Jones, Derick D

ABSTRACT Objective We sought to characterize patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with abdominal pain and to validate risk categories defined by the Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐2) for low‐risk recurrent abdominal pain. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting with abdominal pain between November 2019 and November 2023 across 21 EDs in Arizona, the Midwest, and Florida. Patients were categorized per GRACE‐2 into recurrent and non‐recurrent pain as well as low‐ and high‐risk groups. Primary outcomes included 72‐h returns and mortality at 30 and 90 days. Results The study included 162,494 visits (112,896 unique patients; median age 46 years; 61.2% female). Among these, 4.3% had low‐risk recurrent abdominal pain. Patients with recurrent and non‐recurrent low‐risk pain had similar ED length of stay and discharge rates to each other, compared to patients with high‐risk pain who had longer length of stay and lower discharge rates. At 30 days after the ED encounter, patients with low‐risk recurrent abdominal pain had similar mortality to patients with low‐risk non‐recurrent pain (0.4% vs. 0.3%; adjusted RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.85–2.03), while they had significantly lower mortality than patients with high‐risk recurrent abdominal pain (0.4% vs. 2.3; adjusted RR = 3.14, 95% CI: 2.02–4.89). Conclusions This study highlights the heterogeneity in patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain. Among these patients, those with low‐risk recurrent pain demonstrated similar lengths of stay, discharges, and mortality rates to those with low‐risk non‐recurrent pain and less favorable lengths of stay, discharges, and mortality rates compared to those with any high‐risk features. These findings suggest that low‐ and high‐risk features may be more useful than recurrent or non‐recurrent pain in identifying patients who could benefit from more robust ED evaluations.

AbstractIntroductionMany emergency medicine (EM) residency programs include clinical rotations in rural emergency departments (“rural rotations”) as part of their curriculum. These rotations are designed to expose residents to clinical scenarios that are less frequently encountered in tertiary centers. The objective of this study was to determine the rate at which residents were exposed to certain clinical and procedural experiences (CPEs) while on rural rotations compared to their usual academic training hospital.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of all patient encounters involving EM residents at a large academic hospital in Rochester, Minnesota, compared with two rural hospitals in Austin, Minnesota, and Albert Lea, Minnesota, from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. The frequency of each CPE was calculated and expressed as the number of CPEs encountered per 100 clinical hours worked. These values were compared between the rural and academic sites.ResultsA total of 33,417 patient encounters over a total of 41,700 resident clinical hours were analyzed between the three study sites. The two settings (rural vs. academic) had significant differences in baseline patient demographics including age, acuity, and admission rates. Several CPEs were found to occur at a higher frequency in the rural hospitals versus the academic hospital: ambulance necessity documentation (9.3/100 h rural vs. 0.07/100 h academic, p ≤ 0.0001), laceration repair (3.39/100 h rural vs. 2.0/100 h academic, p = 0.0004), and splint/cast application (1.53/100 h rural vs. 0.07/100 h academic, p ≤ 0.0001).ConclusionsRural EM rotations provide residents exposure to a variety of valuable educational experiences. These rotations may provide residents with superior exposures to some clinical experiences compared to academic hospitals, particularly out‐of‐ED transfers and orthopedic procedures. Residency programs without a current rural rotation should consider creating this as an option for their trainees.

AbstractObjectivesPatients with limited English proficiency (LEP) have been shown to experience disparities in emergency department (ED) care. The objectives of this study were to examine the associations between LEP and irregular ED departures and return ED visits.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter cross‐sectional analysis of 18 EDs within an integrated health system in the upper Midwest from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021. ED visits of pediatric and adult patients who were discharged on the index visit were included for analysis. We analyzed the association of LEP with irregular departures, 72‐h and 7‐day return visits, and ED disposition at the time of that return visit. Multivariable model associations were calculated using generalized estimating equations and reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 745,464 total ED visits were analyzed, including 27,906 (3.7%) visits among patients with LEP. The most common preferred languages among patients with LEP were Spanish (12,759; 45.7%), Somali (4978; 17.8%), and Arabic (3185; 11.4%). After multivariable adjustment there were no differences in proportions of irregular departures (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99–1.21), 72‐h returns (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92–1.06), or 7‐day returns (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93–1.05) between patients with LEP or English proficiency. Patients with LEP returning within 72 h (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01–1.40) and 7 days (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01–1.33) were more likely to be admitted to the hospital.ConclusionsAfter multivariable adjustment, we did not find an increased frequency of irregular ED departures or 72‐h or 7‐day returns among patients with LEP compared with people proficient in English. However, we did find that higher proportions of patients with LEP were admitted to the hospital at the time of the return ED visit.