Physician documentation of access to firearms in suicidal patients in the emergency department

Introduction: Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States. An estimated 50% of these deaths are due to firearms. Suicidal ideation (SI) is a common complaint presenting to the emergency department (ED). Despite these facts, provider documentation on access to lethal means is lacking. Our primary aim was to quantify documentation of access to firearms in patients presenting to the ED with a chief complaint of SI.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of consecutive patients, nearly all of whom presented to an academic, urban ED with SI during July 2014. We collected data from all provider documentation in the electronic health record. Primary outcome assessed was whether the emergency physician (EP) team documented access to firearms. Secondary outcomes included demographic information, preexisting psychiatric diagnoses, and disposition.Results: We reviewed 100 patient charts. The median age of patients was 38 years. The majority of patients had a psychiatric condition. EPs documented access to firearms in only 3% of patient charts.Conclusion: EPs do not adequately document access to firearms in patients with SI. There is a clear need for educational initiatives regarding risk-factor assessment and counseling against lethal means in this patient cohort

Counseling on Access to Lethal Means-Emergency Department (CALM-ED): A quality improvement program for firearm injury prevention

INTRODUCTION: Suicide is the 10 METHODS: We conducted this single-center, prospective, quality improvement study (QI) in an urban, academic ED with over 90,000 annual patient visits. The study looked at adult patients who were discharged after presenting to the ED with suicidal crisis. Assessment of access to lethal means was conducted at the bedside, followed by a counseling session regarding safe storage of lethal means and follow-up via telephone call 48-72 hours after ED discharge. We collected data on patient\u27s sociodemographics, psychiatric history, access to lethal means, lethal means storage methods, the patient\u27s specific plans for lethal means storage after discharge, and post-discharge follow-up care. RESULTS: Of 215 eligible patients, 166 voluntarily agreed to participate in CALM-ED, of whom 84 (51%) reported access to lethal means. Following the intervention, 75% of patients described a specific storage plan for their lethal means. Patients with and without access to firearms were equally likely to participate in the follow-up telephone call. CONCLUSION: An ED-based CALM QI intervention is feasible for implementation by non-physician personnel and is well received by patients and families. This intervention has the potential to help saves lives at times of suicide crisis

Physician Documentation of Access to Firearms in Suicidal Patients in the Emergency Department

Introduction: Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States. An estimated 50% of these deaths are due to firearms. Suicidal ideation (SI) is a common complaint presenting to the emergency department (ED). Despite these facts, provider documentation on access to lethal means is lacking. Our primary aim was to quantify documentation of access to firearms in patients presenting to the ED with a chief complaint of SI.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of consecutive patients, nearly all of whom presented to an academic, urban ED with SI during July 2014. We collected data from all provider documentation in the electronic health record. Primary outcome assessed was whether the emergency physician (EP) team documented access to firearms. Secondary outcomes included demographic information, preexisting psychiatric diagnoses, and disposition.Results: We reviewed 100 patient charts. The median age of patients was 38 years. The majority of patients had a psychiatric condition. EPs documented access to firearms in only 3% of patient charts.Conclusion: EPs do not adequately document access to firearms in patients with SI. There is a clear need for educational initiatives regarding risk-factor assessment and counseling against lethal means in this patient cohort

Counseling on Access to Lethal Means-Emergency Department (CALM-ED): A Quality Improvement Program for Firearm Injury Prevention

Introduction: Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, with firearms reported as the cause of death in up to 50% of these cases. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility of the Counseling on Access to Lethal Means intervention in the Emergency Department (CALM-ED) by non-physician personnel.Methods: We conducted this single-center, prospective, quality improvement study (QI) in an urban, academic ED with over 90,000 annual patient visits. The study looked at adult patients who were discharged after presenting to the ED with suicidal crisis. Assessment of access to lethal means was conducted at the bedside, followed by a counseling session regarding safe storage of lethal means and follow-up via telephone call 48-72 hours after ED discharge. We collected data on patient’s sociodemographics, psychiatric history, access to lethal means, lethal means storage methods, the patient’s specific plans for lethal means storage after discharge, and post-discharge follow-up care.Results: Of 215 eligible patients, 166 voluntarily agreed to participate in CALM-ED, of whom 84 (51%) reported access to lethal means. Following the intervention, 75% of patients described a specific storage plan for their lethal means. Patients with and without access to firearms were equally likely to participate in the follow-up telephone call.Conclusion: An ED-based CALM QI intervention is feasible for implementation by non-physician personnel and is well received by patients and families. This intervention has the potential to help saves lives at times of suicide crisis

Performance of Prognostication Scores for Mortality in Injured Patients in Rwanda

Introduction: While trauma prognostication and triage scores have been designed for use in lower-resourced healthcare settings specifically, the comparative clinical performance between trauma-specific and general triage scores for risk-stratifying injured patients in such settings is not well understood. This study evaluated the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Triage Early Warning Score (TEWS) for accuracy in predicting mortality among injured patients seeking emergency department (ED) care at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Kigali (CHUK) in Rwanda.Methods: A retrospective, randomly sampled cohort of ED patients presenting with injury was accrued from August 2015–July 2016. Primary outcome was 14-day mortality and secondary outcome was overall facility-based mortality. We evaluated summary statistics of the cohort. Bootstrap regression models were used to compare areas under receiver operating curves (AUC) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Among 617 cases, the median age was 32 years and 73.5% were male. The most frequent mechanism of injury was road traffic incident (56.2%). Predominant anatomical regions of injury were craniofacial (39.3%) and lower extremities (38.7%), and the most common injury types were fracture (46.0%) and contusion (12.0%). Fourteen-day mortality was 2.6% and overall facility-based mortality was 3.4%. For 14-day mortality, TEWS had the highest accuracy (AUC = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.76–1.00), followed by RTS (AUC = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.55–0.92), and then KTS (AUC = 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.84). Similarly, for facility-based mortality, TEWS (AUC = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.79–0.98) had greater accuracy than RTS (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI, 0.61–0.91) and KTS (AUC = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.53–0.83). On pairwise comparisons, RTS had greater prognostic accuracy than KTS for 14-day mortality (P = 0.011) and TEWS had greater accuracy than KTS for overall (P = 0.007) mortality. However, TEWS and RTS accuracy were not significantly different for 14-day mortality (P = 0.864) or facility-based mortality (P = 0.101).Conclusion: In this cohort of emergently injured patients in Rwanda, the TEWS demonstrated the greatest accuracy for predicting mortality outcomes, with no significant discriminatory benefit found in the use of the trauma-specific RTS or KTS instruments, suggesting that the TEWS is the most clinically useful approach in the setting studied and likely in other similar ED environments

Performance of Prognostication Scores for Mortality in Injured Patients in Rwanda

Introduction: While trauma prognostication and triage scores have been designed for use in lower-resourced healthcare settings specifically, the comparative clinical performance between trauma-specific and general triage scores for risk-stratifying injured patients in such settings is not well understood. This study evaluated the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Triage Early Warning Score (TEWS) for accuracy in predicting mortality among injured patients seeking emergency department (ED) care at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Kigali (CHUK) in Rwanda.Methods: A retrospective, randomly sampled cohort of ED patients presenting with injury was accrued from August 2015–July 2016. Primary outcome was 14-day mortality and secondary outcome was overall facility-based mortality. We evaluated summary statistics of the cohort. Bootstrap regression models were used to compare areas under receiver operating curves (AUC) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Among 617 cases, the median age was 32 years and 73.5% were male. The most frequent mechanism of injury was road traffic incident (56.2%). Predominant anatomical regions of injury were craniofacial (39.3%) and lower extremities (38.7%), and the most common injury types were fracture (46.0%) and contusion (12.0%). Fourteen-day mortality was 2.6% and overall facility-based mortality was 3.4%. For 14-day mortality, TEWS had the highest accuracy (AUC = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.76–1.00), followed by RTS (AUC = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.55–0.92), and then KTS (AUC = 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.84). Similarly, for facility-based mortality, TEWS (AUC = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.79–0.98) had greater accuracy than RTS (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI, 0.61–0.91) and KTS (AUC = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.53–0.83). On pairwise comparisons, RTS had greater prognostic accuracy than KTS for 14-day mortality (P = 0.011) and TEWS had greater accuracy than KTS for overall (P = 0.007) mortality. However, TEWS and RTS accuracy were not significantly different for 14-day mortality (P = 0.864) or facility-based mortality (P = 0.101).Conclusion: In this cohort of emergently injured patients in Rwanda, the TEWS demonstrated the greatest accuracy for predicting mortality outcomes, with no significant discriminatory benefit found in the use of the trauma-specific RTS or KTS instruments, suggesting that the TEWS is the most clinically useful approach in the setting studied and likely in other similar ED environments