McGuire, Sarayna S

ABSTRACT Background Older adults experience age‐related physiological changes that alter the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of certain medications, which may necessitate reduced dosing. Our objective was to assess emergency department (ED) and hospital outcomes of older patients administered opioids by emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians. Methods Retrospective cohort study of adults ≥ 65 years who received an opioid between 2019 and 2024 within a health system‐affiliated EMS agency. We excluded patients with an advanced airway and those with no documented weight. Maximum single and cumulative weight‐based opioid dosages were classified as low, therapeutic, or high. Outcomes were measured in the ED/hospital and compared using Poisson regression with Huber/White standard errors, adjusted for age, sex, vitals, Glascow Coma Scale, emergency severity index, and chief concern. Results were reported as adjusted risk ratios (aRRs). Results A total of 6406 patients, including 747 (11.7%, 95% CI: 10.9–12.5) with a high opioid dose, 3663 (57.2%, 95% CI: 56.0–58.4) with a therapeutic dose, and 1996 (31.2%, 95% CI: 30.0–32.3) with a low dose, were included. Receipt of a high maximum single opioid dose versus a low/therapeutic dose (excluding patients receiving a concomitant sedative) was associated with increased risk of altered responsiveness (aRR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.03–1.58) and delirium (aRR = 2.43, 95% CI: 1.08–5.45) in the ED/hospital setting. When 311 (4.9%) patients who received a concomitant sedative were included, patients who received a high opioid dose similarly had an increased risk of altered responsiveness (aRR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.06–1.56) and delirium (RR = 2.65, 95% CI: 1.25–5.59), compared to a low/therapeutic dose. There was no difference in outcomes of hypoxia, death within 30 days, or ED length of stay between dose groups. Conclusion Prehospital administration of high opioid doses to older patients was associated with increased rates of altered responsiveness and delirium. These findings highlight how out‐of‐hospital care can impact a patient's ED and hospital course.

Objectives: To determine the frequency with which emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians recognize patients enrolled in hospice and describe their prehospital management. Methods: Observational cohort study of patients enrolled in hospice who were transported by EMS within a health system between May 5, 2018, and June 4, 2023. Two physicians reviewed each encounter to determine whether interventions were comfort-focused (hospice philosophy) or life-sustaining care. Interrater reliability was 100% (k = 1.0). Descriptive statistics are provided. Results: EMS clinicians identified hospice enrollment in 51% ( n = 46) of 88 encounters. Most patients (90%, n = 79) received comfort-focused care. Life-sustaining care was provided to four patients identified as hospice-enrolled and included cardiopulmonary resuscitation, an advanced airway, and vasopressors ( n = 1, 25%); spinal immobilization ( n = 2, 50%), and naloxone ( n = 1, 25%). Conclusion: Most patients received care consistent with the philosophy of hospice. However, EMS clinicians may have only identified half of patients enrolled in hospice. This demonstrates an opportunity to improve recognition of patients’ care preferences, starting in the out-of-hospital setting.

Introduction: Healthcare workers, particularly those in the emergency department (ED), experience high rates of injuries caused by workplace violence (WPV). Objective: Our goal was to establish the incidence of WPV among multidisciplinary ED staff within a regional health system and assess its impact on staff victims. Methods: We conducted a survey study of all multidisciplinary ED staff at 18 Midwestern EDs encompassing a larger health system between November 18–December 31, 2020. We solicited the incidence of verbal abuse and physical assault experienced and witnessed by respondents over the prior six months, as well as its impact on staff. Results: We included responses from 814 staff (24.5% response rate) for final analysis with 585 (71.9%) indicating some form of violence experienced in the preceding six months. A total of 582 (71.5%) respondents indicated experiencing verbal abuse, and 251 (30.8%) indicated experiencing some form of physical assault. All disciplines experienced some type of verbal abuse and nearly all experienced some type of physical assault. One hundred thirty-five (21.9%) respondents indicated that being the victim of WPV has affected their ability to perform their job, and nearly half (47.6%) indicated it has changed the way they interact with or perceive patients. Additionally, 132 (21.3%) indicated experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress, and 18.5% reported they have considered leaving their position due to an incident. Conclusion: Emergency department staff suffer violence at a high rate, and there is no discipline that is spared. As health systems seek to prioritize staff safety in violence-prone areas such as the ED, it is imperative to recognize that the entire multidisciplinary team is impacted and requires targeted efforts for improvement in safety.

Violence in the emergency department (ED) remains underreported. Patient factors are often cited as a source of confusion in determining the culpability of perpetrators and whether to proceed with incident reporting. This study’s objective was to determine how ED staff at one academic medical center perceive certain clinical scenarios and how this compares to local law enforcement officers (LEO). An anonymous survey with 4 scenarios was sent to multidisciplinary ED staff at our academic medical center, as well as local LEO and inquired whether respondents considered any of the scenarios to be reportable as a crime. Chi-square analysis was used for comparison. The study was deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board. A total of 261 ED staff and 77 LEO completed the survey. Both groups were equally likely to believe that a reportable crime occurred in Scenario 1, where a patient with dementia punches a nurse (LEO: 26.0% vs. ED: 31.4%, p = 0.44), and in Scenario 2, where an intoxicated patient spits at a phlebotomist (LEO: 97.4% vs. ED: 95.0%, p = 0.56). However, the two groups differed in Scenario 3, in which a patient with delirium makes verbal threats to a doctor (LEO: 20.8% vs. ED: 42.9%, p < 0.001), and Scenario 4, in which a patient’s parent throws a chair at a medical student (LEO: 66.2% vs. ED: 81.2%, p = 0.009). As health systems seek to improve workplace safety, it is important to consider the barriers to reporting violent incidents, including staff’s understanding of what acts may constitute reportable violence, as well as LEO understanding of the unique ED environment and patient responsibilities.