Search

Background and Objectives: We created a multitude of initiatives that were in line with the principles of the BETA (Best Practices in the Evaluation and Treatment of Agitation) guidelines to determine if these initiatives would reduce the physical assault rate by patients on emergency medicine (EM) residents., Methods: We conducted three cross-sectional surveys of our EM residents (PGY-1 to -3) to determine the incidence of physical assaults by agitated patients at a large county hospital emergency department. These were primarily anonymous REDCap surveys and were administered at the following intervals: (1) pre-BETA initiative implementation, (2) approximately 12 months after implementation, and (3) 5 years postimplementation. Unfortunately, the in-person deescalation, self-defense, and simulation training were canceled 2 years prior to the last survey due to COVID-19. The second survey only looked at the incidence of physical assaults during the prior 6 months whereas the other two surveys evaluated the incidence of physical assaults since starting residency., Results: The survey response rates for the three REDCap surveys were 76% (50/66), 80% (53/66), and 71% (49/69), respectively. The percentage of EM residents who were physically assaulted per survey period were as follows: preimplementation cumulative assaults 28% (14/50), 12 months after implementation for 1 full academic year 11.3% (6/53), and postimplementation cumulative assaults during residency 5 years later 30.6% (15/49). The two independent-samples proportions tests comparing the number of physical assaults before and approximately 12 months after all of these initiatives were implemented was significant ( p  = 0.032)., Conclusions: An education and training curriculum designed to improve EM residents' ability to manage agitated patients may reduce the incidence of physical assaults on them by patients in their care. However, the decrease in physical assaults after these initiatives followed by the increase in physical assaults experienced after the COVID-19 pandemic are most likely multifactorial., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2025 The Author(s). AEM Education and Training published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Introduction: Acute pain in cancer is an important but often overlooked feature of many patients' oncological journey. Cancer-related pain is associated commonly with more persistent pain states caused by both the disease and its treatment, but there are numerous causes of acute pain which can develop in patients with cancer. This pain is frequently severe, can be challenging to manage and its suboptimal control can directly impact on oncological outcomes. This narrative review provides an overview of several causes of acute pain in patients with cancer and management approaches., Methods: A focused literature review was conducted to encompass the search terms 'acute pain', 'oncology' and 'cancer' in adult and paediatric populations., Results: Acute pain is common in patients with cancer with a number of pain generators identified. Broadly, these are disease- and treatment-related but commonality in pain mechanisms and features are present. Importantly, these pain states do not occur in isolation; a patient may experience multiple acute pain episodes during their oncology journey., Discussion: As the oncological treatment landscape shifts and increasing numbers of novel treatments are employed, the number of causes of acute pain in patients with cancer rises. This pain is often managed by non-pain specialists and suboptimal control has a variety of deleterious effects. It is important that awareness of acute pain in the oncological population is increased and treatment approaches, which adopt a biopsychosocial structure, are optimised., (© 2025 The Author(s). Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.)

This retrospective study analyzed 230 pediatric opioid exposures from a statewide poison control center over a 5-year period. Most exposures involved pharmaceutical opioids and children below 2-years-old. Narrative details were reviewed to identify uncommon sources of opioids involved in poisoning and highlight the need for tailored prevention strategies and guidance., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No funding was secured for this study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine provides a low barrier access point and safety net to mitigate opioid overdose risk and increase treatment engagement. We sought to describe trends and patterns of buprenorphine utilization from the ED using national data., Methods: This is a retrospective review of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey between 2014 and 2021. Our primary outcomes were trends in ED buprenorphine utilization. We described patient demographics, visit characteristics, and conducted trend analyses. We utilized logistic regression to determine predictors of buprenorphine prescribing., Results: Between 2014 and 2021, there were 341,875 ED visits in which buprenorphine was administered, with no change over time (P = 0.08). There were 392,031 visits where buprenorphine was prescribed at ED discharge, with an increase over time (P = 0.01). The largest rise in rate for discharge prescriptions occurred between 2019 and 2020 (37,737 [0.03%] visits vs 126,041 [0.10%]) (233% increase in rate, P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Although there was an increase in buprenorphine prescribing at ED discharge, there was no increase in administration. The acceleration in prescribing between 2019 and 2020 suggests that the ED may have been a safety net for patients who lost access to addiction care during COVID-19. Future studies should explore reasons for disparities and barriers to buprenorphine utilization., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Addiction Medicine.)

Background: Gabapentinoids increasingly utilized for neuropathic pain, possibly to curb opioid prescribing. At the same time, data suggest subsequent increases in misuse and overdose of gabapentinoids, often in mixed overdoses. We sought to determine national trends and characteristics of gabapentinoid prescribing, including co-use with opioids, from the emergency department (ED)., Methods: This is a retrospective review of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2012 to 2021. Our primary outcome was the trend in ED visits in which gabapentinoids were prescribed at discharge. Secondarily, we identified trends in gabapentinoid and opioid co-prescribing and gabapentin and pregabalin prescribing at ED discharge. We examined demographic data and used descriptive statistics, Shapiro Wilke's test, Pearson's Spearman's rho (SR) or Pearson's correlation coefficient (PC) as applicable. Neural networks were used to identify the most important predictors of opioid utilization during the same visit., Results: Between 2012 and 2021, there were an estimated 7,242,694 (0.53% of all ED visits) visits in which gabapentinoids were prescribed at ED discharge. Prescriptions increased from a total of 138,479 (0.1%) in 2012 to 893,495 (0.63%) in 2021 (PC: 0.85, p < 0.001). Opioids were co-prescribed in 27.2% of all visits in which gabapentinoids were prescribed, with no change over time (PC: -0.47, p = 0.09). Pregabalin prescription increased linearly over time (PC: 0.64, p = 0.02). The most important predictors of opioid administration or co-prescribing were whether an alternative provider (e.g., consult or nurse practitioner) saw the patient (100%), insurance (94.4%), age (75.9%), and region (75.2%)., Conclusion: Despite an association of misuse and overdose, often associated with opioids, gabapentinoids were increasingly prescribed at ED discharge. While these agents may be safer alternatives to opioids, misuse may be an associated consequence of increased prescribing, which warrants further investigation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The objective of this study was to update and expand on previous studies of opioid exposures among young children reported to America's Poison Centers®, and to describe how fentanyl and medications for opioid use disorder have contributed., Methods: This retrospective study investigated 34,632 reports of single-substance opioid exposure from 2016 to 2023 involving pediatric patients aged one month to six years old. Descriptive statistics, tests for data normality, and significance testing were performed where applicable., Results: Of 34,632 reported exposures, 96.7% were unintentional. The median age of exposure was 2.0 years (IQR 1.33-3.0 years). Reported exposures decreased by 57.5% over the study period ( r  = -0.96; P  <0.001). However, there was a 300% absolute increase in deaths and major effects ( r  = 0.96; P  <0.001). Exposures resulting in minor, no effect, not followed, or unable to follow decreased 66.2% ( r  = -0.99; P  <0.001). Buprenorphine was most frequently involved, comprising 23.4% of reported exposures. Buprenorphine (OR 1.93; P  <0.001) and methadone (OR 14.98; P  <0.001) were associated with an increased risk of severe effects when compared to other prescription drugs (OR: 1). There was an absolute increase of 512% over time in reports of heroin, fentanyl, synthetic non-pharmaceutical opioids ( r  = 0.92; P  <0.001), which were also associated with severe effects (OR 20.1; P  <0.001)., Discussion: Pediatric opioid exposures have previously been reported to be relatively stable. It is likely the 57.5% reduction is exaggerated due to underreporting from health care providers. However, decreases in exposures are presumed to be balanced throughout the dataset and, therefore, without differential impact on other points of analysis. Our study highlights the continued need for enhanced poisoning prevention strategies., Conclusions: The relative severity of poisonings reported to poison centers worsened over the study period. The opioids implicated have shifted away from hydrocodone, oxycodone, and tramadol, and towards fentanyl and buprenorphine.

Introduction: Studies suggest that a large proportion of patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) also have underlying chronic pain. There is limited data on prevalence of chronic pain treatment as a component of residential substance use treatment. This initiative sought to investigate the prevalence and type of chronic pain services offered at these residential programs. Methods: This study was a retrospective review of information obtained from residential substance use treatment facility websites contained in SAMHSA's treatment navigator. Nine hundred-fifty out of 2952 websites were randomly selected for analysis. The primary outcome was prevalence of facilities that had chronic pain programs. Services offered were specified as available. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. Results: Nine-hundred nine websites (95.7%, [94,97]) were accessible. Twenty-six facilities (2.9%,[1.9,4.2]) had a chronic pain program and of these 22 (84.6%, [64.3,95.0]) specified services offered. Common services included physical therapy (6, 27.3%), massage (12, 54.6%), and acupuncture (10, 45.5%). Of the remaining sites, 630 (69.3%, [66.2,72.3]) specified services offered, including yoga (122, 19.4%) and exercise (199, 31.6%). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that despite most facilities offering adjunctive services, few had chronic pain programs. This suggests that there is a possible need for better updating of facility websites or possibly an area for improvement in residential substance use treatment settings.

Objectives: Benzodiazepines are commonly misused medications frequently implicated in overdose deaths. Data show that benzodiazepine prescribing is associated with increased misuse. We sought to determine national trends in benzodiazepine prescribing from the emergency department (ED)., Methods: This is a retrospective review of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012 to 2019. Our primary outcome was to evaluate trends in ED visits where a benzodiazepine was prescribed at discharge. Secondarily, we identified commonly prescribed benzodiazepines and assessed trends over time. We examined demographic data and used descriptive statistics and Spearman rho or Pearson correlation coefficient as applicable., Results: Between 2012 and 2019, there were 13,848,578 visits where benzodiazepines were prescribed at ED discharge. In 2012 and 2019, there were 1,407,478 visits (1.1% of all ED visits) and 1,361,372 visits (0.9%), respectively, where benzodiazepines were prescribed (mean [SD], 1,731,072 [287,623] [1.26%]), with no trend ( P = 0.31). Common benzodiazepines prescribed were diazepam (5,980,279 visits, 43.2% of all prescriptions), alprazolam (3,306,549, 23.9%), and clonazepam (2,105,963, 15.2%), with no changes over time. Fifteen percent of prescriptions were for patients 65 years or older., Conclusion: Despite reports of increased misuse, there was no change in ED discharge benzodiazepine prescribing. Concerningly, alprazolam, a benzodiazepine with high misuse potential, was frequently prescribed despite limited ED indications, and there was a large percentage of visits where benzodiazepines were prescribed to older adults despite warnings for adverse effects in this population. Future studies should assess rational prescribing and the role of targeted interventions to curb inappropriate use., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Addiction Medicine.)

Background and Objectives: There has been little research in an urban population regarding knowledge of harm reduction measures and treatment options. The objective of our study was to evaluate knowledge and perceptions of harm reduction measures and types of treatment available for opioid use disorder among patients and family in an urban emergency department (ED) waiting room., Methods: We conducted a single center, cross-sectional survey study that occurred between September 2021 and August 2022. A convenience sample of patients and family members that were above 18 and English speaking were recruited by research assistants. Participants were assessed on knowledge and preferences around drug treatment options and harm reduction. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using the Freeman-Halton/Kruskall-Wallis/Mann-Whitney U tests. p -Values were reported at the 0.05 significance level., Results: We collected 200 responses. Of these, 104 people had a connection to someone with a substance use disorder (SUD) and 50 had an SUD. Of those who had a connection to someone with SUD, 63 had heard of naloxone (60.6%, CI: [50.5, 69.9]). Fewer than 60% of respondents in each group had heard of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) ( p  = 0.46) and fewer than 50% thought that among people who use drugs that they knew would be interested in receiving treatment ( p  = 0.10)., Discussion and Conclusions: Our study found that among people who came to an urban emergency department, there was a lack of awareness of harm reduction and MOUD. Interventions should be put into place to educate on the importance of MOUD and harm reduction.

Background: Providers across the country have significantly decreased opioid prescribing over the past decade to prevent opioid misuse. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a disruption of the healthcare system and changes in the relationships between patients and providers. Consequently, we sought to investigate whether the pandemic had any impact on analgesic prescribing in an urban emergency department., Methods: This was a retrospective, single center study analyzing pharmacy records of patients that were treated with analgesics between January 2019 and May 2021. The most common analgesics utilized were tallied by month. Utilization of specific analgesics were compared between T 1 -pre-COVID-19 (1/2019-1/2020) and T 2 -post-COVID 19 (5/2020-5/2021). Analgesics were also categorized into broader categories (such as IV, oral, opioid, and non-opioid) and compared. Comparisons were analyzed using the t-test, Mann-Whitney u test, or chi-squared difference of proportions tests, as applicable., Results: There were significant decreases in the amount of IV (7.2% vs. 6.5; p  = 0.039) and oral opioid (2.6% vs. 2.1%; p  = 0.001) administered during COVID-19. There were also decreases in the percent of patients given opioids (T 1 : 6.7 vs. T 2 : 4.6, p  < 0.001). During COVID, there was an increase in the amount of non-opioid analgesics given per patient ( p  = 0.013). Particularly, there was an increase in the amount of oral non-opioid administrations per patient ( p  = 0.005). There was a decrease in utilization of ibuprofen between the two time periods ( p  < 0.001)., Conclusions: Despite the pandemic, providers continued to decrease opioid prescribing and increase non-opioid prescribing.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background : Concurrent alcohol intoxication can complicate emergency department (ED) presentations for opioid-related adverse events. We sought to determine if there was a difference in resource utilization among patients who presented to the ED with concurrent opioid and alcohol intoxication compared to opioid intoxication alone. Methods : Using linked state-wide databases from the Maryland Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), we identified patients with a diagnosis of opioid intoxication treated in the ED from 2016 to 2018. We measured healthcare utilization for each patient in the ED settings for one year after the initial ED visit and estimated direct costs. We performed logistic regression comparing patients presented with co-intoxication to those without. Results : Of 12,295 patients who presented to the ED for opioid intoxication during the study period, 703 (5.7%) had concurrent alcohol intoxication. Patients with co-intoxication had more recurrent ED visits (340 vs 247.4 per 1000 patients, p  < 0.05), higher index ED visit admission rates (26.9% vs 19.4%, p  < 0.001), but similar overall costs ($3736 vs $2861, p  < 0.05) at one year. Co-intoxication was associated with suicidal ideation (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.51-1.65), high zip code income (OR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.21), and higher rates of intoxication with all classes of drugs analyzed ( p  < 0.001). Conclusion : Our study demonstrated that mental health disorders, socioeconomic status, and increased ED utilization are associated with co-intoxication of opioids and alcohol presenting to the ED. Further research is needed to elucidate factors responsible for the increased resource use in this population.

Background: In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its strongest safety warning ("Black Box Warning") for concomitant use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines due to overdose deaths., Objective: Our objective was to look at trends of opioid and benzodiazepine co-prescribing in the emergency department (ED) using national data, because recent data are sparse., Methods: This is a retrospective review of data collected by the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey between 2012 and 2019. Our primary outcome was to determine whether there was a trend in ED visits when opioids and benzodiazepines were co-prescribed at discharge. We also compared the rate of visits when co-prescribing occurred before (2012-2015) and after (2017-2019) the 2016 FDA warning. We identified commonly co-prescribed benzodiazepines and opioids, and the rate of naloxone co-prescribing. We used descriptive statistics and bivariate tests to describe data., Results: Between 2012 and 2019, there were 4,489,613 ED visits (0.41% of ED visits) when benzodiazepines and opioids were co-prescribed. There was no trend in the rate of co-prescribing overall, but a decrease in visits after the 2016 FDA Black Box Warning (2012-2015: mean 0.49%; 2017-2019: mean 0.29%; p < 0.0001). There were 7980 ED visits (0.18%) when naloxone was co-prescribed for these visits within this time frame and an increase over time (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our study found that between 2012 and 2019, there was no overall reduction in co-prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines across EDs nationwide, but a decrease after the 2016 Black Box Warning., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Experts recommend using the lowest effective dose of naloxone to balance the reversal of opioid-induced respiratory depression and avoid precipitated opioid withdrawal, however, there is no established dosing standards within the emergency department (ED)., Objectives: The aim of this review was to determine current naloxone dosing practice in the ED and their association with adverse events., Methods: We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and EBSCO from 2000-2021. Articles containing patient-level data for initial ED dose and patient outcome had data abstracted by two independent reviewers. Patients were divided into subgroups depending on the initial dose of i.v. naloxone: low dose ([LD], < 0.4 mg), standard dose ([SD], 0.4-2 mg), or high dose ([HD], > 2 mg). Our outcomes were the dose range administered and adverse events per dose. We compared groups using chi-squared difference of proportions or Fisher's exact test., Results: The review included 13 articles with 209 patients in the results analysis: 111 patients in LD (0.04-0.1 mg), 95 in SD (0.4-2 mg), and 3 in HD (4-12 mg). At least one adverse event was reported in 37 SD patients (38.9%), compared with 14 in LD (12.6%, p < 0.0001) and 2 in HD (100.0%, p = 0.16). At least one additional dose was administered to 53 SD patients (55.8%), compared with 55 in LD (49.5%, p < 0.0001), and 3 in HD (100.0%, p = 0.48)., Conclusions: Lower doses of naloxone in the ED may help reduce related adverse events without increasing the need for additional doses. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of lower doses of naloxone to reverse opioid-induced respiratory depression without causing precipitated opioid withdrawal., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most obstetric emergencies are initially managed in the emergency department (ED). The Supreme Court decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade, in June 2022, eliminated constitutional protection of abortion rights, allowing states to swiftly enact laws that can greatly change reproductive medicine. In this post-Roe landscape, the ambiguity and uncertainty being imposed on clinicians regarding the legality of certain interventions may have catastrophic effects. To understand and plan for the changes that will come and attempt to mitigate adverse outcomes, the authors first assessed the current state of pregnancy-related complication care in the ED setting. This study utilized data obtained from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) to evaluate trends in pregnancy-related ED visits from 2016 to 2020 that could be impacted by restricted abortion access and trigger laws. The authors subsequently analyzed the legislative changes and translated the pertinent ones to dispel misunderstandings and provide a framework for appropriate medical practice., Methods: The retrospective study utilized data from the NHAMCS database from 2016 to 2020, encompassing an estimated total of 4,556,778 pregnancy-related ED visits. NHAMCS is a multi-stage probabilistic sample collected by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using an annual survey of EDs in the United States. All data were summarized using descriptive statistics such as proportions and 95% confidence intervals Furthermore, the supreme court decision was analyzed in addition to multiple state laws and legal texts. The findings were summarized and discussed., Results: The majority (79.4%) of all studied visits were for patients between the ages of 18-34 years, capturing those in peak reproductive years. This age group also comprised of the bulk (76.4%) of visits for pathologic pregnancies, including ectopic and molar pregnancies, and 79.8% of visits for a spontaneous miscarriage or threatened miscarriage in early pregnancy. Black patients accounted for 25.7%, white patients 70.1%. Regarding ethnicity, patients were separated into Hispanic and non-Hispanic, with Hispanic patients comprising 27% of all ED visits for included diagnoses between 2016 and 2020. Most visits for complications following an induced abortion occurred in the south (70.8%) and were nearly twice as likely to occur in non-metropolitan areas. Approximately 18% patients presenting with a pathologic pregnancy required admission to the hospital and approximately 50% of those visits for pathologic pregnancies and visits for bleeding in pregnancy had a procedure in the ED (49.8% and 49.5%). There were 111,264 estimated visits in which methotrexate was administered, amounting to approximately 1 in 7 visits for ectopic or molar pregnancy. In this data set, approximately 14,000 miscarriage and early bleeding patients received misoprostol., Conclusion: Pregnancy-related ED visits comprise of a significant proportion of emergency care. As it relates to many of the trends previously elucidated on, the true extent of the burden cannot be predicted. It must be emphasized that contrary to popular belief, Dobbs v. Jackson does not prohibit termination of pregnancy in the setting of life-threatening conditions to the mother, including ectopic pregnancy, preeclampsia, and others, but the resultant uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding the constitutional change is leading to an over-compliance of the law, necessarily obstructing reproductive health care. The authors recommend that physicians be mindful of the rapidly-evolving laws in their particular state, and to also practice in accordance with Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Patient safety must be prioritized., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Emergency Department Peer Navigator Programs (EDPN) have been shown to increase the prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and improve linkage to addiction care. However, what is not known is whether it can improve overall clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in patients with OUD., Methods: This is a single-center, IRB approved, retrospective cohort study using patients with OUD enrolled in our peer navigator program from 11/7/19 to 2/16/21. On an annual basis, we determined MOUD clinic follow-up rates and clinical outcomes in those patients who utilized our EDPN program. Finally, we also looked at the social determinants of health factors (e.g., race, status of medical insurance, lack of housing, access to phone and/or internet, employment, etc.) that impact our patients clinical outcomes. ED and inpatient provider notes were reviewed to determine causes of ED visits and hospitalizations one year before and after enrollment into the program. The clinical outcomes of interest were number of ED visits from all-causes, number of ED visits from opioid-related causes, number of hospitalizations from all-causes, and number of hospitalizations from opioid-related causes one year after enrollment into our EDPN program, subsequent urine drug screens, and mortality. Demographic and socioeconomic factors (age, gender, race, employment, housing, insurance status, access to phone) were also analyzed to determine if any were independently associated with clinical outcomes. Death and cardiac arrests were noted. Clinical outcomes data were described using descriptive statistics and compared using t-tests., Results: 149 patients with OUD were included in our study. 39.6% had an opioid-related chief complaint at their index ED visit; 51.0% had any recorded history of MOUD and 46.3% had history of buprenorphine use. 31.5% had buprenorphine given in the ED with individual doses ranging from 2 to 16 mg and 46.3% were provided with a buprenorphine prescription. The average number of ED visits 1-year pre vs post enrollment, respectively, for all-causes was 3.09 vs 2.20 (p < 0.01); for opioid related complications 1.80 vs 0.72 (p < 0. 01). The average number of hospitalizations 1-year pre and post enrollment, respectively, for all-causes was 0.83 vs 0.60 (p = 0.05); for opioid related complications 0.39 vs 0.09 (p < 0.01). ED visits from all-causes decreased in 90 (60.40%) patients, had no change in 28 (18.79%) patients, and increased in 31 (20.81%) patients (p < 0.01). ED visits from opioid-related complications decreased in 92 (61.74%) patients, had no change in 40 (26.85%) patients, and increased in 17 (11.41%) (p < 0.01). Hospitalizations from all causes decreased in 45 (30.20%) patients, had no change in 75 patients (50.34%), and increased in 29 (19.46%) patients (p < 0.01). Lastly, hospitalizations from opioid-related complications decreased in 31 (20.81%) patients, had no change in 113 (75.84%) patients, and increased in 5 (3.36%) patients (p < 0.01). There were no socioeconomic factors that had a statistically significant association with clinical outcomes. Two patients (1.2%) died within 1 year after study enrollment., Conclusions: Our study found that there was an association between implementation of an EDPN program and decreases in ED visits and hospitalizations from both all-causes as well as from opioid-related complications for patients with opioid use disorder., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In parallel with the opioid epidemic, there has been a resurgence in abuse, medical complications, and deaths related to amphetamines. The opioid epidemic began with increasing rates of prescription products that evolved overtime to include heroin and more recently, fentanyl analogues. Current trends in amphetamine prescriptions are less well described. We sought to determine if there has been a change in amphetamine prescriptions given at discharge in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) in recent years., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of data provided by the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2012 to 2019. We computed total number of visits that were given amphetamine prescriptions (amphetamine salts, methylphenidate derivatives, and dexmethylphenidate) at discharge for each year. We computed the total number and rate of visits (of all ED visits) that had both amphetamines and opioids prescribed at discharge over the years. We computed data normality using Shapiro Wilke's test and used descriptive statistics such as mean to describe the data distribution as applicable. We used spearman's rho (SR) or pearson's correlation (PC) as applicable to describe trends in data. All p-values were one-tailed and were reported at a 0.05 significance level. All analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS version 28., Results/findings: From 2012 to 2019, there were an estimated 817,895 ED visits where an amphetamine prescription was given at discharge, with an overall strong increase in rate over time (SR = 0.71, p = 0.02). At the beginning of the study period (2012) there were 83,503 (0.06%) visits and in 2019 there were 186,539 (0.12%) visits (123% absolute increase). On average, there were 102,237 (SD: 52,725) visits with discharge amphetamine prescriptions per year. There was a strong, linear increase in number of visits that involved a discharge amphetamine salt prescription (PC = 0.92, p = 0.001). In 2012, there were a total of 23,676 visits and in 2019, a total of 124,773 visits (427% increase). There was no trend in visits where both an amphetamine and opioid were prescribed (PC: 0.61, p = 0.06)., Conclusion: There have been increases in discharge prescriptions for amphetamines in the ED over time. This was largely driven by prescriptions for amphetamine salts. Future research initiatives should continue to monitor this trend and in prescriptions and associated abuse in the setting of rising amphetamine abuse., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest or other disclosures., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While having access to naloxone is recommended for patients at risk for opioid overdose, little is known about trends in national naloxone prescribing rates in emergency departments (EDs) both for co-prescription with opioids and for patients who presented with opioid abuse or overdose. This study aims to evaluate the change in naloxone prescribing and opioid/naloxone co-prescribing at discharge using national data., Methods: We conducted an IRB exempt retrospective review of data collected by the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012 to 2019. The primary outcome was trend in rate of naloxone prescribing at discharge from ED visits. We also computed the proportion of visits where naloxone was both administered in the ED and prescribed at discharge, where naloxone and opioids were co-prescribed at discharge, and where an opioid was administered during the ED visit and naloxone was prescribed at discharge. All data were summarized using descriptive statistics and Spearman's Rho (SR) or Pearson's correlation (PR) were used to describe trends., Results: There was an estimated total of 250,365 patient visits where naloxone was prescribed at discharge with an increasing rate over time (0% of all ED visits in 2012 to 0.075% in 2019, p = 0.002). There were also increases in naloxone being both administered in the ED and prescribed at discharge (PC: 0.8, p = 0.02) as well as in naloxone and opioid co-prescribing (SR: 0.76, P = 0.03). There was an increase in utilization of opioids during the ED visit and naloxone prescribing at discharge for the same visit (SR: 0.80, p = 0.02)., Conclusion: There are increases in naloxone prescribing at discharge, naloxone and opioid co-prescribing, and opioid utilization during the same visit where naloxone is prescribed at discharge. Future studies should be done to confirm such trends, and targeted interventions should be put into place to increase access to this life-saving antidote., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The rise in deaths related to substance use has caused a push toward linking patients to pharmacological maintenance treatment and, when appropriate, to residential substance use treatment facilities. One of the underlying issues in a subset of patients with substance use disorder (SUD) is chronic pain. We evaluated the prevalence and characteristics of those facilities that offer treatment programs tailored for patients with co-occurring pain and SUD., Methods: This study was a retrospective review of data collected by the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services in 2019. The National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services is sent annually to all substance use treatment facilities and collects information on their characteristics and services. We calculated prevalence of chronic pain programs, reported characteristics, and did a binomial logistic regression to determine predictors of a facility offering such a program., Results: Of 15,945 respondents, 2990 (18.8%) of facilities offered a tailored program for patients with co-occurring pain and SUDs. Characteristics that were best predictors included the following: facility has a tailored program for veterans ( P < 0.001), serves only clients with opioid use disorder ( P = 0.03), and provides maintenance services with methadone or buprenorphine for treating opioid use disorder ( P = 0.009)., Conclusion: As of 2019, only a small percentage of substance use treatment facilities reported having a program that treats patients with co-occurring pain and SUD. Given the known high prevalence of co-occurring pain and SUD, further understanding of the role of these programs and barriers to implementation may enhance acceptance in treatment programs., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 American Society of Addiction Medicine.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Introduction: Evidence supports an ultrasound-guided approach in patients with difficult vascular access. Prior research on teaching ultrasound-guided intravenous access has included only small groups of first- and second-year medical students., Methods: We enrolled fourth-year medical students in our teaching module. The module featured a 6-minute prelearning narrated lecture and 5-minute orientation, followed by ultrasound-guided IV placement on homemade gel models. Facilitators were emergency medicine (EM) residents with a prespecified level of procedural ultrasound skills according to EM milestones. Students completed pre- and postmodule surveys. Facilitators completed the Directly Observed Procedural Skills Evaluation. Primary outcomes included global rating, proficiency on six procedural skills, and perceived learning., Results: Our module was completed by 150 fourth-year medical students (94% of the class); 84% cannulated the vein in one attempt. We used a global rating scale to describe the students' cannulation abilities; 59% were trusted to perform this procedure with direct supervision and coaching, 29% with indirect supervision, and 8% without supervision. There was no association between a student's order of attempting IV access within the group and global rating ( p = .41). Students reported increased understanding of indications, antecubital anatomy, sonographic anatomy, and procedural comfort (12%, 29%, 38%, and 65% improvement pre- vs. postmodule, respectively; p < .001)., Discussion: Our module enabled more than one-third of fourth-year medical students to achieve an indirect supervision or better level of proficiency in ultrasound-guided IV access, with significant improvements in perceived knowledge. This module may be useful for other educators facilitating the transition to residency., (© 2022 Adrian et al.)

Objectives: In recent years many emergency departments (EDs) have adopted interventions to help patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), particularly buprenorphine initiation and ED-based peer recovery support. There are limited data on the impact of peer navigators on provider naloxone kit distribution and buprenorphine utilization. We aimed to examine the impact of a peer recovery program on naloxone kit distribution and buprenorphine administration. Methods : This was a retrospective study analyzing the change in naloxone kits distributed as well as buprenorphine administrations. Data on naloxone kit and buprenorphine administrations was generated every month between November 2017 and February 2021. Time periods were as follows: implementation of guidelines for buprenorphine and naloxone kits, initiation of the navigator program, and first wave of COVID-19. Numbers of naloxone kits distributed and buprenorphine administrations per month were computed. Results: Between November 2017 and December 2020, there was a significant increase overtime among the 238 naloxone kits distributed ( p  < 0.0001). Between implementation of guidelines and introduction of peer navigators, there were 49 kits distributed, compared to an increase overtime among 235 kits when the navigator program began ( p  = 0.0001). There was also a significant increase overtime among 1797 administrations of buprenorphine ( p  < 0.0001). Administrations increased by 22.4% after implementation of the navigator program-a total of 787 compared to 643 post guideline ( p  = 0.007). Conclusion: Peer recovery support programs for patients with OUD can have an impact on administration of naloxone kits and buprenorphine. Future studies should determine whether these programs can cause a long-term culture change in the ED.

Background: Poison Centers are uniquely positioned to respond to an unprecedented public health threat such as the COVID-19 pandemic, as fully operational 24-h hotlines already staffed with healthcare professionals., Methods: On January 27, 2020 the New Jersey Poison Information and Education System (NJPIES) agreed to operate the New Jersey Coronavirus Hotline. Call patterns, subject matter, and staffing and infrastructure strategies that were implemented to meet the demand are described. In addition, a sample of 1500 individual calls were collected and analyzed in an endeavor to describe call times, call days, area from which the call originated, callers to the hotline, primary language of the caller, and why a call was placed to the hotline. Binomial regression analysis was utilized in an attempt to identify significant patterns., Results: Since the inception of the hotline through October 31, NJPIES responded to 57,579 calls for COVID-19 information. Most calls (68.7%) were regarding testing for COVID-19 and for general questions/symptoms. Call types varied when they were analyzed by time of day with calls for general questions/symptoms and where to get tested for COVID-19 showing a significant association for the early morning hours, how to obtain test results being significantly associated with the afternoon hours, and how to renew or obtain a medical license showing a significant association to the evening hours. We additionally noted that specific call types became significant when analyzed on a week-to-week basis and as specific events, like the enactment of the CARES Act of 2020, occurred., Conclusion: Although not the traditional role of a regional Poison Control Center, pandemic response synergizes with the workflow of this hotline because the infrastructure, staffing, and healthcare expertise are already present. Poison centers can rapidly adapt through scaling and process change to meet the needs of the public during times of public health threats.

Introduction: The opioid epidemic has significantly evolved over the last three decades. The initiation and continuation of prescription opioids for pain control were one of the primary contributors, across different medical settings. The emergency department (ED) is typically the first place patients go to for management of acute pain, and often where opioid naïve patients first become exposed to opioids. In 2018, the ED of University Hospital located in Newark, NJ implemented a pain guideline to ensure that patients are not unnecessarily exposed to opioids. The goal of our study was to determine whether provider adherence was successful in reducing opioid administration., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of pharmacy records of patients treated for pain in the ED within the time frame January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019. We analyzed the change in our practice by comparing the amount of opioid and non-opioid medications administered and the number of patients administered each type, as well as the change in our utilization of specific medications. The t-test or the χ 2 test were used as applicable., Results: There were decreases in the mean number of opioid doses administered in 2017 (1273) compared to 2019 (498; p = 0.027). There was an increase in non-opioid analgesics administered, (mean 2017: 1817, mean 2019: 2432.5, p = 0.018). There was also an increase in the proportion of patients given non-opioid analgesics (mean 2017: 22%, mean 2019: 28%, p < 0.0001). There were increases in administrations of acetaminophen (40% to 52%) and ibuprofen (30% to 35.1%), and decreases in administrations of hydromorphone (2.5% to 0.03%), morphine (11.5% to 5.6%), oxycodone (10.6% to 5.3%), and tramadol (5.7% to 1.9%) (all p < 0.0001)., Discussion: A guideline that emphasizes the use of non-opioid analgesics first line treatment for acute pain can be effective for reducing opioid administration in the ED. Through the use of our guideline, we reduced the number of patients who have received opioid analgesics and, at the same time, increased non-opioid analgesic administration. Future studies should explore readmission rates, duration of pain relief in patients managed with non-opioid versus opioid analgesics, and perception of relief through the use of satisfaction scores., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Both opioid and non-opioid analgesics are commonly utilized in treating acute and chronic pain in the emergency department (ED). Opioid stewardship efforts have focused on judicious opioid use and opioid alternatives as first-line analgesics. Parenteral opioid formulations have been impacted by periodic shortages creating the opportunity for a natural experiment to observe how emergency clinician prescribing behavior may be impacted. We investigated the change in analgesic practice related to a period of parenteral opioid shortage at two large urban, academic medical centers., Methods: A retrospective review of pharmacy administration data from two academic urban EDs was performed looking at time periods before, during, and after resolution of the parenteral opioid shortage. The data were analyzed by medication, dose, time, number of doses, and oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) administered per patient., Results: The percentage of patients who received any opioid among ED visits decreased during the shortage period and did not return to pre-shortage levels after the shortage ended: 11.5% pre, 8.5% during (p=0.01), 7.2% post (NS; p=0.18). The number of doses of either oral or IV opioid doses administered during the shortage decreased significantly: 8.7% pre, 5.6% during (p=0.02) for PO, and 13.7% pre, 9.0% during (p=0.004) for IV, and neither changed during recovery from the shortage. The percentage of patients receiving non-opioid analgesics rose from 30.5% before to 45.8% (p=0.004) after the shortage. Among patients who received opioids, the MME per patient did not change across the time periods: 11.5% before, 11.2% during, 12.7% post., Conclusions: A period of restricted opioid use due to parenteral opioid shortages led to less opioid use overall and fewer patients treated with opioids, yet no significant change in opioid MME administered per patient requiring opioids. Overall, the shift in opioid prescribing during the parenteral opioid shortage appeared to be sustained in the post-shortage period., (© 2021. American College of Medical Toxicology.)

Introduction: Residency scholarly tracks are educational programs, designed to help trainees develop an area of expertise. Although the breadth of residency point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) education has developed considerably in recent years, there is no literature to date describing scholarly tracks specifically in POCUS. In this study we sought to determine the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of POCUS scholarly tracks in emergency medicine (EM)., Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey of EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Surveys were distributed between March-August 2020 using a listserv followed by targeted emails to residency and ultrasound leadership. We summarized data using descriptive statistics, and performed logistic regression to identify factors associated with a POCUS scholarly track., Results: Of 267 residency programs 199 (74.5%) completed the survey. Fifty-seven (28.6%) had a POCUS scholarly track as of the 2019-2020 academic year. Scholarly tracks in POCUS were more common in university-based/academic sites and larger residency programs. Of the 57 programs with POCUS scholarly tracks, 48 (84.2%) required residents to present at least one POCUS lecture, 45 (78.9%) required residents to serve as instructor at a hands-on workshop, and 42 (73.7%) required residents to participate in quality assurance of departmental POCUS scans. Only 28 (49.1%) tracks had a structured curriculum, and 26 (45.6%) required POCUS research. In total, 300 EM residents completed a POCUS scholarly track over the past three academic years, with a median of 4 (2-9) per program. Seventy-five (25.0%) proceeded to a clinical ultrasound fellowship after residency graduation, with a median of 1 (interquartile range 0-2) per program. A total of 139 POCUS-specific abstracts (median 2 [0-3]) and 80 peer-reviewed manuscripts (median 1 [0-2]) were published by scholarly track residents over the past three years., Conclusion: This survey study describes the current prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of POCUS scholarly tracks across EM residency programs. The results may inform the decisions of residency programs to create these tracks.

Background: The United States is experiencing an opioid epidemic. The aim of this pilot study was to describe patterns of prescription opioid medication (POM) use, examine factors associated with opioid misuse and overdose, and assess knowledge of take-home naloxone, and other harm-reduction strategies as well as participation in medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among emergency department (ED) patients that have been prescribed opioid medications., Methods: This was a pilot survey of a convenience sample of adult ED patients with a past opioid prescription at one urban tertiary care hospital. The survey asked participants about patterns of opioid consumption, risk factors associated with opioid misuse, and knowledge of harm-reduction strategies. The survey tool consisted of mixed open- and closed-ended questions. Reported daily POM consumption was converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MME). Responses to survey questions were compared with daily MME in order to generate hypotheses for future research., Results: 50 individuals completed a survey. Of these, 56% reported taking opioids daily, and 24% reported greater than 100 MME daily opioid consumption. Many subjects reported history of psychiatric illness (34%) and previous substance abuse treatment (24%). The majority of patients (66%) were not aware of take-home naloxone programs to treat opioid overdose., Conclusions: In this pilot survey of ED patients with a pain-related chief complaint, many respondents reported risk factors for opioid misuse, and the majority of participants were unaware of the existence of important harm-reduction strategies, such as take-home naloxone programs, even among those with the highest daily POM use., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a valuable asset in bedside clinical care. Undergraduate medical education is increasingly using POCUS as an adjunct tool for teaching anatomy, pathophysiology, and physical exam in an integrated manner. Many medical schools teach content in an organ systems-based format in the preclerkship years. POCUS teaching can be very effectively tailored to specific organ systems. Though pilot curricula for generalized ultrasound education exist, few teach organ systems-based content using POCUS. To address this gap, we designed and implemented an integrated POCUS module to supplement anatomy, pathophysiology, and physical exam teaching in the renal course., Methods: The module consisted of (1) a 30-minute didactic lecture introducing students to renal ultrasound technique and image interpretation and (2) a practical hands-on skills session. Pre- and postmodule surveys assessed the efficacy and impact of the curriculum., Results: A total of 31 first-year medical students completed the POCUS renal curriculum. A majority reported that the module positively affected their understanding of renal pathophysiology and the physical exam. They also reported increased confidence in using POCUS to detect renal pathology and make clinical decisions., Discussion: It was feasible to implement a POCUS curriculum to supplement integrated teaching of renal system concepts in the first year of medical school, and students found POCUS teaching valuable. POCUS provides educators with another tool to integrate basic and clinical sciences with hands-on relevant clinical skills practice in early medical school years., (© 2020 Alerhand et al.)

Background: In recent years, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Department of Family Medicine has integrated a quality assurance (QA) project as a required component of their 5-week medical student clerkship. This project requires each student to conduct a QA study at an assigned family practice and discuss the results with their preceptor. The aim of this study was to determine if sequential medical student QA projects impact physician readiness to improve guideline adherence over time., Methods: A retrospective analysis of student reports was conducted to determine if physician readiness to improve compliance improved post implementation of the QA project using James Prochaska's Transtheoretical Model of Behavioral Change. Fisher's exact test or the χ 2 test were used as applicable to compare the change in results., Results: In academic year 2015-2016, there were 11 (6%) instances where physicians were precontemplating on change, 43 (24%) instances where physicians were contemplating, 101 (57%) instances where physicians were preparing to make change, 18 (10%) instances where physicians were acting, and 4 (2%) of instances where a physician were maintaining previous changes. The following year, the numbers were: 15 (8%), 38 (21%), 82 (46%), 34 (19%) and 11 (6%), respectively. There were increases of physicians in stages of precontemplation (p=0.047), action (p=0.02) and maintenance (p=0.047), a decrease in physicians that were in the stage of preparation (p=0.05) and no significant change in the instances they were in a stage of contemplation (p=0.60)., Conclusion: Student QA projects appear to leverage physician readiness to improve guideline adherence. Future studies will determine if raising awareness through these clerkship projects results in practice behavioural change., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Emergency Department (ED) patients presenting with spontaneous epistaxis who have anterior nasal packing are routinely prescribed systemic prophylactic antibiotics in spite of the lack of supporting evidence-based literature. Although there is literature that discusses infection rates with nasal packing for epistaxis and prophylactic antibiotics prescribing practices of otolaryngologists, this is the first study to our knowledge that examines the practices of emergency physicians., Objectives: The main objective of this study was to compare the infection rate between patients who were and were not prescribed prophylactic systemic antibiotics for anterior nasal packing in spontaneous epistaxis and to examine current management practices of antibiotic prescribing for these patients., Methods: A retrospective review of ED patients ≥ 18 years old with the discharge diagnosis of epistaxis was performed over a 5-year period. Patients who had multiple visits to the ED for epistaxis or recent nasal or sinus surgery were excluded., Results: Over half of the patients, 57/106 (53.7%), who had anterior packing were prescribed prophylactic systemic antibiotics. Of these patients, 69/106 (65%) returned for a follow-up visit. There were no documented infections for any of these patients regardless of whether or not they were prescribed antibiotics. There was no significant difference with respect to rate of infection found between these two groups (the p-value = 0.263)., Conclusion: The absence of infection supports previous findings and suggests that prophylactic antibiotic use for nasal packing in spontaneous epistaxis patients is not necessary. Further randomized controlled studies are necessary to definitively support this practice change., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Retail pharmacies in NJ are permitted to dispense naloxone without a prescription. However, not all pharmacies have participated in this effort, and it is not clear what factors may impact its availability. We sought to determine the naloxone availability of select NJ cities and what sociodemographic factors are associated with its availability. We compared naloxone availability in retail pharmacies to median household income, population, and the prevalence of opioid-related hospital visits (ORHV)., Methods: All retail pharmacies in ten New Jersey cities were surveyed by phone in February-July 2017. The standardized survey instrument asked scripted questions to each pharmacist concerning the stocking of naloxone for dispensing. Median household income data and population data for each city were obtained from census.gov . Opioid-related hospital visits were obtained through the NJ SHAD database and the prevalence of ORHV was calculated. Naloxone availability was compared to median household income, population, and ORHV using Spearman's rho and Pearson's correlation., Results: Naloxone availability in the 90 retail pharmacies we surveyed was 31% and ranged from 15.38 to 66.67% by city. An increase in median household income indicated more pharmacy naloxone availability. An increase in population indicated less pharmacy naloxone availability. While no significant relationship existed between ORHV and pharmacy naloxone availability, we did identify individual cities with severe opioid-related public health concerns with limited naloxone access., Conclusions: Naloxone deserts exist in select high-risk New Jersey cities, and pharmacy naloxone availability may be positively related to median household income and negatively related to population.