Physician-Perceived Barriers to Treating Opioid Use Disorder in the Emergency Department

Objective We aimed to assess physicians\u27 perceptions of barriers to starting medication-assisted treatment (MAT) in the Emergency Department (ED), views of the utility of MAT, and abilities to link patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to MAT programs in their respective communities. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey study of American emergency medicine (EM) physicians with a self-administered online survey via SurveyMonkey (Survey Monkey, San Mateo, California). The survey was emailed to the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD) listserv and HCA Healthcare affiliated EM residency programs\u27 listservs. Attendings and residents of all post-graduate years participated. Questions assessed perceptions of barriers to starting OUD patients on MAT, knowledge of the X-waiver, and knowledge of MAT details. Statistics were performed with JMP software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) using the two-tailed Z-test for proportions. Results There were 98 responses, with 33% female, 55% resident physicians, and an overall 17% response rate. Residents were more eager to start OUD patients on MAT (71% vs 52%, p=0.04) than attendings but were less familiar with the X-waiver (38% vs 73%, p=0.001) or where community outpatient MAT facilities were (21% vs 43%, p=0.02). Conclusion Barriers in the ED were identified as a shortage of qualified prescribers, the lengthy X-waiver process, and the poor availability of outpatient MAT resources. EM residents showed more willingness to prescribe MAT but lacked a core understanding of the process. This shows an area of improvement for residency training as well as advocacy among attendings

The Power of an Active Shooter Simulation: Changing Ethical Beliefs

Introduction: During a hospital-based active shooter (AS) event, clinicians may be forced to choose between saving themselves or their patients. The Hartford Consensus survey of clinicians and the public demonstrated mixed feelings on the role of doctors and nurses in these situations. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of simulation on ethical dilemmas during a hospital-based AS simulation. The objective was to determine whether a hospital-based AS event simulation and debrief would impact the ethical beliefs of emergency physicians relating to personal duty and risk.Methods: Forty-eight emergency physicians and physicians-in-training participated in this cohort study based in an urban academic hospital. Simulation scenarios presented ethical dilemmas for participants (eg, they decided between running a code or hiding from a shooter). Surveys based upon the Hartford Consensus were completed before and after the simulation. Questions focused on preparedness and ethical duties of physicians to their patients during an AS incident. We evaluated differences using a chi-squared test.Results: Preparedness for an AS event significantly improved after the simulation (P = 0.0001). Pre-simulation, 56% of participants felt that doctors/nurses have a special duty like police to protect patients who cannot hide/run, and 20% reported that a provider should accept a very high/high level of personal risk to protect patients who cannot hide/run. This was similar to the findings of the Hartford Consensus. Interestingly, post-simulation, percentages decreased to 25% (P = 0.008) and 5% (P = 0.041), respectively.Conclusion: Simulation training influenced ethical beliefs relating to the duty of emergency physicians during a hospital-based AS incident. In addition to traditional learning objectives, ethics should be another important design consideration for planning future simulations in this domain

The Power of an Active Shooter Simulation: Changing Ethical Beliefs

Introduction: During a hospital-based active shooter (AS) event, clinicians may be forced to choose between saving themselves or their patients. The Hartford Consensus survey of clinicians and the public demonstrated mixed feelings on the role of doctors and nurses in these situations. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of simulation on ethical dilemmas during a hospital-based AS simulation. The objective was to determine whether a hospital-based AS event simulation and debrief would impact the ethical beliefs of emergency physicians relating to personal duty and risk.Methods: Forty-eight emergency physicians and physicians-in-training participated in this cohort study based in an urban academic hospital. Simulation scenarios presented ethical dilemmas for participants (eg, they decided between running a code or hiding from a shooter). Surveys based upon the Hartford Consensus were completed before and after the simulation. Questions focused on preparedness and ethical duties of physicians to their patients during an AS incident. We evaluated differences using a chi-squared test.Results: Preparedness for an AS event significantly improved after the simulation (P = 0.0001). Pre-simulation, 56% of participants felt that doctors/nurses have a special duty like police to protect patients who cannot hide/run, and 20% reported that a provider should accept a very high/high level of personal risk to protect patients who cannot hide/run. This was similar to the findings of the Hartford Consensus. Interestingly, post-simulation, percentages decreased to 25% (P = 0.008) and 5% (P = 0.041), respectively.Conclusion: Simulation training influenced ethical beliefs relating to the duty of emergency physicians during a hospital-based AS incident. In addition to traditional learning objectives, ethics should be another important design consideration for planning future simulations in this domain