Overdose from Unintentional Fentanyl Use when Intending to Use a Non-opioid Substance: An Analysis of Medically Attended Opioid Overdose Events

Fentanyl-mixed and substituted heroin is well-documented, but less is known about unintentional fentanyl use among people using stimulants. To determine the prevalence of and racial and ethnic disparities in unintentional fentanyl use among people experiencing a medically attended opioid overdose, we reviewed 448 suspected non-fatal overdose cases attended by a community paramedic overdose response team in San Francisco from June to September 2022. We applied a case definition for opioid overdose to paramedic records and abstracted data on intended substance use prior to overdose. Among events meeting case criteria with data on intended substance use, intentional opioid use was reported by 57.3%, 98.0% of whom intended to use fentanyl. No intentional opioid use was reported by 42.7%, with most intending to use stimulants (72.6%), including methamphetamine and cocaine. No intentional opioid use was reported by 58.5% of Black, 52.4% of Latinx, and 28.8% of White individuals (p = 0.021), and by 57.6% of women and 39.5% of men (p = 0.061). These findings suggest that unintentional fentanyl use among people without opioid tolerance may cause a significant proportion of opioid overdoses in San Francisco. While intentional fentanyl use might be underreported, the magnitude of self-reported unintentional use merits further investigation to confirm this phenomenon, explore mechanisms of use and disparities by race and ethnicity, and deploy targeted overdose prevention interventions.

Designing and developing a digital equity dashboard for the emergency department

Disparities in diagnosis, treatment, and health outcomes of racial minorities are well documented in the emergency department (ED). Although EDs may provide broad departmental feedback on clinical metrics, lack of up-to-date monitoring and data availability present significant challenges to identifying and addressing patterns of inequitable care. To address this issue, we developed an online "Equity Dashboard," incorporating data that is updated daily from our electronic medical record to highlight demographic, clinical, and operational variables, stratified by age, race, ethnicity, and language, and sexual orientation, gender identity. Through an iterative design thinking process, we created data visualizations for an interactive interface that tells a story about the ED patient's experience and enables any staff to explore up-to-date trends in patient care. To assess and improve usability of the dashboard, we conducted a survey of end-users using custom questions, as well as the System Usability Scale and Net Promoter Score, both of which are validated health technology use instruments. The Equity Dashboard is of particular use for quality improvement initiatives, as it reflects common departmental challenges including delays in clinician events, inpatient boarding, and throughput metrics. This digital tool further helps demonstrate how these operational factors differentially affect our diverse patient population. The dashboard ultimately enables the ED team to measure current performance, to identify our vulnerabilities, and to design targeted interventions to address disparities in clinical care.

Perception of Quiet Students in Emergency Medicine: An Exploration of Narratives in the Standardized Letter of Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) is designed to assist emergency medicine (EM) residency programs in differentiating applicants and in selecting those to interview. The SLOE narrative component summarizes the student's clinical skills as well as their non-cognitive attributes. The purpose of this qualitative investigation was to explore how students described in the SLOE as quiet are perceived by faculty and to better understand how this may impact their residency candidacy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all SLOEs submitted to one EM residency program during one application cycle. We analyzed sentences in the SLOE narrative describing students as "quiet," "shy," and/or "reserved." Using grounded theory, thematic content analysis with a constructivist approach, we identified five mutually exclusive themes that best characterized the usage of these target words.

RESULTS

We identified five themes: 1) quiet traits portrayed as implied-negative attributes (62.4%); 2) quiet students portrayed as overshadowed by more extraverted peers (10.3%); 3) quiet students portrayed as unfit for fast-paced clinical settings (3.4%); 4) "quiet" portrayed as a positive attribute (10.3%); and 5) "quiet" comments deemed difficult to assess due to lack of context (15.6%).

CONCLUSION

We found that quiet personality traits were often portrayed as negative attributes. Further, comments often lacked clinical context, leaving them vulnerable to misunderstanding or bias. More research is needed to determine how quiet students perform compared to their non-quiet peers and to determine what changes to instructional practices may support the quiet student and help create a more inclusive learning environment.

The Standardized Letter of Evaluation: How We Perceive the Quiet Student

INTRODUCTION

The Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) is an emergency medicine (EM)-specific assessment designed to help EM residency programs differentiate applicants. We became interested in SLOE-narrative language referencing personality when we observed less enthusiasm for applicants described as "quiet" in their SLOEs. In this study our objective was to compare how quiet-labeled, EM-bound applicants were ranked compared to their non-quiet peers in the global assessment (GA) and anticipated rank list (ARL) categories in the SLOE.

METHODS

We conducted a planned subgroup analysis of a retrospective cohort study of all core EM clerkship SLOEs submitted to one, four-year academic EM residency program in the 2016-2017 recruitment cycle. We compared SLOEs of applicants who were described as "quiet," "shy," and/or "reserved" - collectively referred to as "quiet" - to SLOEs from all other applicants, referred to as "non-quiet." We compared frequencies of quiet to non-quiet students in GA and ARL categories using chi-square goodness-of-fit tests with a rejection criteria (alpha) of 0.05.

RESULTS

We reviewed 1,582 SLOEs from 696 applicants. Of these, 120 SLOEs described quiet applicants. The distributions of quiet and non-quiet applicants across GA and ARL categories were significantly different (P < 0.001). Quiet applicants were less likely than non-quiet applicants to be ranked in the top 10% and top one-third GA categories combined (31% vs 60%) and more likely to be in the middle one-third category (58% vs 32%). For ARL, quiet applicants were also less likely to be ranked in the top 10% and top one-third categories combined (33% vs 58%) and more likely to be in the middle one-third category (50% vs 31%).

CONCLUSION

Emergency medicine-bound students described as quiet in their SLOEs were less likely to be ranked in the top GA and ARL categories compared to non-quiet students. More research is needed to determine the cause of these ranking disparities and address potential biases in teaching and assessment practices.

The Rapid Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccination in Emergency Departments for Underserved Patients Study

Study objective

Emergency departments (EDs) often serve vulnerable populations who may lack primary care and have suffered disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects. Comparing patients having and lacking a regular source of medical care and other ED patient characteristics, we assessed COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for not wanting the vaccine, perceived access to vaccine sites, and willingness to get the vaccine as part of ED care.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey conducted from December 10, 2020, to March 7, 2021, at 15 safety net US EDs. Primary outcomes were COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and sites (including EDs) for potential COVID-19 vaccine receipt.

Results

Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89.4%) participated. Of the 18.4% of respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care, 65% used the ED as their usual source of health care. The overall rate of vaccine hesitancy was 39%; the range among the 15 sites was 28% to 58%. Respondents who lacked a regular source of medical care were more commonly vaccine hesitant than those who had a regular source of medical care (47% versus 38%, 9% difference, 95% confidence interval 4% to 14%). Other characteristics associated with greater vaccine hesitancy were younger age, female sex, Black race, Latinx ethnicity, and not having received an influenza vaccine in the past 5 years. Of the 61% who would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 21% stated that they lacked a primary physician or clinic at which to receive it; the vast majority (95%) of these respondents would accept the COVID-19 vaccine as part of their care in the ED.

Conclusion

ED patients who lack a regular source of medical care are particularly hesitant regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Most COVID-19 vaccine acceptors would accept it as part of their care in the ED. EDs may play pivotal roles in COVID-19 vaccine messaging and delivery to highly vulnerable populations.

Low Yield of Paired Head and Cervical Spine Computed Tomography in Blunt Trauma Evaluation

BACKGROUND

With increased computed tomography (CT) utilization, clinicians may simultaneously order head and neck CT scans, even when injury is suspected only in one region.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine: 1) the frequency of simultaneous ordering of a head CT scan when a neck CT scan is ordered; 2) the yields of simultaneously ordered head and neck CT scans for clinically significant injury (CSI); and 3) whether injury in one region is associated with a higher rate of injury in the other.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all adult patients who received neck CT scans (and simultaneously ordered head CT scans) as part of their blunt trauma evaluation at an urban level 1 trauma center in 2013. An expert panel determined CSI of head and neck injuries. We defined yield as number of patients with injury/number of patients who had a CT scan.

RESULTS

Of 3223 patients who met inclusion criteria, 2888 (89.6%) had simultaneously ordered head and neck CT scans. CT yield for CSI in both the head and neck was 0.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.8%), and the yield for any injury in both the head and neck was 1.4% (95% CI 1.0-1.8%). The yield for CSI in one region was higher when CSI was seen in the other region.

CONCLUSIONS

The yield of CT for CSI in both the head and neck concomitantly is very low. When injury is seen in one region, there is higher likelihood of injury in the other. These findings argue against paired ordering of head and neck CT scans and suggest that CT scans should be ordered individually or when injury is detected in one region.