Charlene B. Irvin

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine

There is convincing evidence that racial and ethnic disparities exist in the provision of health care, including the provision of emergency care; and that stereotyping, biases, and uncertainty on the part of health care providers all contribute to unequal treatment. Situations, such as the emergency department (ED), that are characterized by time pressure, incomplete information, and high demands on attention and cognitive resources increase the likelihood that stereotypes and bias will affect diagnostic and treatment decisions. It is likely that there are many as-yet-undocumented disparities in clinical emergency practice. Racial and ethnic disparities may arise in decisions made by out-of-hospital personnel regarding ambulance destination, triage assessments made by nursing personnel, diagnostic testing ordered by physicians or physician-extenders, and in disposition decisions. The potential for disparate treatment includes the timing and intensity of ED therapy as well as patterns of referral, prescription choices, and priority for hospital admission and bed assignment. At a national roundtable discussion, strategies suggested to address these disparities included: increased use of evidence-based clinical guidelines; use of continuous quality improvement methods to document individual and institutional disparities in performance; zero tolerance for stereotypical remarks in the workplace; cultural competence training for emergency providers; increased workforce diversity; and increased epidemiologic, clinical, and services research. Careful scrutiny of the clinical practice of emergency medicine and diligent implementation of strategies to prevent disparities will be required to eliminate the individual behaviors and systemic processes that result in the delivery of disparate care in EDs.

Effect of race and insurance on outcome of pediatric trauma

OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine if insurance or race status affect trauma outcomes in pediatric trauma patients. METHODS Using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB; v6.2), the following variables were extracted: age (0-17 years), payment type (insured, Medicaid/Medicare, or self-pay), race (white, Black/African American, or Hispanic), Injury Severity Score (ISS > 8), type of trauma (blunt or penetrating), and discharge status (alive or dead). Data were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS Of the 70,781 patient visits analyzed, 67% were insured, 23% were Medicaid/Medicare, and 10% were self-pay. Self-pay patients had higher mortality (11%, compared to Medicaid/Medicare at 5% and insured at 4%; p < 0.001). African Americans and Hispanics also had higher mortality (7 and 6%) compared to whites (4%; p < 0.001). Self-pay patients more likely suffered penetrating trauma than insured patients (12% vs. 4%; p < 0.001), and mortality for penetrating trauma self-pay patients was 29%, compared to only 11% for penetrating trauma insured patients (p < 0.001). The mortality rate varied from a low of 3% for insured whites, to 18% for self-pay African Americans. Logistic regression (including race, insurance status, injury type, and ISS) revealed that African Americans and Hispanics both had an increased risk of death compared to whites (African American odds ratio [OR] = 1.37, Hispanic OR = 1.20). Medicaid/Medicare patients had a slightly increased risk of death with OR = 1.14, but self-pay patients were almost three times more likely to die (adjusted OR = 2.92). CONCLUSIONS After controlling for ISS and type of injury, mortality disparity exists for uninsured, African American, and Hispanic pediatric trauma patients. Although the reasons for this are unclear, efforts to decrease these disparities are needed.

Respiratory hygiene in the emergency department.

The emergency department (ED) is an essential component of the public health response plan for control of acute respiratory infectious threats. Effective respiratory hygiene in the ED is imperative to limit the spread of dangerous respiratory pathogens, including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, avian influenza, and bioterrorism agents, particularly given that these agents may not be immediately identifiable. Sustaining effective respiratory control measures is especially challenging in the ED because of patient crowding, inadequate staffing and resources, and ever-increasing numbers of immunocompromised patients. Threat of contagion exists not only for ED patients but also for visitors, health care workers, and inpatient populations. Potential physical sites for respiratory disease transmission extend from out-of-hospital care, to triage, waiting room, ED treatment area, and the hospital at large. This article presents a summary of the most current information available in the literature about respiratory hygiene in the ED, including administrative, patient, and legal issues. Wherever possible, specific recommendations and references to practical information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are provided. The “Administrative Issues” section describes coordination with public health departments, procedures for effective facility planning, and measures for health care worker protection (education, staffing optimization, and vaccination). The patient care section addresses the potentially infected ED patient, including emergency medical services concerns, triage planning, and patient transport. “Legal Issues” discusses the interplay between public safety and patient privacy. Emergency physicians play a critical role in early identification, treatment, and containment of potentially lethal respiratory pathogens. This brief synopsis should help clinicians and administrators understand, develop, and implement appropriate policies and procedures to address respiratory hygiene in the ED. The emergency department (ED) is an essential component of the public health response plan for control of acute respiratory infectious threats. Effective respiratory hygiene in the ED is imperative to limit the spread of dangerous respiratory pathogens, including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, avian influenza, and bioterrorism agents, particularly given that these agents may not be immediately identifiable. Sustaining effective respiratory control measures is especially challenging in the ED because of patient crowding, inadequate staffing and resources, and ever-increasing numbers of immunocompromised patients. Threat of contagion exists not only for ED patients but also for visitors, health care workers, and inpatient populations. Potential physical sites for respiratory disease transmission extend from out-of-hospital care, to triage, waiting room, ED treatment area, and the hospital at large. This article presents a summary of the most current information available in the literature about respiratory hygiene in the ED, including administrative, patient, and legal issues. Wherever possible, specific recommendations and references to practical information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are provided. The “Administrative Issues” section describes coordination with public health departments, procedures for effective facility planning, and measures for health care worker protection (education, staffing optimization, and vaccination). The patient care section addresses the potentially infected ED patient, including emergency medical services concerns, triage planning, and patient transport. “Legal Issues” discusses the interplay between public safety and patient privacy. Emergency physicians play a critical role in early identification, treatment, and containment of potentially lethal respiratory pathogens. This brief synopsis should help clinicians and administrators understand, develop, and implement appropriate policies and procedures to address respiratory hygiene in the ED.

Are There Disparities in Emergency Care for Uninsured, Medicaid, and Privately Insured Patients?

OBJECTIVES To determine if there are any differences in proportion of high-acuity care and low-acuity care provided to uninsured, Medicaid-insured, and privately insured emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS This was a retrospective, observational study using physician level of service provided as a marker for acuity. The study used computerized billing data (2000-2001) from an urban, teaching, Level I trauma center with 75,000 visits per year. All uninsured and Medicaid patients (age groups: pediatric, <18 years; adult, 18-64 years) were compared by physician level of service billed to Blue Cross-Blue Shield (BCBS) patients and analyzed using chi-square. Low-acuity care was defined by CPT codes 99281 and 99282. High-acuity care was defined by CPT codes 99285 and 99291. RESULTS There were 152,379 total ED visits, with 13.2% BCBS (5,273 pediatric, 14,951 adult), 29.6% Medicaid (20,578 pediatric, 24,511 adult), and 8.1% uninsured (1,879 pediatric, 10,405 adult) patients. The percent of pediatric BCBS, Medicaid, and uninsured patients receiving low-acuity care was 30%, 35.7%, and 35.8% (p < 0.001), respectively; and for high-acuity care, it was 7.8%, 6.1%, and 6.8% (p < 0.001), respectively. The proportion of adults within these groupings was 13.7%, 13.2%, and 17.9% (p < 0.001) for low-acuity care, and 28.5%, 22.9%, and 16.7% (p < 0.001) for high-acuity care, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Whereas there were some statistically discerned differences between insurance groupings for proportionate receipt of low-acuity care and high-acuity care among both the pediatric and adult populations, the magnitude of most differences noted was not large, and may not reflect important differences in health care need or ED use based on insurance.

Should trauma patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 be intubated prior to hospital arrival

INTRODUCTION Previous studies of heterogeneous populations (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores<9) suggest that endotracheal intubation of trauma patients prior to hospital arrival (i.e., prehospital intubated) is associated with an increased mortality compared to those patients not intubated in the prehospital setting. Deeply comatose patients (GCS=3) represent a unique population of severely traumatized patients and may benefit from intubation in the prehospital setting. The objective of this study was to compare mortality rates of severely comatose patients (scene GCS=3) with prehospital endotracheal intubation to those intubated at the hospital. METHODS Using the National Trauma Data Bank (V. 6.2), the following variables were analyzed retrospectively: (1) age; (2) injury type (blunt or penetrating); (3) Injury Severity Score (ISS); (4) scene GCS=3 (scored prior to intubation/without sedation); (5) emergency department GCS score; (6) arrival emergency department intubation status; (7) first systolic blood pressure in the emergency department (>0); (8) discharge status (alive or dead); (9) Abbreviated Injury Scale Score (AIS); and (10) AIS body region. RESULTS Of the 10,948 patients analyzed, 23% (2,491/10,948) were endotracheally intubated in a prehospital setting. Mortality rate for those hospital intubated was 35% vs. 62% for those with prehospital intubation (p<0.0001); mean ISS scores 24.2±16.0 vs. 31.6±16.2, respectively (p<0.0001). Using logistic regression, controlling for first systolic blood pressure, ISS, emergency department GCS, age, and type of trauma, those with prehospital intubation were more likely to die (OR=1.9, 95% CI=1.7-2.2). For patients with only head AIS scores (no other body region injury, n=1,504), logistic regression (controlling for all other variables) indicated that those with prehospital intubation were still more likely to die (OR=2.0. 95% CI=1.4-2.9). CONCLUSIONS Prehospital endotracheal intubation is associated with an increased mortality in completely comatose trauma patients (GCS = 3). Although the exact reasons for this remain unclear, these results support other studies and suggest the need for future research and re-appraisal of current policies for prehospital intubation in these severely traumatized patients.

Management of Evacuee Surge from a Disaster Area: Solutions to Avoid Non-Emergent, Emergency Department Visits

INTRODUCTION Many emergency departments (EDs) in the United States experience daily overcrowding, and a rapid influx of evacuees fleeing a disaster area can pose a substantial burden. Some of these evacuees may require ED care. However, others lack an alternative to the ED to address non-emergent medical concerns (prescription refills or outpatient referral). OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to describe a successful multidisciplinary Hurricane Katrina Evacuation Center, explain the services offered, and determine the centers effects on referrals to local EDs. METHODS Data were collected concerning the number of patients utilizing the medical evaluation center and compared to the total number of evacuees to determine the proportion that utilized medical care. The data concerning patients given prescriptions was obtained by the estimation of the two medical directors of the Center, and therefore, is inexact. RESULTS During the five weeks the center was operational, 631 of 716 evacuees (88%) requested medical evaluation, and >80% of those had prescriptions written. Only four (<1%) patients were transported to local EDs. CONCLUSION An evacuee evaluation center provides a convenient non-ED alternative for evacuees to address their non-emergent medical concerns and can be used to ease their transition to a new location.

Respiratory Hygiene in the Emergency Department

The emergency department (ED) is an essential component of the public health response plan for control of acute respiratory infectious threats. Effective respiratory hygiene in the ED is imperative to limit the spread of dangerous respiratory pathogens, including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, avian influenza, and bioterrorism agents, particularly given that these agents may not be immediately identifiable. Sustaining effective respiratory control measures is especially challenging in the ED because of patient crowding, inadequate staffing and resources, and ever-increasing numbers of immunocompromised patients. Threat of contagion exists not only for ED patients but also for visitors, health care workers, and inpatient populations. Potential physical sites for respiratory disease transmission extend from out-of-hospital care, to triage, waiting room, ED treatment area, and the hospital at large. This article presents a summary of the most current information available in the literature about respiratory hygiene in the ED, including administrative, patient, and legal issues. Wherever possible, specific recommendations and references to practical information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are provided. The “Administrative Issues” section describes coordination with public health departments, procedures for effective facility planning, and measures for health care worker protection (education, staffing optimization, and vaccination). The patient care section addresses the potentially infected ED patient, including emergency medical services concerns, triage planning, and patient transport. “Legal Issues” discusses the interplay between public safety and patient privacy. Emergency physicians play a critical role in early identification, treatment, and containment of potentially lethal respiratory pathogens. This brief synopsis should help clinicians and administrators understand, develop, and implement appropriate policies and procedures to address respiratory hygiene in the ED. The emergency department (ED) is an essential component of the public health response plan for control of acute respiratory infectious threats. Effective respiratory hygiene in the ED is imperative to limit the spread of dangerous respiratory pathogens, including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, avian influenza, and bioterrorism agents, particularly given that these agents may not be immediately identifiable. Sustaining effective respiratory control measures is especially challenging in the ED because of patient crowding, inadequate staffing and resources, and ever-increasing numbers of immunocompromised patients. Threat of contagion exists not only for ED patients but also for visitors, health care workers, and inpatient populations. Potential physical sites for respiratory disease transmission extend from out-of-hospital care, to triage, waiting room, ED treatment area, and the hospital at large. This article presents a summary of the most current information available in the literature about respiratory hygiene in the ED, including administrative, patient, and legal issues. Wherever possible, specific recommendations and references to practical information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are provided. The “Administrative Issues” section describes coordination with public health departments, procedures for effective facility planning, and measures for health care worker protection (education, staffing optimization, and vaccination). The patient care section addresses the potentially infected ED patient, including emergency medical services concerns, triage planning, and patient transport. “Legal Issues” discusses the interplay between public safety and patient privacy. Emergency physicians play a critical role in early identification, treatment, and containment of potentially lethal respiratory pathogens. This brief synopsis should help clinicians and administrators understand, develop, and implement appropriate policies and procedures to address respiratory hygiene in the ED.

The Role of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine in the Development of Guidelines and Performance Measures

Measurement of adherence to clinical standards has become increasingly important to the practice of emergency medicine (EM). In recent years, along with a proliferation of evidence-based practice guidelines and performance measures, there has been a movement to incorporate measurement into reimbursement strategies, many of which affect EM practice. On behalf of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Guidelines Committee 2009-2010, the purposes of this document are to: 1) differentiate the processes of guideline and performance measure development, 2) describe how performance measures are currently and will be used in pay-for-performance initiatives, and 3) discuss opportunities for SAEM to affect future guideline and performance measurement development for emergency care. Specific recommendations include that SAEM should: 1) develop programs to sponsor guideline and quality measurement research; 2) increase participation in the process of guideline and quality measure development, endorsement, and maintenance; 3) increase collaboration with other EM organizations to review performance measures proposed by organizations outside of EM that affect emergency medical care; and 4) answer calls for participation in the selection and implementation of performance measures through The Joint Commission and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Ethical considerations for emergency care providers during pandemic influenza--ready or not...

When an infectious pandemic occurs in the United States, emergency care providers (ECPs) will be on the frontlines caring for infected, potentially infected, and non-infected patients. Logistically, the current emergency care system is not ready for a pandemic, but are the providers ethically ready? Some of the most difficult and challenging issues that will be raised during a pandemic will be ethical in nature. An ECP likely will be confronted with ethical values and value conflicts underlying restriction of liberty, duty to care, and resource allocation. This report summarizes the ethical concerns and challenges that ECPs face during an infectious pandemic, and raises ethical questions that may arise related to the role of an ECP as a healthcare provider and stakeholder.

Emergency department Chlamydia screening through partnership with the public health department.

BACKGROUND The emergency department (ED) serves a population that may benefit from numerous screening initiatives but screening in the ED is challenging due to crowding as well as resource and time constraints. One option may be to collect specimens in the ED and then partner with the public health department (PHD) to analyze the specimens off-site and arrange follow-up treatment. OBJECTIVES The objective was to explore the feasibility of chlamydia screening in females using a partnership model in which the ED is responsible for urine collection and the PHD is responsible for chlamydia testing, notification, and treatment. METHODS A collaborative partnership-based chlamydia screening project was initiated at a large (90,000 visits/yr), urban, teaching ED from April 2007 to April 2008. Study information sheets were handed out to a convenience sample of eligible female patients and visitors (15-24 yr of age). Those wishing to participate provided a urine sample and follow-up contact information. The information sheet also asked if they had either lower abdominal pain or vaginal discharge (affirmative answer for either was considered symptomatic). Specimens collected in the ED were retrieved by PHD staff for off-site testing. The PHD contacted those participants testing positive using the patient provided contact information and arranged for treatment. RESULTS Of the 633 women offered screening, 296 (47%) agreed to testing and provided samples. Of the 296 tested, 38 (12.8%) were positive for chlamydia infection, and 25 (66%) received follow-up and treatment; 13 could not be contacted through information they provided. A higher percentage of symptomatic subjects (23 of 115, or 20%) tested positive for chlamydia than asymptomatic subjects (15 of 181, or 8.3%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the feasibility of an ED-PHD partnership for chlamydia screening in young women. This model can potentially be applied to other initiatives and may improve public health screening without creating significant additional burdens for crowded EDs.