Dyspnea in an Otherwise Healthy 18-year-old: The Importance of Point-of-care Ultrasonography

A healthy 18-year-old male presented to the emergency department with chest pain, palpitations, and dyspnea. His exam was unremarkable; however, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) revealed right ventricular strain with a D-sign and enlarged right ventricle. He subsequently reported a history of factor V Leiden. His D-dimer was markedly elevated, and a computed tomography angiogram of the chest demonstrated submassive pulmonary embolism (PE). He was taken to the catheterization lab for directed thrombolysis and was discharged in good condition two days later. Factor V Leiden is the most common genetic cause of venous thromboembolism. POCUS can facilitate rapid diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with acute PE

The Role of Gender in Nurse-Resident Interactions: A Mixed-methods Study

Introduction: The role of gender in interprofessional interactions is poorly understood. This mixed-methods study explored perceptions of gender bias in interactions between emergency medicine (EM) residents and nurses.Methods: We analyzed qualitative interviews and focus groups with residents and nurses from two hospitals for dominant themes. An electronic survey, developed through an inductive-deductive approach informed by qualitative data, was administered to EM residents and nurses. Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics and between-group comparisons. Results: Six nurses and 14 residents participated in interviews and focus groups. Key qualitative themes included gender differences in interprofessional communication, specific examples of, and responses to, gender bias. Female nurses perceived female residents as more approachable and collaborative than male residents, while female residents perceived nurses’ questions as doubting their clinical judgment. A total of 134 individuals (32%) completed the survey. Females more frequently perceived interprofessional gender bias (mean 30.9; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 25.6, 36.2; vs 17.6 [95% CI, 10.3, 24.9). Residents reported witnessing interprofessional gender bias more frequently than nurses (58.7 (95% CI, 48.6, 68.7 vs 23.9 (95% CI, 19.4, 28.4). Residents reported that gender bias affected job satisfaction (P = 0.002), patient care (P = 0.001), wellness (P = 0.003), burnout (P = 0.002), and self-doubt (P = 0.017) more frequently than nurses. Conclusion: Perceived interprofessional gender bias negatively impacts personal wellbeing and workplace satisfaction, particularly among female residents. Key institutional stakeholders including residency, nursing, and hospital leadership should invest the resources necessary to develop and integrate evidence-based strategies to improve interprofessional relationships that will ultimately enhance residency training, work climate, and patient care

Patient and Community Organization Perspectives on Accessing Social Resources from the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study

Introduction: Social risks adversely affect health and are associated with increased healthcare utilization and costs. Emergency department (ED) patients have high rates of social risk; however, little is known about best practices for ED-based screening or linkage to community resources. We examined the perspectives of patients and community organizations regarding social risk screening and linkage from the ED.Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of ED patients and local community organization staff. Participants completed a brief demographic survey, health literacy assessment, and qualitative interview focused on barriers/facilitators to social risk screening in the ED, and ideas for screening and linkage interventions in the ED. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, recorded, transcribed, and coded. Themes were identified by consensus.Results: We conducted 22 interviews with 16 patients and six community organization staff. Three categories of themes emerged. The first related to the importance of social risk screening in the ED. The second category encompassed challenges regarding screening and linkage, including fear, mistrust, transmission of accurate information, and time/resource constraints. The third category included suggestions for improvement and program development. Patients had varied preferences for verbal vs electronic strategies for screening. Community organization staff emphasized resource scarcity and multimodal communication strategies.Conclusion: The development of flexible, multimodal, social risk screening tools, and the creation and maintenance of an accurate database of local resources, are strategies that may facilitate improved identification of social risk and successful linkage to available community resources

Social Determinants of Health Screening at an Urban Emergency Department Urgent Care During COVID-19

Introduction: Social determinants of health (SDoH) impact patients’ health outcomes, yet screening methods in emergency departments (ED) are not consistent or standardized. The SDoH-related health disparities may have widened during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, especially among patients who primarily receive their medical care in EDs. We sought to identify SDoH among ED urgent care patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at an urban safety-net hospital, assess the impact of the pandemic on their SDoH, study the feasibility of SDoH screening and resource referrals, and identify preferred methods of resource referrals and barriers to accessing resources. Methods: Research assistants screened ED urgent care patients using a validated SDoH screener, inquiring about the impact of COVID-19 on their SDoH. A printed resource guide was provided. Two weeks later, a follow-up telephone survey assessed for barriers to resource connection and patients’ preferred methods for resource referrals. This study was deemed exempt by our institutional review board. Results: Of the 418 patients presented with a screener, 414 (99.0%) patients completed the screening. Of those screened, 296 (71.5%) reported at least one adverse SDoH, most commonly education (38.7%), food insecurity (35.3%), and employment (31.0%). Housing insecurity was reported by 21.0%. Over half of patients (57.0%) endorsed COVID-19 affecting their SDoH. During follow-up, 156 of 234 (67%) attempted calls were successful and 36/156 (23.1%) reported attempting to connect with a resource, with most attempts made for stable housing (11.0%) and food (7.7%). Reasons for not contacting the provided resources included lack of time (37.8%) and forgetting to do so (26.3%). Patients preferred resource guides to be printed (34.0%) and sent via text message to their mobile devices (25.6%). Conclusion: Many urgent care patients of this urban ED reported at least one adverse SDoH, the majority of which were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding further emphasizes the need to allocate more resources to standardize and expand SDoH screening in EDs. Additionally, hospitals should increase availability of printed or electronic SDoH resource guides, resource navigators, and interpreters both during and after ED visits