Michelle Davitt

Preliminary Report of a Palliative Care and Case Management Project in an Emergency Department for Chronically Ill Elderly Patients

The Palliative Care Service at Montefiore Medical Center (MMC) established a pilot project in the emergency department (ED) to identify chronically ill older adults in need of palliative care, homecare, and hospice services and to link such patients with these services. Two advance practice nurses conducted consultations on elderly patients who were found to have one or more “palliative care triggers” on initial screening. A standardized medical record abstraction form was developed. Service utilization and survival were evaluated using the Clinical Information Systems of MMC. Activity of daily living items were developed from the Outcome and Assessment Information Set and the Palliative Care Performance Scale (PPS). Risk factors for hospitalization and use of the ED were taken from the SIGNET model risk screening tool. Physical and emotional symptoms were evaluated using the 28-item Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale short form. Preliminary outcomes and characteristics are presented for 291 patients who completed the intake needs assessment questionnaire. Almost one third (30.9%) of the study cohort died during the project period. Most of the deaths occurred beyond the medical center (7.7% died in the medical center and 23.3% outside the medical center). Thirty percent of patients who died were enrolled on a hospice. Survival time was predicted by the presence of dyspnea, clinician prediction of death on the current hospitalization, psychosocial distress, and PPS scores. Chronically ill patients visiting an urban community ED had complex medical and psychosocial problems with limited support systems and homecare services. Significant proportions of such patients can be expected to have limited likelihood of survival. The presence of palliative homecare and hospice outreach services in the ED in urban community hospitals may provide an effective strategy for linkage of elderly patients at the end of life with otherwise underutilized services.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of single-dose IM corticosteroid for radicular low back pain.

Study Design. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with radicular low back pain who present to an emergency department (ED) within 1 week of pain onset. Objective. We hypothesized that a single intramuscular 160 mg dose of methylprednisolone acetate would improve pain and functional outcomes 1 month after ED discharge if the corticosteroid were administered early in disease symptomotology. Summary of Background Data. Parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for acute, radicular low back pain, though their role in this disease process is ill-defined. To date, this medication class has only been studied in a highly selected group of patients requiring hospitalization. Methods. Adults between the ages of 21 and 50 who presented to an ED with low back pain and a positive straight leg raise test were enrolled. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity on an 11 point numerical rating scale 1 month after ED visit. Secondary outcomes 1 month after ED discharge included analgesic use, functional disability, and adverse medication effects. Results. Six hundred thirty-seven patients were approached for participation, 133 were eligible, and 82 were randomized. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The primary outcome, a comparison of the mean improvement in pain intensity, favored methylprednisolone by 1.3 (P = 0.10). Some secondary outcomes favored methylprednisolone, such as use of analgesic medication within the previous 24 hours (22% vs. 43%, 95% CI for difference of 20%: 0%–40%) and functional disability (19% vs. 49%, 95% CI for difference of 29%: 9%–49%). Adverse medication effects 1 week after ED discharge were reported by 32% of methylprednisolone and 24% of placebo patients (95% CI for difference of 9%: −12% to 30%). Conclusion. This study was a negative study, though there was a suggestion of benefit of methylprednisolone acetate in a population of young adults with acute radicular low back pain. Further work with a larger sample of patients is needed.

One-week and 3-month outcomes after an emergency department visit for undifferentiated musculoskeletal low back pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE Nearly 3 million patients present to US emergency departments (EDs) annually with undifferentiated musculoskeletal low back pain. Little is known about short- and longer-term outcomes in this group. We seek to describe the pain and functional outcomes 1 week and 3 months after discharge in a sample of ED patients presenting with undifferentiated musculoskeletal low back pain. METHODS We used a prospective observational descriptive cohort design, enrolling ED patients with a chief complaint of low back pain classified as musculoskeletal in origin by the ED attending physician. We defined low back pain as pain originating in the posterior back between the tips of the scapulae and upper buttocks and excluded any patient with a traumatic back injury occurring within the previous month. We interviewed patients in the ED and then by telephone follow-up 1 week and 3 months after ED discharge, using a scripted closed-question data collection instrument. Our primary outcome was functional limitation attributable to low back pain assessed with a validated scale. Secondary outcomes included pain and analgesic use during the 24 hours before each follow-up telephone call. RESULTS During a 9-month period beginning in July 2009, we approached 894 patients, of whom 556 were enrolled. We obtained follow-up on 97% of our sample at 1 week and 92% at 3 months. One week after ED discharge, 70% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66% to 74%) of patients reported back pain-related functional impairment, 59% (95% CI 55% to 63%) reported moderate or severe low back pain, and 69% (95% CI 65% to 73%) reported analgesic use within the previous 24 hours. Three months after ED discharge, 48% (95% CI 44% to 52%) of patients reported functional impairment, 42% (95% CI 38% to 46%) reported moderate or severe pain, and 46% (95% CI 44% to 50%) reported analgesic use within the previous 24 hours. CONCLUSION There is substantial short- and longer-term morbidity and ongoing analgesic use among patients who present to an ED with undifferentiated musculoskeletal low back pain.

A Randomized Trial of Diphenhydramine as Prophylaxis Against Metoclopramide-Induced Akathisia in Nauseated Emergency Department Patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE Akathisia, an adverse effect observed at times after administration of parenteral metoclopramide, is an unpleasant symptom complex characterized by restlessness and agitation. Some try to limit the development of akathisia by coadministering diphenhydramine when using parenteral metoclopramide. The goal of this investigation is to determine whether concomitant administration of diphenhydramine 25 mg decreased the rate of development of akathisia after administration of 10 mg or 20 mg of intravenous metoclopramide. METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind, factorial design trial. Patients who presented to our emergency department with a primary or secondary chief complaint of nausea were randomized to one of the following 4 groups: (1) metoclopramide 10 mg+diphenhydramine 25 mg; (2) metoclopramide 10 mg+placebo; (3) metoclopramide 20 mg+diphenhydramine 25 mg; (4) metoclopramide 20 mg+placebo. The medications were inserted into a 50-mL bag of normal saline solution and administered as an intravenous drip during 15 minutes. Primary outcome was development of akathisia within 60 minutes of medication administration, as measured by blinded assessors using a short akathisia instrument, or use of rescue medication for treatment of akathisia by blinded clinical staff. Patients were also asked at baseline and 30 minutes later whether they felt restless. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-nine patients were randomized and 286 patients were included in the final analysis. Within 1 hour of medication administration, 17 of 143 patients randomized to diphenhydramine (12%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 8% to 18%) and 17 of 143 (12%; 95% CI 8% to 18%) randomized to placebo developed akathisia (95% CI for difference of 0%: -8% to 8%). Thirteen of 143 patients randomized to metoclopramide 10 mg (9%; 95% CI 5% to 15%) and 21 of 143 randomized to metoclopramide 20 mg (15%; 95% CI 10% to 22%) developed akathisia (95% CI for difference of 6%: -2% to 14%). In those administered prophylactic diphenhydramine, odds of akathisia relative to placebo were 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0). Odds of akathisia in those administered 20 mg of metoclopramide relative to the 10-mg dose were 1.7 (95% CI 0.8 to 3.6). Among patients who received 20 mg of metoclopramide, subjective restlessness was reported by 7 of 72 (9.7%) patients who received diphenhydramine and 14 of 71 (19.7%) patients who received placebo (95% CI for difference of 10%: -2% to 22%). CONCLUSION Routine prophylaxis with diphenhydramine to prevent akathisia is unwarranted when intravenous metoclopramide is administered over 15 minutes. For patients administered 20 mg of metoclopramide, prophylactic diphenhydramine may decrease subjective restlessness.

No racial or ethnic disparity in treatment of long-bone fractures☆

Studies of data from the 1990s are often cited as evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in pain management. Subsequent evidence supporting this association has not been consistent. The objective was to assess whether there are racial or ethnic disparities in receipt of analgesics for pain from long-bone fractures more recently and in a different region of the United States. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 449 patients. Twenty-three percent (53/235) of Hispanic patients, 31% (41/133) of African American patients, and 26% (21/81) of white patients did not receive analgesics. Compared with white patients, the relative risk of not receiving analgesics was 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-2.03) for African Americans and 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.47) for Hispanic patients after controlling for age, sex, mechanism, marital status, mode of arrival, fracture reduction, fracture type, disposition, and insurance status. We did not find evidence of racial or ethnic disparities in the management of pain from long-bone fractures.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Naproxen With or Without Orphenadrine or Methocarbamol for Acute Low Back Pain

Study objective: In US emergency departments (EDs), patients with low back pain are often treated with nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants. We compare functional outcomes among patients randomized to a 1‐week course of naproxen+placebo versus naproxen+orphenadrine or naproxen+methocarbamol. Methods: This was a randomized, double‐blind, comparative effectiveness trial conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients presenting with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain were enrolled. The primary outcome was improvement on the Roland‐Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) between ED discharge and 1 week later. All patients were given 14 tablets of naproxen 500 mg, to be used twice a day, as needed for low back pain. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive a 1‐week supply of orphenadrine 100 mg, to be used twice a day as needed, methocarbamol 750 mg, to be used as 1 or 2 tablets 3 times per day as needed, or placebo. All patients received a standardized 10‐minute low back pain educational session before discharge. Results: Two hundred forty patients were randomized. Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable. The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+placebo improved by 10.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.9 to 12.9). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+orphenadrine improved by 9.4 points (95% CI 7.4 to 11.5). The mean RMDQ score of patients randomized to naproxen+methocarbamol improved by 8.1 points (95% CI 6.1 to 10.1). None of the between‐group differences surpassed our threshold for clinical significance. Adverse events were reported by 17% (95% CI 10% to 28%) of placebo patients, 9% (95% CI 4% to 19%) of orphenadrine patients, and 19% (95% CI 11% to 29%) of methocarbamol patients. Conclusion: Among ED patients with acute, nontraumatic, nonradicular low back pain, combining naproxen with either orphenadrine or methocarbamol did not improve functional outcomes compared with naproxen+placebo.