Jeffery, Molly M.

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.

Abstract Introduction The rapidly ageing population and multimorbidity are associated with increased emergency department (ED) visits by older adults. In the ED, older adults have higher risk of hospitalization, functional and cognitive decline, and mortality. Boarding, holding admitted patients in the ED awaiting a hospital bed, exacerbates these negative outcomes, which disproportionately affect older adults. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to investigate US boarding trends by age using clinical administrative data from 5 health systems and publicly available NHAMCS data from 2018 to 2024. Results Boarding ≥3 h in the ED has increased across diverse hospital types, with oldest adults (85+) facing the greatest risk (System 4: IRR [95% CI] = 1.18 [1.15-1.20], System 5: IRR [95% CI] = 1.20 [1.17-1.23], System 3 [Community Hospital]: IRR [95% CI] = 1.25 [1.19-1.33]). These results were recapitulated at the national level in NHAMCS (IRR [95% CI] = 1.30 [1.05-1.61]). Discussion The trend of increased boarding has serious implications for patients, caregivers, and health systems. The 2025 CMS Age-Friendly Hospital Measure offers opportunities to improve processes and procedures to mitigate the negative effects of hospital boarding on older patients. We highlight opportunities to address this challenge, including ongoing quality improvement initiatives, bed prioritization algorithms, and alternate admission pathways.

ABSTRACTObjectivesWe describe the types of emergency department (ED) visits managed by non‐physician providers (NPPs), including physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and emergency medicine (EM) physicians, assessing shifts in care patterns over time.MethodsWe used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey collected from 2009 to 2021. We classified visits by provider type: physician only, physician with resident, physician with NPP, and NPP only. We described characteristics of visits by provider type, including patient demographics, triage urgency, imaging, length of stay, and disposition, and analyzed using Poisson regression. We described the change in type of provider seen over this study period and further analyzed by triage urgency and hospital location.ResultsOf 1.684 billion estimated ED visits from 2009 to 2021, 1.171 billion were managed by physicians without residents or NPPs (physicians only), 136.3 million by physicians with residents, 209.1 million by physicians with NPPs, and 167.4 million by NPPs only. Patients seen by physicians only were older, were triaged as having more urgent needs, had a longer ED length of stay, and were more likely to be admitted compared to those seen by NPPs only. Physician‐only visits decreased from 77% to 62%, while NPP‐only visits increased from 6% to 11%. The physician with the NPP group similarly grew from 9% to 17%. For visits assigned a triage urgency level of 2 (“emergent”), physician‐only visits decreased by 20%, physician with NPP visits increased by 13%, and NPP‐only visits increased by 3%. In metropolitan areas, physician‐only visits dropped 14%, with a 5% increase in NPP‐only visits. In non‐metropolitan areas, physician‐only visits decreased 17%, with a 9% increase in NPP‐only visits.ConclusionsThe EM workforce has shifted, with NPPs seeing a higher percentage of patients, including both lower‐ and higher‐acuity patients. This shift is particularly prominent in rural areas but is evident across all regions.

AbstractObjectiveTransgender and gender‐diverse (TGD) individuals have a gender identity or expression that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. They are an underserved population who experience health care inequities. Our primary objective was to identify if there are treatment differences between TGD and cisgender lesbian/gay/bisexual/queer (LGBQ) or heterosexual individuals presenting with abdominal pain to the emergency department (ED).MethodsRetrospective observational cohort study of patients ≥12 years of age presenting to 21 EDs within a health care system with a chief complaint of abdominal pain between 2018 and 2022. TGD patients were matched 1:1:1:1 to cisgender LGBQ women and men and cisgender heterosexual women and men, respectively. Propensity score matching covariates included age, ED site, mental health history, and gastrointestinal history. The primary outcome was pain assessment within 60 min of arrival. The secondary outcome was analgesics administered in the ED.ResultsWe identified 300 TGD patients, of whom 300 TGD patients were successfully matched for a total cohort of 1300 patients. The median (IQR) age was 25 (20–32) years and most patients were treated in a community ED (58.2%). There was no difference between groups in pain assessment within 60 min of arrival (59.0% TGD vs. 63.2% non TGD, p = 0.19). There were no differences in the number of times pain was assessed (median [IQR] 2 [1–3] vs. 2 [1–4], p = 0.31) or the severity of pain between groups (5.5 [4–7] vs. 6 [4–7], p = 0.11). TGD patients were more likely to receive nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (32.0% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.015) and less likely to receive opioids than non‐TGD patients (24.7% vs. 36.9%, p = <0.001). TGD and nonbinary patients, along with LGBQ cisgender women (24.7%) and heterosexual cisgender women (34%), were less likely to receive opioids than LGBQ cisgender men (54%) and heterosexual cisgender men (42.3%, p < 0.01).ConclusionThere was no difference in frequency of pain assessment, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. More cisgender men, compared to TGD and cisgender women, received opioids for their pain.

Abstract Background The impact of ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use on patients with cancer remains undefined. Our objective was to determine trends in new and additional opioid use in patients with and without cancer. Methods This retrospective cohort study used data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program–Medicare for opioid-naive patients with solid tumor malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017 and a random sample of patients without cancer. We identified 238 470 eligible patients with cancer and further focused on 4 clinical strata: patients without cancer, patients with metastatic cancer, patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery alone (“surgery alone”), and patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy or radiation therapy (“surgery+”). We identified new, early additional, and long-term additional opioid use and calculated the change in predicted probability of these outcomes from 2012 to 2017. Results New opioid use was higher in patients with cancer (46.4%) than in those without (6.9%) (P &lt; .001). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use was more stable in the cancer strata (relative declines: 0.1% surgery alone; 2.4% surgery+; 8.8% metastatic cancer), than in the noncancer stratum (20.0%) (P &lt; .001 for each cancer to noncancer comparison). Early additional use declined among surgery patients (‒14.9% and ‒17.5% for surgery alone and surgery+, respectively) but was stable among patients with metastatic disease (‒2.8%, P = .50). Conclusions Opioid prescribing declined over time at a slower rate in patients with cancer than in patients without cancer. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.

AbstractBackgroundOpioid overdose deaths have disproportionately impacted Black and Hispanic populations, in part due to disparities in treatment access. Emergency departments (EDs) serve as a resource for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), many of whom have difficulty accessing outpatient addiction programs. However, inequities in ED treatment for OUD remain poorly understood.MethodsThis secondary analysis examined racial and ethnic differences in buprenorphine access using data from EMBED, a study of 21 EDs across five health care systems evaluating a clinical decision support system for initiating ED buprenorphine. The primary outcome was receipt of buprenorphine, ED administered or prescribed. Hospital type (academic vs. community) was evaluated as an effect modifier. Hierarchical models with cluster effects for site and clinician were used to assess buprenorphine receipt by race and ethnicity.ResultsBlack patients were less likely to receive buprenorphine (6.4% [51/801] vs. White patients 8.5% [268/3154], odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45–0.78). This association persisted after adjusting for age, insurance, gender, clinician X‐waiver, hospital type, and urbanicity (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.48–0.84) but not when discharge diagnosis was included (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56–1.02). Hispanic patients were more likely to receive buprenorphine (14.8% [122/822] vs. non‐Hispanic patients, 11.6% [475/4098]) in unadjusted (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09–1.83) and adjusted models (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08–1.83) but not including discharge diagnosis (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99–1.77). Odds of buprenorphine were similar in academic and community EDs by race (interaction p = 0.97) and ethnicity (interaction p = 0.64).ConclusionsBlack patients with OUD were less likely to receive buprenorphine whereas Hispanic patients were more likely to receive buprenorphine in academic and community EDs. Differences were attenuated with discharge diagnosis, as fewer Black and non‐Hispanic patients were diagnosed with opioid withdrawal. Barriers to medication treatment are heterogenous among patients with OUD; research must continue to address the multiple drivers of health inequities at the patient, clinician, and community level.

Introduction Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is effective at treating chronic insomnia, yet in-person CBT-I can often be challenging to access. Prior studies have used technology to bridge barriers but have been unable to extensively assess the impact of the digital therapeutic on real-world patient experience and multidimensional outcomes. Among patients with insomnia, our aim is to determine the impact of a prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) (PEAR-003b, FDA-authorised as Somryst; herein called PDT) that provides mobile-delivered CBT-I on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare utilisation. Methods and analysis We are conducting a pragmatically designed, prospective, multicentre randomised controlled trial that leverages Hugo, a unique patient-centred health data-aggregating platform for data collection and patient follow-up from Hugo Health. A total of 100 participants with insomnia from two health centres will be enrolled onto the Hugo Health platform, provided with a linked Fitbit (Inspire 2) to track activity and then randomised 1:1 to receive (or not) the PDT for mobile-delivered CBT-I (Somryst). The primary outcome is a change in the insomnia severity index score from baseline to 9-week postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilisation, health utility scores and clinical outcomes; change in sleep outcomes as measured with sleep diaries and a change in individual PROs including depressive symptoms, daytime sleepiness, health status, stress and anxiety. For those allocated to the PDT, we will also assess engagement with the PDT. Ethics and dissemination The Institutional Review Boards at Yale University and the Mayo Clinic have approved the trial protocol. This trial will provide important data to patients, clinicians and policymakers about the impact of the PDT device delivering CBT-I on PROs, clinical outcomes and healthcare utilisation. Findings will be disseminated to participants, presented at professional meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04909229 .

Objectives Evaluate the associations between patients taking ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and their clinical outcomes after an acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI) due to COVID-19. Design Retrospective cohort. Setting The USA; 2017–2018 influenza season, 2018–2019 influenza season, and 2019–2020 influenza/COVID-19 season. Participants People with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI. Main outcome measures Change in hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit (CCU), acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome (ARDS) and all-cause mortality, comparing COVID-19 to pre-COVID-19 influenza seasons. Results The cohort included 1 059 474 episodes of AVRI (653 797 filled an ACEi or ARB, and 405 677 other HTN medications). 58.6% were women and 72.9% with age ≥65. The ACEi/ARB cohort saw a larger increase in risk in the COVID-19 influenza season than the other HTN medication cohort for four out of five outcomes, with an additional 1.5 percentage point (pp) increase in risk of an inpatient stay (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9 pp) and of ICU/CCU use (95% CI 0.3 to 2.7 pp) as well as a 0.7 pp (0.1 to 1.2 pp) additional increase in risk of ARD and 0.9 pp (0.4 to 1.3 pp) additional increase in risk of ARDS. There was no statistically significant difference in the absolute risk of death (−0.2 pp, 95% CI −0.4 to 0.1 pp). However, the relative risk of death in 2019/2020 versus 2017/2018 for the ACEi/ARB group was larger (1.40 (1.36 to 1.44)) than for the other HTN medication cohort (1.24 (1.21 to 1.28)). Conclusions People with AVRI using ACEi/ARBs for HTN had a greater increase in poor outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic than those using other medications to treat HTN. The small absolute magnitude of the differences likely does not support changes in clinical practice.