Meisel, Zachary F.

AbstractBackgroundTo determine the impact of personalized risk communication and opioid prescribing on nonprescribed opioid use, we conducted a secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial participants followed prospectively for 90 days after an emergency department (ED) visit for acute back or kidney stone pain.MethodsA total of 1301 individuals were randomized during an encounter at four academic EDs into a probabilistic risk tool (PRT) arm, a narrative‐enhanced PRT arm, or a general risk information arm (control). In this secondary analysis, both risk tool arms were combined and compared with the control arm. We used logistic regressions to determine associations between receiving personalized risk information, receiving an opioid prescription in the ED, and nonprescribed opioid use in general and by race.ResultsComplete follow‐up data were available for 851 participants; 23.3% (n = 198) were prescribed opioids (34.2% of White vs. 11.6% of Black participants, p < 0.001). Fifty‐six (6.6%) participants used nonprescribed opioids. Participants in the personalized risk communication arms had lower nonprescribed opioid use odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4–0.83). Black versus White participants had greater nonprescribed opioid use odds (aOR 3.47, 95% CI 2.05–5.87, p < 0.001). Black participants who were prescribed opioids had a lower marginal probability of using nonprescribed opioids versus those who were not (0.06, 95% CI 0.04–0.08, p < 0.001 vs. 0.10, 95% CI 0.08–0.11, p < 0.001). The absolute risk difference in nonprescribed opioid use for Black and White participants, respectively, in the risk communication versus the control arm, was 9.7% and 0.1% (relative risk ratio 0.43 vs. 0.95).ConclusionsAmong Black but not White participants, personalized opioid risk communication and opioid prescribing were associated with lower odds of nonprescribed opioid use. Our findings suggest that racial disparities in opioid prescribing—which have been previously described within the context of this trial—may paradoxically increase nonprescribed opioid use. Personalized risk communication may effectively reduce nonprescribed opioid use, and future research should be designed specifically to explore this possibility in a larger cohort.

AbstractBackgroundPatients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome are frequently admitted for observation and cardiac testing, resulting in substantial burden and cost to the patient and the health care system.ObjectivesThe purpose of this investigation was to measure the effect of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid on overall health care utilization as well as utilization of specific services both during the index emergency department (ED) visit and in the subsequent 45 days.MethodsThis was a planned secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic multicenter randomized trial of shared decision making in adults presenting to the ED with chest pain who were being considered for observation unit admission for cardiac stress testing or coronary computed tomography angiography. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making facilitated by the CPC decision aid to a control group receiving usual care. Hospital‐level billing data were used to measure utilization for the index ED visit and during the following 45 days. Patients in both groups also were asked to keep a diary recording health care utilization over the same 45‐day period. Outcomes assessed included length of time in the ED and observation, ED visits, office visits, hospitalizations, testing, imaging, and procedures.ResultsOf the 898 patients included in the original trial, we were able to contact 834 (92.9%) patients for 45‐day health care diary review. There was no difference in patient‐reported health care utilization between the study arms. Hospital‐level billing data were obtained for all 898 (100%) patients. During the initial ED visit the length of stay (LOS) was similar, and there was no difference in the frequency of observation unit admission between study arms. However, the mean observation unit LOS was 95 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] = 40.8–149.8) shorter in the CPC arm and the mean number of tests was lower in the CPC arm (decrease in 19.4 imaging studies per 100 patients, 95% CI = 15.5–23.3). When evaluating the entire encounter and follow‐up period, the intervention arm underwent fewer tests (decrease in 125.6 tests per 100 patients, 95% CI = 29.3–221.6). More specifically, there were fewer advanced cardiac imaging tests completed (25.8 fewer per 100 patients, 95% CI = 3.74–47.9) in the intervention arm.ConclusionsShared decision making in low‐risk chest pain can lead to decreased diagnostic testing without worsening outcomes measured over 45 days.

Background. We test the hypotheses that use of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid (DA) would be similarly effective in potentially vulnerable subgroups but increase knowledge more in patients with higher education and trust in physicians more in patients from racial minority groups. Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in adults with chest pain potentially due to acute coronary syndrome. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making (SDM) using CPC to a control group receiving usual care (UC). We assessed for subgroup effects based on age, sex, race, income, insurance, education, literacy, and numeracy. We dichotomized each characteristic and tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. Results. Of 898 patients (451 DA, 447 UC), over 50% were female, over one-third were black, nearly one-third had a high school education or less, and over 60% had “low” health literacy. The DA did not increase knowledge more in patients with higher education ( P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase knowledge more in the “typical” than in the “low” numeracy subgroup (10.6% v. 4.7%, absolute difference [AD] = 5.9%, P for interaction = 0.025). The DA did not significantly increase patient trust in physicians in racial minorities ( P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase trust more in patients with “low” literacy compared with those with “typical” literacy (3.7% v. –1.4%, AD = 5.1, P for interaction = 0.011). Conclusions. CPC benefited all sociodemographic groups to a similar extent, with greater knowledge transfer in patients with higher numeracy and greater physician trust in patients with “low” health literacy. Tailoring SDM interventions to patient characteristics may be necessary for optimal effectiveness.

AbstractThe Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established by Congress in 2010 to promote the conduct of research that could better inform patients in making decisions that reflect their desired health outcomes. PCORI has established five national priorities for research around which specific funding opportunities are issued: 1) assessment of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options; 2) improving healthcare systems; 3) communication and dissemination research; 4) addressing disparities; and 5) improving methods for conducting patient‐centered outcomes research. To date, implementation of patient‐centered research in the emergency care setting has been limited, in part because of perceived challenges in meeting PCORI priorities such as the need to focus on a specific disease state or to have planned follow up. We suggest that these same factors that have been seen as challenges to performing patient‐centered research within the emergency setting are also potential strengths to be leveraged to conduct PCORI research. This paper explores factors unique to patient‐centered emergency care research and highlights specific areas of potential alignment within each PCORI priority.