“Choosing Wisely” Imaging Recommendations: Initial Implementation in New England Emergency Departments

Introduction: In June 2016, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Quality Network began its Reduce Avoidable Imaging Initiative, designed to “reduce testing and imaging with low risk patients through the implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations.” However, it is unknown whether New England emergency departments (ED) have already implemented evidence-based interventions to improve adherence to ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations related to imaging after their initial release in 2013. Our objective was to determine this, as well as whether provider-specific audit and feedback for imaging had been implemented in these EDs. Methods: This survey study was exempt from institutional review board review. In 2015, we mailed surveys to 195 hospital-affiliated EDs in all six New England states to determine whether they had implemented Choosing Wisely-focused interventions in 2014. Initial mailings included cover letters denoting the endorsement of each state’s ACEP chapter, and we followed up twice with repeat mailings to non-responders. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and a comparison of state differences using Fisher’s exact test. Results: A total of 169/195 (87%) of New England EDs responded, with all individual state response rates >80%. Overall, 101 (60%) of responding EDs had implemented an intervention for at least one Choosing Wisely imaging scenario; 57% reported implementing a specific guideline/policy/clinical pathway and 28% reported implementing a computerized decision support system. The most common interventions were for chest computed tomography (CT) in patients at low risk of pulmonary embolism (47% of EDs) and head CT in patients with minor trauma (45% of EDs). In addition, 40% of EDs had implemented provider-specific audit and feedback, without significant interstate variation (range: 29–55%). Conclusion: One year after release of the ACEP Choosing Wisely recommendations, most New England EDs had a guideline/policy/clinical pathway related to at least one of the recommendations. However, only a minority of them were using provider-specific audit and feedback or computerized decision support. Few EDs have embraced the opportunity to implement the multiple evidence-based interventions likely to advance the national goals of improving patient-centered and resource-efficient care

Change in opioid policies in New England emergency departments, 2014 vs 2018.

OBJECTIVE: The U.S. opioid epidemic persists, yet it is unclear if opioid-related emergency department (ED) policies have changed. We investigated: 1) the prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) prevention and treatment policies in New England EDs in 2018, and 2) how these policies have changed since 2014. METHODS: Using the National Emergency Department Inventory-USA, we identified and surveyed all New England EDs in 2015 and 2019 about opioid-related policies in 2014 and 2018, respectively. The surveys assessed OUD prevention policies (to use a screening tool, access the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program [PDMP], notify primary care providers, prescribe/dispense naloxone) and treatment policies (to refer to recovery resources, prescribe/dispense buprenorphine). RESULTS: Of 194 EDs open in 2018, 167 (86 %) completed the survey. Of 193 EDs open in 2018 and 2014, 147 (76 %) completed both surveys. In 2018, the most commonly-reported policy was accessing the PDMP (96 %); the least commonly-reported policy was prescribing/dispensing buprenorphine to at risk patients (37 %). EDs varied in prescribing/dispensing naloxone: 35 % of EDs offered naloxone to ≥80 % of patients at risk of opioid overdose versus 33 % of EDs to \u3c10 \u3e% of patients at risk. Most EDs (74 %) reported prescribing/dispensing buprenorphine to \u3c10 \u3e% of patients with OUD. Comparing 2018 to 2014, the greatest difference in policy use was in prescribing/dispensing naloxone (+55 %, p \u3c 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of opioid-related ED policies increased between 2014 and 2018. Continued effort is needed to understand the extent to which policy implementation translates to clinical care, and to best translate evidence-based policies into clinical practice

Screening for Health-Related Social Needs of Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There has been increasing attention to screening for health-related social needs. However, little is known about the screening practices of emergency departments (EDs). Within New England, we seek to identify the prevalence of ED screening for health-related social needs, understand the factors associated with screening, and understand how screening patterns for health-related social needs differ from those for violence, substance use, and mental health needs. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2018 National Emergency Department Inventory-New England survey, which was administered to all 194 New England EDs during 2019. We used descriptive statistics to compare ED characteristics by screening practices, and multivariable logistic regression models to identify factors associated with screening. RESULTS: Among the 166 (86%) responding EDs, 64 (39%) reported screening for at least one health-related social need, 160 (96%) for violence (including intimate partner violence or other violent exposures), 148 (89%) for substance use disorder, and 159 (96%) for mental health needs. EDs reported a wide range of social work resources to address identified needs, with 155 (93%) reporting any social worker availability and 41 (27%) reporting continuous availability. CONCLUSION: New England EDs are screening for health-related social needs at a markedly lower rate than for violence, substance use, and mental health needs. EDs have relatively limited resources available to address health-related social needs. We encourage research on the development of scalable solutions for identifying and addressing health-related social needs in the ED