A pilot study of emergency medical technicians' field assessment of intoxicated patients' need for ED care

Comparison of 4 tests' utility for predicting need for emergency department care in patients with alcohol-related complaints

INTRODUCTION

Intoxication is a common presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED), but many patients with intoxication do not need emergency care. Three screens (BLINDED, Brown, and San Francisco) attempt to determine which intoxicated patients can be triaged to a lower level of care.

METHODS

Observational multi-center cohort study of patients presenting to one of three ED with complaints consistent with acute intoxication. When a qualifying patient was brought to the emergency department, a team member interviewed the triaging provider. Interviews covered all three screens and the provider's gestalt. Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine which screen performed best. Cases were reviewed to determine need for emergency care.

RESULTS

Of the 199 subjects studied, 91% (181/199) were male and were 50 years old on average (SD = 12 years). Of the 55 subjects tested (28%), their average alcohol level was 251 mg/dL (SD = 146 mg/dL). Only 117 subjects (59%) had complete information for inclusion in the final comparison of screens. Provider gestalt performed best (AUC = 0.69), but there were no meaningful differences between any of the screens (AUC = 0.62-0.66, p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Inability to sit up was sensitive for needing emergent care (88%), but it was non-specific (17%). Similarly, signs of trauma were specific (99%) for ED care, but insensitive (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

The three formal screens and provider gestalt performed similarly.

Sobering centers, emergency medical services, and emergency departments: A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Acute alcohol intoxication accounts for a large proportion of potentially unnecessary emergency department visits and expenditure. Sobering centers are a cheaper alternative treatment option for alcohol intoxication and can provide an opportunity to treat the psychosocial aspects of alcohol use disorder.

OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW

The objective of this review is to analyze the existing literature regarding the use of sobering centers, EMS and their role in transporting to sobering centers, and the appropriate triage of the intoxicated patient.

DISCUSSION

Excessive alcohol consumption accounts for an estimated $24.6 billion in healthcare costs and patients are often referred to the emergency department for expensive care. Current literature suggests sobering centers are an alternative to acute hospitalization and are safe, relatively inexpensive, and may facilitate more aggressive connection to resources such as longitudinal rehabilitation programs for the acutely intoxicated patient. EMS plays a pivotal role in triage and transportation of intoxicated individuals, but demonstration of outcomes in lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Sobering centers are a cost effective alternative to emergency department visits for acute alcohol intoxication and further research is required to identify safe, effective protocols for EMS to triage patients to appropriate treatment destinations.

Cost impact of sobering centers on national health care spending in the United States

Acute alcohol intoxication is responsible for a sizable share of emergency department visits. Intoxicated individuals without other medical needs may not require the high level of care provided by an emergency department. We estimate the impact on U.S. health care spending if individuals with uncomplicated, acute alcohol intoxication were treated in sobering centers instead of the emergency department. We performed a budget impact analysis from the perspective of the U.S. health care system based on published and gray literature reports. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Monte Carlo modeling with random variation for three variables (cost of an emergency department visit, cost of a sobering center visit, and start-up costs per sobering center visit) and the percentage of cases diverted from emergency departments to sobering centers. Outcomes were expressed in terms of national savings in 2017 U.S. dollars. Assuming a diversion rate of 50% based on previous studies, national savings range from $230 million to $1.0 billion annually. In the Monte Carlo modeling, we found annual national savings of $99.02 million (95% CI: $95.89-$102.19 million), $792.34 million (95% CI: $767.09-$817.58 million), and $1,185.51 million (95% CI: $1,150.64-$1,226.37 million) with diversion rates of 5%, 40%, and 60%, respectively. Implementing sobering centers as a treatment alternative for individuals with uncomplicated acute alcohol intoxication could yield substantial cost savings for the U.S. health care system.

Evaluating alcohol intoxication management services: the EDARA mixed-methods study

Background

Front-line health-care services are under increased demand when acute alcohol intoxication is most common, which is in night-time environments. Cities have implemented alcohol intoxication management services to divert the intoxicated away from emergency care.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability to patients and staff of alcohol intoxication management services and undertake an ethnographic study capturing front-line staff’s views on the impact of acute alcohol intoxication on their professional lives.

Methods

This was a controlled mixed-methods longitudinal observational study with an ethnographic evaluation in parallel. Six cities with alcohol intoxication management services were compared with six matched control cities to determine effects on key performance indicators (e.g. number of patients in the emergency department and ambulance response times). Surveys captured the impact of alcohol intoxication management services on the quality of care for patients in six alcohol intoxication management services, six emergency departments with local alcohol intoxication management services and six emergency departments without local alcohol intoxication management services. The ethnographic study considered front-line staff perceptions in two cities with alcohol intoxication management services and one city without alcohol intoxication management services.

Results

Alcohol intoxication management services typically operated in cities in which the incidence of acute alcohol intoxication was greatest. The per-session average number of attendances across all alcohol intoxication management services was low (mean 7.3, average minimum 2.8, average maximum 11.8) compared with the average number of emergency department attendances per alcohol intoxication management services session (mean 78.8), and the number of patients diverted away from emergency departments, per session, required for services to be considered cost-neutral was 8.7, falling to 3.5 when ambulance costs were included. Alcohol intoxication management services varied, from volunteer-led first aid to more clinically focused nurse practitioner services, with only the latter providing evidence for diversion from emergency departments. Qualitative and ethnographic data indicated that alcohol intoxication management services are acceptable to practitioners and patients and that they address unmet need. There was evidence that alcohol intoxication management services improve ambulance response times and reduce emergency department attendance. Effects are uncertain owing to the variation in service delivery.

Limitations

The evaluation focused on health service outcomes, yet evidence arose suggesting that alcohol intoxication management services provide broader societal benefits. There was no nationally agreed standard operating procedure for alcohol intoxication management services, undermining the evaluation. Routine health data outcomes exhibited considerable variance, undermining opportunities to provide an accurate appraisal of the heterogenous collection of alcohol intoxication management services.

Conclusions

Alcohol intoxication management services are varied, multipartner endeavours and would benefit from agreed national standards. Alcohol intoxication management services are popular with and benefit front-line staff and serve as a hub facilitating partnership working. They are popular with alcohol intoxication management services patients and capture previously unmet need in night-time environments. However, acute alcohol intoxication in emergency departments remains an issue and opportunities for diversion have not been entirely realised. The nurse-led model was the most expensive service evaluated but was also the most likely to divert patients away from emergency departments, suggesting that greater clinical involvement and alignment with emergency departments is necessary. Alcohol intoxication management services should be regarded as fledgling services that require further work to realise benefit.

Future work

Research could be undertaken to determine if a standardised model of alcohol intoxication management services, based on the nurse practitioner model, can be developed and implemented in different settings. Future evaluations should go beyond the health service and consider outcomes more generally, especially for the police. Future work on the management of acute alcohol intoxication in night-time environments could recognise the partnership between health-care, police and ambulance services and third-sector organisations in managing acute alcohol intoxication.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63096364.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

EMS Can Safely Transport Intoxicated Patients to a Sobering Center as an Alternate Destination

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We evaluate a sobering center as an alternate destination for acute intoxication. Our aims are to count patient visits that originated from emergency medical services (EMS) or the emergency department (ED) that then result in a secondary transfer from the sobering center to the ED, and to describe and categorize the clinical reasons for transfer to the ED.

METHODS

The San Francisco Sobering Center, a continuously nurse-staffed facility operating since 2003, provides short-term (6- to 8-hour) care for adults with acute alcohol intoxication. Paramedics use a county EMS protocol to triage low-risk intoxicated patients to the sobering center. A case review was performed on all visitors during 3 years who were secondarily transferred from the sobering center. Reason for transfer was categorized by clinical indication.

RESULTS

From July 2013 to June 2016, 11,596 visits (from 3,268 unduplicated adults) were documented. Of these, 4,045 (35%) were referred by EMS and 1,348 (12%) were referred from the ED. Other referring parties included the mobile van service, police, homeless service provider, self-referral, and others. Of the total visitors, 506 (4.4%; 95% confidence interval 4.0% to 4.8%) were secondarily transferred to an ED; 151 were referred by EMS and 62 by the ED. Clinical indications for ED transfer included pulse greater than 100 beats/min (26%), alcohol withdrawal (19%), pain (excluding chest pain) (19%), altered mental status (13%), and emesis (13%). Most clients had more than one clinical indication for transfer (median 2; range 1 to 5).

CONCLUSION

The San Francisco Sobering Center is an appropriate, safe EMS destination for patients with acute alcohol intoxication.

Managing alcohol-related attendances in emergency care: can diversion to bespoke services lessen the burden?

Acute alcohol intoxication (AAI) has a long history of burdening emergency care services. Healthcare systems around the world have explored a variety of different services that divert AAI away from EDs to better manage their condition. Little formal evaluation has been undertaken, particularly in the UK where alcohol misuse is one of the highest in the world. In this article, we outline a brief history of diversionary services, introduce the concept of Alcohol Intoxication Management Services (AIMS) and describe examples of AIMS in the UK. We then describe Evaluating the Diversion of Alcohol-Related Attendances, a natural experiment including six cities with AIMS compared with six cities without, that involves an ethnographic study, records patient experiences in both AIMS and EDs, assesses impact on key performance indicators in healthcare and evaluates the cost-effectiveness of AIMS.

Utilization of a Sobering Center for Acute Alcohol Intoxication

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to describe the population utilizing a sobering center for public alcohol intoxication and compare between single-visit users, repeat users, and high users.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of 1,271 adults cared for in a sobering center from July 2014 to June 2015. We divided the population into three groups-single use (one visit), repeat users (two to five visits), and high (six or more) users-and evaluated demographics, lifetime health diagnoses utilizing the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, rates of public service utilization including ambulance and emergency department, and related costs.

RESULTS

The population was primarily male, middle-aged, and ethnically diverse. Compared to single-visit users (n = 869), repeat (n = 287) and high users (n = 115) were older, were more likely to be currently homeless, and had spent more time homeless. Repeat and high users had significantly higher rates of hypertension, liver disease, diabetes, depression, psychoses, and drug abuse diagnoses compared to single-visit users. In addition to sobering visits, utilization of ambulance and ED and related costs were significantly greater for the high users compared to repeat and single-visit users.

CONCLUSIONS

From an overall heterogeneous population, more frequent utilizers of the sobering center, both high and repeat users compared to low users, had significantly greater prevalence of chronic disorders, service utilization, and homelessness. Findings indicate that a sobering center can have a prominent role in the care for those with acute alcohol intoxication, particularly those individuals with chronic public intoxication who are likewise homeless. Further longitudinal research could offer important insights as to the population served over time, investigating changes in utilization and efforts toward health and housing stabilization.

What evidence is there on the effectiveness of different models of delivering urgent care? A rapid review

Background

In 2013 NHS England set out its strategy for the development of an emergency and urgent care system that is more responsive to patients’ needs, improves outcomes and delivers clinically excellent and safe care. Knowledge about the current evidence base on models for provision of safe and effective urgent care, and the gaps in evidence that need to be addressed, can support this process.

Objective

The purpose of the evidence synthesis is to assess the nature and quality of the existing evidence base on delivery of emergency and urgent care services and identify gaps that require further primary research or evidence synthesis.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Web of Science.

Methods

We have conducted a rapid, framework-based, evidence synthesis approach. Five separate reviews linked to themes in the NHS England review were conducted. One general and five theme-specific database searches were conducted for the years 1995–2014. Relevant systematic reviews and additional primary research papers were included and narrative assessment of evidence quality was conducted for each review.

Results

The review was completed in 6 months. In total, 45 systematic reviews and 102 primary research studies have been included across all five reviews. The key findings for each review are as follows: (1) demand – there is little empirical evidence to explain increases in demand for urgent care; (2) telephone triage – overall, these services provide appropriate and safe decision-making with high patient satisfaction, but the required clinical skill mix and effectiveness in a system is unclear; (3) extended paramedic roles have been implemented in various health settings and appear to be successful at reducing the number of transports to hospital, making safe decisions about the need for transport and delivering acceptable, cost-effective care out of hospital; (4) emergency department (ED) – the evidence on co-location of general practitioner services with EDs indicates that there is potential to improve care. The attempt to summarise the evidence about wider ED operations proved to be too complex and further focused reviews are needed; and (5) there is no empirical evidence to support the design and development of urgent care networks.

Limitations

Although there is a large body of evidence on relevant interventions, much of it is weak, with only very small numbers of randomised controlled trials identified. Evidence is dominated by single-site studies, many of which were uncontrolled.

Conclusions

The evidence gaps of most relevance to the delivery of services are (1) a requirement for more detailed understanding and mapping of the characteristics of demand to inform service planning; (2) assessment of the current state of urgent care network development and evaluation of the effectiveness of different models; and (3) expanding the current evidence base on existing interventions that are viewed as central to delivery of the NHS England plan by assessing the implications of increasing interventions at scale and measuring costs and system impact. It would be prudent to develop a national picture of existing pilot projects or interventions in development to support decisions about research commissioning.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.