Jeffery, Molly M.

Introduction Opioid analgesics are often used to treat moderate-to-severe acute non-cancer pain; however, there is little high-quality evidence to guide clinician prescribing. An essential element to developing evidence-based guidelines is a better understanding of pain management and pain control among individuals experiencing acute pain for various common diagnoses. Methods and analysis This multicentre prospective observational study will recruit 1550 opioid-naïve participants with acute pain seen in diverse clinical settings including primary/urgent care, emergency departments and dental clinics. Participants will be followed for 6 months with the aid of a patient-centred health data aggregating platform that consolidates data from study questionnaires, electronic health record data on healthcare services received, prescription fill data from pharmacies, and activity and sleep data from a Fitbit activity tracker. Participants will be enrolled to represent diverse races and ethnicities and pain conditions, as well as geographical diversity. Data analysis will focus on assessing patients’ patterns of pain and opioid analgesic use, along with other pain treatments; associations between patient and condition characteristics and patient-centred outcomes including resolution of pain, satisfaction with care and long-term use of opioid analgesics; and descriptive analyses of patient management of leftover opioids. Ethics and dissemination This study has received approval from IRBs at each site. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community and the public. Trial registration number NCT04509115 .

Abstract Objective To determine the effect of a user centered clinical decision support tool versus usual care on rates of initiation of buprenorphine in the routine emergency care of individuals with opioid use disorder. Design Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (EMBED). Setting 18 emergency department clusters across five healthcare systems in five states representing the north east, south east, and western regions of the US, ranging from community hospitals to tertiary care centers, using either the Epic or Cerner electronic health record platform. Participants 599 attending emergency physicians caring for 5047 adult patients presenting with opioid use disorder. Intervention A user centered, physician facing clinical decision support system seamlessly integrated into user workflows in the electronic health record to support initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department by helping clinicians to diagnose opioid use disorder, assess the severity of withdrawal, motivate patients to accept treatment, and complete electronic health record tasks by automating clinical and after visit documentation, order entry, prescribing, and referral. Main outcome measures Rate of initiation of buprenorphine (administration or prescription of buprenorphine) in the emergency department among patients with opioid use disorder. Secondary implementation outcomes were measured with the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework. Results 1 413 693 visits to the emergency department (775 873 in the intervention arm and 637 820 in the usual care arm) from November 2019 to May 2021 were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 5047 patients with opioid use disorder (2787 intervention arm, 2260 usual care arm) under the care of 599 attending physicians (340 intervention arm, 259 usual care arm) for analysis. Buprenorphine was initiated in 347 (12.5%) patients in the intervention arm and in 271 (12.0%) patients in the usual care arm (adjusted generalized estimating equations odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 2.43, P=0.58). Buprenorphine was initiated at least once by 151 (44.4%) physicians in the intervention arm and by 88 (34.0%) in the usual care arm (1.83, 1.16 to 2.89, P=0.01). Conclusions User centered clinical decision support did not increase patient level rates of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department. Although streamlining and automating electronic health record workflows can potentially increase adoption of complex, unfamiliar evidence based practices, more interventions are needed to look at other barriers to the treatment of addiction and increase the rate of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department in patients with opioid use disorder. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03658642 .

Abstract Objective The objective was to derive a risk score that uses variables available early during the emergency department (ED) encounter to identify high‐risk geriatric patients who may benefit from delirium screening. Methods This was an observational study of older adults age ≥ 75 years who presented to an academic ED and who were screened for delirium during their ED visit. Variable selection from candidate predictors was performed through a LASSO‐penalized logistic regression. A risk score was derived from the final prediction model, and predictive accuracy characteristics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results From the 967 eligible ED visits, delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The area under the curve for the REcognizing DElirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score was 0.901 (95% CI = 0.864–0.938). The REEDEM risk score included 10 different variables (seven based on triage information and three obtained during early history taking) with a score ranging from –3 to 66. Using an optimal cutoff of ≥11, we found a sensitivity of 84.1% (90 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 75.5%–90.2%) and a specificity of 86.6% (745 of 860 non‐ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.1%–88.8%). A lower cutoff of ≥5 was found to minimize false negatives with an improved sensitivity at 91.6% (98 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.2%–95.8%). Conclusion A risk stratification score was derived with the potential to augment delirium recognition in geriatric ED patients. This has the potential to assist on delirium‐targeted screening of high‐risk patients in the ED. Validation of REDEEM, however, is needed prior to implementation.

OBJECTIVE Spinal procedures are increasingly conducted as outpatient procedures, with a growing proportion conducted in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). To date, studies reporting outcomes and cost analyses for outpatient spinal procedures in the US have not distinguished the various outpatient settings from each other. In this study, the authors used a state-level administrative database to compare rates of overnight stays and nonroutine discharges as well as index admission charges and cumulative 7-, 30-, and 90-day charges for patients undergoing outpatient lumbar decompression in freestanding ASCs and hospital outpatient (HO) settings. METHODS For this project, the authors used the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery Database (SASD), offered by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), for the years 2013 and 2014. Patients undergoing outpatient lumbar decompression for degenerative diseases were identified using CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) and ICD-9 codes. Outcomes of interest included rates of overnight stays, rate of nonroutine discharges, index admission charges, and subsequent admission cumulative charges at 7, 30, and 90 days. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess the impact of outpatient type on index admission charges. Marginal effect analysis was employed to study the difference in predicted dollar margins between ASCs and HOs for each insurance type. RESULTS A total of 25,486 patients were identified; of these, 7067 patients (27.7%) underwent lumbar decompression in a freestanding ASC and 18,419 (72.3%) in an HO. No patient in the ASC group required an overnight stay compared to 9.2% (n = 1691) in the HO group (p < 0.001). No clinically significant difference in the rate of nonroutine discharge was observed between the two groups. The mean index admission charge for the ASC group was found to be significantly higher than that for the HO group ($35,017.28 ± $14,335.60 vs $33,881.50 ± $15,023.70; p < 0.001). Patients in ASCs were also found to have higher mean 7-day (p < 0.001), 30-day (p < 0.001), and 90-day (p = 0.001) readmission charges. ASC procedures were associated with increased charges compared to HO procedures for patients on Medicare or Medicaid (mean index admission charge increase $4049.27, 95% CI $2577.87–$5520.67, p < 0.001) and for patients on private insurance ($4775.72, 95% CI $4171.06–$5380.38, p < 0.001). For patients on self-pay or no charge, a lumbar decompression procedure at an ASC was associated with a decrease in index admission charge of −$10,995.38 (95% CI −$12124.76 to −$9866.01, p < 0.001) compared to a lumbar decompression procedure at an HO. CONCLUSIONS These “real-world” results from an all-payer statewide database indicate that for outpatient spine surgery, ASCs may be associated with higher index admission and subsequent 7-, 30-, and 90-day charges. Given that ASCs are touted to have lower overall costs for patients and better profit margins for physicians, these analyses warrant further investigation into whether this cost benefit is applicable to outpatient spine procedures.

Objective To describe the epidemiology of paediatric pain-related visits to emergency departments (EDs) across the USA. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting A representative sample of US ED visits using data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). Participants Paediatric (age ≤18 years) ED visits in the 2017 NHAMCS data set. Data analysis Each visit was coded as pain-related or non-pain-related using the ‘reason for visit’ variable. Weighted proportions were calculated with 95% CIs. Logistic regression was used to compare odds of pain-related visits. Outcome measures Prevalence of pain-related visits among paediatric ED visits. Results There were an estimated 35 million paediatric ED visits in the USA in 2017, 55.6% (CI 53.3% to 57.8%) were pain related, which equates to 19.7 million annual visits. The prevalence of pain-related visits reached more than 50% of visits at age 6–7 and plateaued at relatively high proportions. Children of races other than white or black had lower odds of having a pain-related visit (OR 0.48, CI 0.29 to 0.81) than white children, as did children who were black, though the difference was not statistically significant (OR 0.88, CI 0.73 to 1.06). Relative to children covered by private insurance, children with Medicaid or CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) coverage had lower odds of a pain-related visit (OR 0.75, CI 0.60 to 0.93). Injuries represented 46.5% (CI 42.0% to 51.0%) of pain-related visits. Pain scores were reported in less than 50% of pain-related visits. Conclusion Pain is the reason for visit in 55.6% of paediatric ED visits across the USA. The prevalence of pain-related visits peak before adolescence and it continues relatively high until the age 18. Injury, racial disparities in pain and poor pain score reporting should remain major topics of study in the paediatric population.