates of 88%, 86%, and 81% at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up periods, respectively. Participant retention protocols and practices were key tools in this longitudinal study that required continuous monitoring, innovation, and adaptation to ensure strategies remained culturally sensitive and context appropriate through the duration of the study.Conclusion: Tailored strategies that consider the demographic characteristics and region of recruitment and retention are necessary for ED-based longitudinal studies involving patients with substance use disorders.

Introduction: Black and Hispanic patients are frequently assigned lower acuity triage scores than White patients. This can lead to longer wait times, less aggressive care, and worse outcomes. In this study we aimed to determine whether these effects are more pronounced for patients with subjective complaints.Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis for all adult visits between 2016-2019 at an urban academic emergency department (ED) with acuity-based pods. We determined rates of initial high-acuity triage both across all patients and among the subset located in the high-acuity pod at time of disposition (either through initial assignment or subsequent up-triage). Analysis was performed for common chief complaints categorized as subjective (chest pain, dyspnea, any pain); observed (altered mental status); numeric (fever, hypotension); or protocolized (stroke, ST-elevation myocardial infarction). We constructed logistic regression models to control for age, race, gender, method of arrival, and final disposition.Results: We analyzed 297,355 adult ED visits. Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to be triaged to high-acuity beds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.79 for Black, and aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.84-0.90 for Hispanic patients). This effect was more pronounced for those with subjective chief complaints, including chest pain (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73-0.79 for Black and 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-0.99 for Hispanic patients), dyspnea (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92 and 0.8, 95% CI 0.72-0.99), and any pain (aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92 and 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97, respectively). Among patients in the high-acuity pod at time of disposition, Black and Hispanic patients were disproportionately triaged to lower acuity pods on arrival (aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.33-1.63 for Black and aOR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15-1.40 for Hispanic adults), with significant differences observed only for subjective chief complaints. No differences were observed for observed, objective

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, as society struggled with increasing disease burden, economic hardships, and with disease morbidity and mortality, governments and institutions began implementing stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders to help stop the spread of the virus. Although well-intentioned, one unintended adverse consequence was an increase in violence, abuse, and neglect.Methods: We reviewed the literature on the effect the pandemic had on domestic violence, child and elder abuse and neglect, human trafficking, and gun violence. In this paper we explore common themes and causes of this violence and offer suggestions to help mitigate risk during ongoing and future pandemics. Just as these forms of violence primarily target at-risk, vulnerable populations, so did pandemic-related violence target marginalized populations including women, children, Blacks, and those with lower socioeconomic status. This became, and remains, a public health crisis within a crisis. In early 2021, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Public Health and Injury Committee was tasked with reviewing the impact the pandemic had on violence and abuse as the result of a resolution passed at the 2020 ACEP Council meeting.Conclusion: Measures meant to help control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic had many unintended consequences and placed people at risk for violence. Emergency departments (ED), although stressed and strained during the pandemic, remain a safety net for survivors of violence. As we move out of this pandemic, hospitals and EDs need to focus on steps that can be taken to ensure they preserve and expand their ability to assist victims should another pandemic or global health crisis develop.Keywords: pandemic; elder abuse; human trafficking; COVID-19; gun violence; intimate partner violence; child abuse; fear.

Learning Objectives: To deliver evidence-based health equity education in resident and faculty conference using case-based content to highlight examples of inequity in emergency medicine practice.Background: While GME requires formal education on health disparities, there is a lack of standardized education in emergency medicine (EM) residency curricula on these topics. Educational Objectives: 1. To evaluate health disparities in an evidence-based manner using anonymized ED-specific case examples 2. To increase structural competency regarding the systems that perpetuate these disparities 3. To equip EM providers with actionable steps to mitigate these disparities 4. To develop a curriculum that can be replicated by other programs. Curricular Design: The Health Equity Curriculum (HEC) was developed using Kern’s curricular design framework. A consensus group of residents and faculty members met over 4 months to identify curriculum gaps. Patient and provider-centered topics were identified through informal needs assessment of the trainees with the plan to deliver them over two years. To maximize reach, the 30-minute HEC lectures were integrated into the monthly morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference stressing how healthcare disparities lead to measurable adverse outcomes. This approach was modeled after a surgical M&M series at the University of Michigan with proven success. Interested residents prepared lectures for each topic using a standard format. Faculty experts were recruited to mentor each resident. The concept was introduced at faculty meetings and residency conference with the support of departmental and residency leadership. Monthly lectures were launched in February 2021, with topics presented in a stepwise fashion to allow each lecture to build upon previous ones. Feedback was collected after 6 months via anonymous surveys sent by email. Impact/Effectiveness: Our HEC contributes to GME by providing an evidence-based series of lectu

Learning Objectives: To deliver evidence-based health equity education in resident and faculty conference using case-based content to highlight examples of inequity in emergency medicine practice.Background: While GME requires formal education on health disparities, there is a lack of standardized education in emergency medicine (EM) residency curricula on these topics. Educational Objectives: 1. To evaluate health disparities in an evidence-based manner using anonymized ED-specific case examples 2. To increase structural competency regarding the systems that perpetuate these disparities 3. To equip EM providers with actionable steps to mitigate these disparities 4. To develop a curriculum that can be replicated by other programs. Curricular Design: The Health Equity Curriculum (HEC) was developed using Kern’s curricular design framework. A consensus group of residents and faculty members met over 4 months to identify curriculum gaps. Patient and provider-centered topics were identified through informal needs assessment of the trainees with the plan to deliver them over two years. To maximize reach, the 30-minute HEC lectures were integrated into the monthly morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference stressing how healthcare disparities lead to measurable adverse outcomes. This approach was modeled after a surgical M&M series at the University of Michigan with proven success. Interested residents prepared lectures for each topic using a standard format. Faculty experts were recruited to mentor each resident. The concept was introduced at faculty meetings and residency conference with the support of departmental and residency leadership. Monthly lectures were launched in February 2021, with topics presented in a stepwise fashion to allow each lecture to build upon previous ones. Feedback was collected after 6 months via anonymous surveys sent by email. Impact/Effectiveness: Our HEC contributes to GME by providing an evidence-based series of lectu

Introduction: The role of gender in interprofessional interactions is poorly understood. This mixed-methods study explored perceptions of gender bias in interactions between emergency medicine (EM) residents and nurses.Methods: We analyzed qualitative interviews and focus groups with residents and nurses from two hospitals for dominant themes. An electronic survey, developed through an inductive-deductive approach informed by qualitative data, was administered to EM residents and nurses. Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics and between-group comparisons. Results: Six nurses and 14 residents participated in interviews and focus groups. Key qualitative themes included gender differences in interprofessional communication, specific examples of, and responses to, gender bias. Female nurses perceived female residents as more approachable and collaborative than male residents, while female residents perceived nurses’ questions as doubting their clinical judgment. A total of 134 individuals (32%) completed the survey. Females more frequently perceived interprofessional gender bias (mean 30.9; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 25.6, 36.2; vs 17.6 [95% CI, 10.3, 24.9). Residents reported witnessing interprofessional gender bias more frequently than nurses (58.7 (95% CI, 48.6, 68.7 vs 23.9 (95% CI, 19.4, 28.4). Residents reported that gender bias affected job satisfaction (P = 0.002), patient care (P = 0.001), wellness (P = 0.003), burnout (P = 0.002), and self-doubt (P = 0.017) more frequently than nurses. Conclusion: Perceived interprofessional gender bias negatively impacts personal wellbeing and workplace satisfaction, particularly among female residents. Key institutional stakeholders including residency, nursing, and hospital leadership should invest the resources necessary to develop and integrate evidence-based strategies to improve interprofessional relationships that will ultimately enhance residency training, work climate, and patient care.

Introduction: The role of gender in interprofessional interactions is poorly understood. This mixed-methods study explored perceptions of gender bias in interactions between emergency medicine (EM) residents and nurses.Methods: We analyzed qualitative interviews and focus groups with residents and nurses from two hospitals for dominant themes. An electronic survey, developed through an inductive-deductive approach informed by qualitative data, was administered to EM residents and nurses. Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics and between-group comparisons. Results: Six nurses and 14 residents participated in interviews and focus groups. Key qualitative themes included gender differences in interprofessional communication, specific examples of, and responses to, gender bias. Female nurses perceived female residents as more approachable and collaborative than male residents, while female residents perceived nurses’ questions as doubting their clinical judgment. A total of 134 individuals (32%) completed the survey. Females more frequently perceived interprofessional gender bias (mean 30.9; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 25.6, 36.2; vs 17.6 [95% CI, 10.3, 24.9). Residents reported witnessing interprofessional gender bias more frequently than nurses (58.7 (95% CI, 48.6, 68.7 vs 23.9 (95% CI, 19.4, 28.4). Residents reported that gender bias affected job satisfaction (P = 0.002), patient care (P = 0.001), wellness (P = 0.003), burnout (P = 0.002), and self-doubt (P = 0.017) more frequently than nurses. Conclusion: Perceived interprofessional gender bias negatively impacts personal wellbeing and workplace satisfaction, particularly among female residents. Key institutional stakeholders including residency, nursing, and hospital leadership should invest the resources necessary to develop and integrate evidence-based strategies to improve interprofessional relationships that will ultimately enhance residency training, work climate, and patient care.

ObjectiveGiven the variability in crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated the racial and ethnic differences in prioritization between 3 different CSC triage policies (New York, Massachusetts, USA), as well as a first come, first served (FCFS) approach, using a single patient population.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with intensive care unit (ICU) needs at a tertiary hospital on its peak COVID-19 ICU census day. We used medical record data to calculate a CSC score under 3 criteria: New York, Massachusetts with full comorbidity list (Massachusetts1), and MA with a modified comorbidity list (Massachusetts2). The CSC scores, as well as FCFS, determined which patients were eligible to receive critical care under 2 scarcity scenarios: 50 versus 100 ICU bed capacity. We assessed the association between race/ethnicity and eligibility for critical care with logistic regression.ResultsOf 211 patients, 139 (66%) were male, 95 (45%) were Hispanic, 23 (11%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 69 (33%) were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic patients had the fewest comorbidities. Assuming a 50 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had significantly higher odds of receiving critical care services across all CSC guidelines, except FCFS. However, assuming a 100 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had greater odds of receiving critical care services under only the Massachusetts2 guidelines (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.85).ConclusionVarying CSC guidelines differentially affect racial and ethnic minority groups with regard to risk stratification. The equity implications of CSC guidelines require thorough investigation before CSC guidelines are implemented.

Introduction: Emergency clinicians on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic experience a range of emotions including anxiety, fear, and grief. Debriefing can help clinicians process these emotions, but the coronavirus pandemic makes it difficult to create a physically and psychologically safe space in the emergency department (ED) to perform this intervention. In response, we piloted a video-based debriefing program to support emergency clinician well-being. We report the details of our program and results of our evaluation of its acceptability and perceived value to emergency clinicians during the pandemic.Methods: ED attending physicians, resident physicians, and non-physician practitioners (NPP) at our quaternary-care academic medical center were invited to participate in role-based, weekly one-hour facilitated debriefings using Zoom. ED attendings with experience in debriefing led each session and used an explorative approach that focused on empathy and normalizing reactions. At the end of the pilot, we distributed to participants an anonymous 10-point survey that included multiple-answer questions and visual analogue scales.Results: We completed 18 debriefings with 68 unique participants (29 attending physicians, 6 resident physicians, and 33 NPPs. A total of 76% of participants responded to our survey and 77% of respondents participated in at least two debriefings. Emergency clinicians reported that the most common reasons to participate in the debriefings were “to enhance my sense of community and connection” (81%) followed by “to support colleagues” (75%). Debriefing with members of the same role group (92%) and the Zoom platform (81%) were considered to be helpful aspects of the debriefing structure. Although emergency clinicians found these sessions to be useful (78.8 +/- 17.6) interquartile range: 73-89), NPPs were less comfortable speaking up (58.5 +/- 23.6) than attending physicians (77.8 +/- 25.0) (p = < 0.008).Conclusion: Emergency clinicians p

Introduction: Emergency clinicians on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic experience a range of emotions including anxiety, fear, and grief. Debriefing can help clinicians process these emotions, but the coronavirus pandemic makes it difficult to create a physically and psychologically safe space in the emergency department (ED) to perform this intervention. In response, we piloted a video-based debriefing program to support emergency clinician well-being. We report the details of our program and results of our evaluation of its acceptability and perceived value to emergency clinicians during the pandemic.Methods: ED attending physicians, resident physicians, and non-physician practitioners (NPP) at our quaternary-care academic medical center were invited to participate in role-based, weekly one-hour facilitated debriefings using Zoom. ED attendings with experience in debriefing led each session and used an explorative approach that focused on empathy and normalizing reactions. At the end of the pilot, we distributed to participants an anonymous 10-point survey that included multiple-answer questions and visual analogue scales.Results: We completed 18 debriefings with 68 unique participants (29 attending physicians, 6 resident physicians, and 33 NPPs. A total of 76% of participants responded to our survey and 77% of respondents participated in at least two debriefings. Emergency clinicians reported that the most common reasons to participate in the debriefings were “to enhance my sense of community and connection” (81%) followed by “to support colleagues” (75%). Debriefing with members of the same role group (92%) and the Zoom platform (81%) were considered to be helpful aspects of the debriefing structure. Although emergency clinicians found these sessions to be useful (78.8 +/- 17.6) interquartile range: 73-89), NPPs were less comfortable speaking up (58.5 +/- 23.6) than attending physicians (77.8 +/- 25.0) (p = < 0.008).Conclusion: Emergency clinicians p

Introduction: Alcohol use disorders (AUD) place a significant burden on individuals and society. Theemergency department (ED) offers a unique opportunity to address AUD with brief screening tools andearly intervention. We undertook a systematic review of the effectiveness of ED brief interventions forpatients identified through screening who are at risk for AUD, and the effectiveness of these interventionsat reducing alcohol intake and preventing alcohol-related injuries.Methods: We conducted systematic electronic database searches to include randomized controlled trialsof AUD screening, brief intervention, referral, and treatment (SBIRT), from January 1966 to April 2016. Twoauthors graded and abstracted data from each included paper.Results: We found 35 articles that had direct relevance to the ED with enrolled patients ranging from12 to 70 years of age. Multiple alcohol screening tools were used to identify patients at risk for AUD.Brief intervention (BI) and brief motivational intervention (BMI) strategies were compared to a controlintervention or usual care. Thirteen studies enrolling a total of 5,261 participants reported significantdifferences between control and intervention groups in their main alcohol-outcome criteria of number ofdrink days and number of units per drink day. Sixteen studies showed a reduction of alcohol consumptionin both the control and intervention groups; of those, seven studies did not identify a significant interventioneffect for the main outcome criteria, but nine observed some significant differences between BI and controlconditions for specific subgroups (i.e., adolescents and adolescents with prior history of drinking anddriving; women 22 years old or younger; low or moderate drinkers); or secondary outcome criteria (e.g.reduction in driving while intoxicated).Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence of targeted use of BI/BMI in the ED showed a small reduction inalcohol use in low or moderate drinkers, a reduction in the negative cons

Introduction: Alcohol use disorders (AUD) place a significant burden on individuals and society. Theemergency department (ED) offers a unique opportunity to address AUD with brief screening tools andearly intervention. We undertook a systematic review of the effectiveness of ED brief interventions forpatients identified through screening who are at risk for AUD, and the effectiveness of these interventionsat reducing alcohol intake and preventing alcohol-related injuries.Methods: We conducted systematic electronic database searches to include randomized controlled trialsof AUD screening, brief intervention, referral, and treatment (SBIRT), from January 1966 to April 2016. Twoauthors graded and abstracted data from each included paper.Results: We found 35 articles that had direct relevance to the ED with enrolled patients ranging from12 to 70 years of age. Multiple alcohol screening tools were used to identify patients at risk for AUD.Brief intervention (BI) and brief motivational intervention (BMI) strategies were compared to a controlintervention or usual care. Thirteen studies enrolling a total of 5,261 participants reported significantdifferences between control and intervention groups in their main alcohol-outcome criteria of number ofdrink days and number of units per drink day. Sixteen studies showed a reduction of alcohol consumptionin both the control and intervention groups; of those, seven studies did not identify a significant interventioneffect for the main outcome criteria, but nine observed some significant differences between BI and controlconditions for specific subgroups (i.e., adolescents and adolescents with prior history of drinking anddriving; women 22 years old or younger; low or moderate drinkers); or secondary outcome criteria (e.g.reduction in driving while intoxicated).Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence of targeted use of BI/BMI in the ED showed a small reduction inalcohol use in low or moderate drinkers, a reduction in the negative cons

Objectives: The commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), including sex trafficking of minors, is considered a severe form of abuse and violence against minors. We use a public health lens to examine perceptions regarding the context and process of CSEC and sex trafficking of minors in the Boston area, the response of the health care sector, and opportunities to improve the health and well-being of exploited/trafficked minors. Methods: Using case study methodology, we conducted 22 semi-structured qualitative interviews of 25 key anti-trafficking stakeholders active in the Boston area. Results: Key informants identified CSEC involving boys, girls, and transgender youth as a local problem. Many social and economic factors facilitate sex trafficking, including child sexual abuse, domicile instability, and financial insecurity. The health needs of commercially sexually exploited minors are numerous, and local health care services are variable, particularly in the realm of mental health. Various factors function as barriers to a greater health care sector response, including low awareness of CSEC and sex trafficking of minors among health care providers. Gaps in CSEC prevention and response include early recognition of signs and symptoms, CSEC-knowledgeable trauma-sensitive health care services, and emergency shelter. Conclusions: CSEC, including sex trafficking of minors, is a recognized occurrence in the Boston area that requires a multidisciplinary response across multiple sectors. A more robust health care system response in coordination with other active stakeholders could help enhance the overall impact of local anti-CSEC/trafficking efforts. Increased health trainings, policy advocacy, and the use of multidisciplinary teams may be an effective way to partner across sectors and ensure wraparound services for exploited youth.