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 A to E (ABCDE) Pit Crew Model: A Novel Approach to Team Based Care of Critical Patients in the Prehospital Setting

# Background This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a Pit Crew intervention to improve team dynamics and time to performance of critical actions in a prehospital critical care scenario. The primary outcome was successful completion of critical actions and time to completion of these critical actions. Secondary outcomes included effectiveness of communication and overall team functioning. # Methods The study was conducted with a fire-based Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system with 233 paramedics and 115 Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). Eight EMS crews comprised of five members each were randomly selected and assigned to either the intervention or the control group. The intervention group (n=20) watched a thirty-minute video prior to the training describing the “Pit Crew Approach;” the control group (n=20) did not watch the video. Each crew was given the same simulation scenario of a pediatric patient that had overdosed on a beta-blocker. Completion of predetermined critical tasks were noted and timestamped. A survey was administered to the participants following the training to assess team dynamics and level of confidence. # Results Three outcomes were statistically significant between the two arms: The interventional group felt they themselves had a more defined role in the resuscitation in comparison to the non-interventional group (p= 0.021). The interventional group also felt that their team members had a clearer and more defined role than the nonintervention group (p= 0.018). The interventional group also felt more confident managing a beta blocker overdose than the nonintervention group (p.007). The only statistically significant secondary outcome finding was in scene departure decision: the interventional arm spent more time on-scene (p=0.031). Of note, the non-intervention group missed performing tasks more often than the interventional group and team leaders of these groups often performed task(s) while also directing the patient care. # Conclusion The Pit Crew model was developed to optimize communication and team function. Our data identified that a formal instruction of the pit crew approach to a critical care scenario improved comfort in patient care. Future studies are needed evaluate other methods of training and the effects of continued formal pit-crew training over time

A Prehospital Screening Tool Utilizing End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide Predicts Sepsis And Severe Sepsis

Objective To determine the utility of a prehospital sepsis screening protocol utilizing systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2). Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study among sepsis alerts activated by emergency medical services during a 12 month period after the initiation of a new sepsis screening protocol utilizing ≥ 2 SIRS criteria and ETCO2 levels of ≤ 25 mmHg in patients with suspected infection. The outcomes of those that met all criteria of the protocol were compared to those that did not. The main outcome was the diagnosis of sepsis and severe sepsis. Secondary outcomes included mortality and in-hospital lactate levels. Results Of 330 sepsis alerts activated, 183 met all protocol criteria and 147 did not. Sepsis alerts that followed the protocol were more frequently diagnosed with sepsis (78% vs 43%, P \u3c.001) and severe sepsis (47% vs 7%, P \u3c.001), and had a higher mortality (11% vs 5%, P =.036). Low ETCO2 levels were the strongest predictor of sepsis (area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00; P \u3c.001), severe sepsis (AUC 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.86; P \u3c.001), and mortality (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.83; P =.005) among all prehospital variables. Sepsis alerts that followed the protocol had a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 81-95%), a specificity of 58% (95% CI 52-65%), and a negative predictive value of 93% (95% CI 87-97%) for severe sepsis. There were significant associations between prehospital ETCO2 and serum bicarbonate levels (r = 0.415, P \u3c.001), anion gap (r = - 0.322, P \u3c.001), and lactate (r = - 0.394, P \u3c.001). Conclusion A prehospital screening protocol utilizing SIRS criteria and ETCO2 predicts sepsis and severe sepsis, which could potentially decrease time to therapeutic intervention

Comparing Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Scores to End-tidal Carbon Dioxide as Mortality Predictors in Prehospital Patients with Suspected Sepsis

Introduction: Early identification of sepsis significantly improves outcomes, suggesting a role for prehospital screening. An end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO 2) value ≤ 25 mmHg predicts mortality and severe sepsis when used as part of a prehospital screening tool. Recently, the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score was also derived as a tool for predicting poor outcomes in potentially septic patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients transported by emergency medical services to compare the use of ETCO 2 ≤ 25 mmHg with qSOFA score of ≥ 2 as a predictor of mortality or diagnosis of severe sepsis in prehospital patients with suspected sepsis. Results: By comparison of receiver operator characteristic curves, ETCO 2 had a higher discriminatory power to predict mortality, sepsis, and severe sepsis than qSOFA. Conclusion: Both non-invasive measures were easily obtainable by prehospital personnel, with ETCO 2 performing slightly better as an outcome predictor

Disaster day: a simulation-based competition for educating emergency medicine residents and medical students on disaster medicine

Abstract Background Disaster medicine is a growing field within the specialty of emergency medicine, but educational training typically focuses on hospital drills or other educational strategies, such as didactics, simulation, or tabletop exercises. With the success of gamification in other medical education applications, we sought to investigate if a novel gamified curricular innovation would lead to improved test performance and confidence in the ability to manage a real mass casualty incident (MCI). Methods This was a prospective observational study of medical students and emergency medicine residents who participated in a 4-h simulation-based competition consisting of 4 unique stations. Each station had learning objectives associated with the content taught. Learners completed a pre-event survey, followed by participation in the competitive gamification event, and subsequently completed a post-event survey. Differences between pre- and post-event responses were matched and analyzed using paired and unpaired t tests for medical knowledge assessments, the Mann–Whitney U test for perceptions of confidence in the ability to manage an MCI event, and descriptive statistics provided on perceptions of the effectiveness of this educational strategy. Results We analyzed data from 49 learners with matched (and unmatched) pre- and post-event survey responses. There was a statistically significant increase in medical knowledge assessment scores in both unmatched group means and available matched data (47 to 69%, p < 0.01, and 50 to 69%, p < 0.05). Self-reported confidence in the ability to handle an MCI scenario also significantly increased (p < 0.01). Finally, 100% of respondents indicated they “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the event was an effective education tool for disaster preparedness and training. Conclusions In this study, we found that learners perceived a novel gamification event as an effective educational tool, which led to improved learner knowledge and self-reported confidence in the ability to manage a real MCI

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health