PROmotion of COvid-19 VA(X)ccination in the Emergency Department-PROCOVAXED: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

We conducted in-depth interviews to characterize reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients and developed messaging platforms that may address their concerns. In this trial, we seek to determine whether provision of these COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in EDs will be associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients.

Methods

This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating our COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms in seven hospital EDs (mix of academic, community, and safety-net EDs) in four US cities. Within each study site, we randomized 30 1-week periods to the intervention and 30 1-week periods to the control. Adult patients who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine are eligible with these exclusions: (1) major trauma, intoxication, altered mental status, or critical illness; (2) incarceration; (3) psychiatric chief complaint; and (4) suspicion of acute COVID-19 illness. Participants receive an orally administered Intake survey. During intervention weeks, participants then receive three COVID-19 vaccine messaging platforms (4-min video, one-page informational flyer and a brief, scripted face-to-face message delivered by an ED physician or nurse); patients enrolled during non-intervention weeks do not receive these platforms. Approximately, an hour after intake surveys, participants receive a Vaccine Acceptance survey during which the primary outcome of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the ED is ascertained. The other primary outcome of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine within 32 days is ascertained by electronic health record review and phone follow-up. To determine whether provision of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with a 7% increase in vaccine acceptance and uptake, we will need to enroll 1290 patients.

Discussion

Highlighting the difficulties of trial implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic in acute care settings, our novel trial will lay the groundwork for delivery of public health interventions to vulnerable populations whose only health care access occurs in EDs.

Conclusions

Toward addressing vaccine hesitancy in vulnerable populations who seek care in EDs, our cluster-RCT will determine whether implementation of vaccine messaging platforms is associated with greater COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in unvaccinated ED patients.

Trial status

We began enrollment in December 2021 and expect to continue through 2022.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT05142332. Registered 02 December 2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06285-x.

Facemasks: Perceptions and use in an ED population during COVID-19

Study objective

Facemask use is associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most surveys assessing perceptions and practices of mask use miss the most vulnerable racial, ethnic, and socio-economic populations. These same populations have suffered disproportionate impacts from the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs, access, and practices of mask wearing across 15 urban emergency department (ED) populations.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study of ED patients from December 2020 to March 2021 at 15 geographically diverse, safety net EDs across the US. The primary outcome was frequency of mask use outside the home and around others. Other outcome measures included having enough masks and difficulty obtaining them.

Results

Of 2,575 patients approached, 2,301 (89%) agreed to participate; nine had missing data pertaining to the primary outcome, leaving 2,292 included in the final analysis. A total of 79% of respondents reported wearing masks “all of the time” and 96% reported wearing masks over half the time. Subjects with PCPs were more likely to report wearing masks over half the time compared to those without PCPs (97% vs 92%). Individuals experiencing homelessness were less likely to wear a mask over half the time compared to those who were housed (81% vs 96%).

Conclusions

Study participants reported high rates of facemask use. Respondents who did not have PCPs and those who were homeless were less likely to report wearing a mask over half the time and more likely to report barriers in obtaining masks. The ED may serve a critical role in education regarding, and provision of, masks for vulnerable populations.

Detection of COVID-19 using multimodal data from a wearable device: results from the first TemPredict Study

Early detection of diseases such as COVID-19 could be a critical tool in reducing disease transmission by helping individuals recognize when they should self-isolate, seek testing, and obtain early medical intervention. Consumer wearable devices that continuously measure physiological metrics hold promise as tools for early illness detection. We gathered daily questionnaire data and physiological data using a consumer wearable (Oura Ring) from 63,153 participants, of whom 704 self-reported possible COVID-19 disease. We selected 73 of these 704 participants with reliable confirmation of COVID-19 by PCR testing and high-quality physiological data for algorithm training to identify onset of COVID-19 using machine learning classification. The algorithm identified COVID-19 an average of 2.75 days before participants sought diagnostic testing with a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 63%. The receiving operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) was 0.819 (95% CI [0.809, 0.830]). Including continuous temperature yielded an AUC 4.9% higher than without this feature. For further validation, we obtained SARS CoV-2 antibody in a subset of participants and identified 10 additional participants who self-reported COVID-19 disease with antibody confirmation. The algorithm had an overall ROC AUC of 0.819 (95% CI [0.809, 0.830]), with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 80% in these additional participants. Finally, we observed substantial variation in accuracy based on age and biological sex. Findings highlight the importance of including temperature assessment, using continuous physiological features for alignment, and including diverse populations in algorithm development to optimize accuracy in COVID-19 detection from wearables.

Impact of Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric on Latinx Families' Perceptions of Child Safety and Health Care Access

BACKGROUND

Political rhetoric from the former U.S. president influences Latinx adults' feelings of safety and their decisions to seek care in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to examine the impact of political rhetoric on feelings of safety and health care access in the pediatric population.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of undocumented Latinx families (ULF), Latinx U.S. citizen families (LCF), and non-Latinx U.S. citizen families (NLF) conducted from November 2018 through February 2020 by means of interviewing a convenience sample of parents and guardians who brought their child to a pediatric clinic and two EDs in California.

RESULTS

Of 705 parents approached, 449 (63.7%) agreed to participate: 138 ULF, 150 LCF, and 158 NLF. Most ULF (95%), LCF (88%), and NLF (78%) parents and guardians had heard anti-immigrant statements from the former U.S. president and most (94% ULF, 90% LCF, 86% NLF) believed these measures against immigrants were being enacted or will be enacted. More ULF (75%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 67-81%) reported that these statements made them concerned about their child's safety in the United States compared with 36% (95% CI 28-45%) and 34% (95% CI 26-43%) of LCF and NLF, respectively. More ULF 17% (95% CI 11-24%) said that these statements made them afraid to bring their child for medical care, compared with 5% (95% CI 2-10%) and 3% (95% CI 1-7%) of LCF and NLF, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Most parents heard statements against undocumented immigrants by the former U.S. president and most believed measures were being enacted. This rhetoric had a substantial negative impact on ULF parents in terms of safety concerns for their child and fear of accessing health care.

Fears of disclosure and misconceptions regarding domestic violence reporting amongst patients in two US emergency departments

Patients often do not disclose domestic violence (DV) to healthcare providers in emergency departments and other healthcare settings. Barriers to disclosure may include fears and misconceptions about whether, and under what circumstances, healthcare providers report DV to law enforcement and immigration authorities. We sought to assess undocumented Latino immigrants (UDLI), Latino legal residents/citizens (LLRC) and non-Latino legal residents/citizens (NLRC) beliefs about disclosure of DV victimization to healthcare providers and healthcare provider reporting of DV to law enforcement and immigration authorities. From 10/2018-2/2020, we conducted this survey study at two urban emergency departments (EDs) in California. Participants, enrolled by convenience sampling, responded to survey questions adapted from a previously published survey instrument that was developed to assess undocumented immigrant fears of accessing ED care. Our primary outcomes were the proportions of UDLI, LLRC and NLRC who knew of someone who had experienced DV in the past year, whether these DV victims were afraid to access ED care, reasons DV victims were afraid to access ED care, and rates of misconceptions (defined according to current California law) about the consequences of disclosing DV to healthcare providers. Of 667 patients approached, 531 (80%) agreed to participate: 32% UDLI, 33% LLRC, and 35% NLRC. Of the 27.5% of respondents who knew someone who experienced DV in the past year, 46% stated that the DV victim was afraid to seek ED care; there was no significant difference in this rate between groups. The most common fears reported as barriers to disclosure were fear the doctor would report DV to police (31%) and fear that the person perpetrating DV would find out about the disclosure (30.3%). Contrary to our hypothesis, UDLI had lower rates of misconceptions about healthcare provider and law enforcement responses to DV disclosure than LLRC and NLRC. Fear of disclosing DV and misconceptions about the consequences of disclosure of DV to healthcare providers were common, indicating a need for provider, patient, and community education and changes that lower barriers to help-seeking.

Provider and administrator-level perspectives on strategies to reduce fear and improve patient trust in the emergency department in times of heightened immigration enforcement

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Heightened immigration enforcement may induce fear in undocumented patients when coming to the Emergency Department (ED) for care. Limited literature examining health system policies to reduce immigrant fear exists. In this multi-site qualitative study, we sought to assess provider and system-level policies on caring for undocumented patients in three California EDs.

METHODS

We recruited 41 ED providers and administrators from three California EDs (in San Francisco, Oakland, and Sylmar) with large immigrant populations. Participants were recruited using a trusted gatekeeper and snowball sampling. We conducted semi-structured interviews and analyzed the transcripts using constructivist grounded theory.

RESULTS

We interviewed 10 physicians, 11 nurses, 9 social workers, and 11 administrators, and identified 7 themes. Providers described existing policies and recent policy changes that facilitate access to care for undocumented patients. Providers reported that current training and communication around policies is limited, there are variations between who asks about and documents status, and there remains uncertainty around policy details, laws, and jurisdiction of staff. Providers also stated they are taking an active role in building safety and trust and see their role as supporting undocumented patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study introduces ED-level health system perspectives and recommendations for caring for undocumented patients. There is a need for active, multi-disciplinary ED policy training, clear policy details including the extent of providers' roles, protocols on the screening and documentation of status, and continual reassessment of our health systems to reduce fear and build safety and trust with our undocumented communities.

Fear of discovery as a deterrent to undocumented Latinx immigrants' reporting of crimes and the effects of political rhetoric

OBJECTIVES

Comparing undocumented Latinx immigrants (UDLI), Latinx citizens/residents (LCR), and non-Latinx citizens/residents (NLCR), we sought to assess rates of crime victimization, fear of reporting crimes, causes of this fear, and whether political rhetoric from the U.S. President had changed the reporting of crimes.

METHODS

From October 2018 to February 2020, we conducted this in-person survey study, enrolling similar numbers of UDLI, LCR, and NLCR patients at two urban county hospital emergency departments (EDs) in San Francisco and Oakland, California. Our primary outcomes were responses to key survey questions regarding crime victimization, fear of reporting crimes and the effects of anti-immigrant rhetoric on reporting crimes.

RESULTS

Of 667 patients approached, 531 (80%) participated and six participants were excluded: 165 (31.3%) were UDLI, 183 (34.7%) were LCR, and 177 (33.6%) were NLCR. Similar percentages of UDLI (34%), LCR (32%), and NLCR (39%) knew of someone (themselves, friends, or family) who was a victim of a crime. Similar percentages of UDLI (41%), LCR (46%), and NLCR (41%) stated that these victims were afraid to report this crime to the police. The primary reason for this fear in UDLI was fear of discovery and deportation (30%). Similar percentages of UDLI (63%), LCR (58%), and NLCR (46%) ultimately reported the crime to the police. Most (85%) respondents had heard the U.S. President's statements about measures against immigrants; 54% reported that they believe that because of these statements, people are more afraid to report a crime to the police.

CONCLUSIONS

Fear of reporting crimes is common in ED patients. The most common fear in UDLI is fear of discovery and deportation. Political rhetoric against immigrants contributes to this fear.

Anxiety, PTSD, and stressors in medical students during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

To assess psychological effects of the initial peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on United States (US) medical students in clinical training to anticipate sequelae and prepare for future outbreaks.

Methods

Authors emailed a cross-sectional survey in April-May, 2020 to students in clinical training years at six US medical schools which included validated General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) and Primary Care-PTSD (PC-PTSD-5) screening tools, and asked students about pandemic-related stress and specific concerns. Authors used quantitative and thematic analysis to present results.

Results

Of 2511 eligible students, 741 responded (29.5%). Most students (84.1%) reported at least “somewhat” increased levels of stress and anxiety related to the pandemic. On the GAD-7, 34.3% showed mild, 16.1% moderate, and 9.5% severe anxiety symptoms, with 39.6% demonstrating no/minimal symptoms. One quarter (25.4%) screened positive for PTSD risk symptoms. Top concerns of students chosen from a pre-populated list included inadequate COVID-19 testing, undiagnosed or asymptomatic spread and racial or other disparities in the pandemic. In thematic analysis, students’ reactions to removal from clinical learning included: understanding the need to conserve PPE (32.2%), a desire to help (27.7%), worry over infectious risk to others (25.4%) and self (21.2%), and lost learning opportunities (22.5%). Female students were significantly more likely to report anxiety and PTSD risk symptoms. Asian students had a greater risk of moderate anxiety and those underrepresented in medicine (UIM) had greater risk of moderate and severe anxiety symptoms compared to white students.

Conclusions

During the initial peak phase of COVID-19, over 60% of US medical students screened positive for pandemic-related anxiety and one quarter were at risk for PTSD. Female and UIM students were significantly more affected. Medical schools should consider broad support of students, and targeted outreach to female and UIM students.

A Review of COVID-19-Related Publications and Lag Times During the First Six Months of the Year 2020

INTRODUCTION

Considering the need for information regarding approaches to prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we sought to determine publication lag times of COVID-19-related original research articles published in top general medicine and emergency medicine (EM) journals. We further sought to characterize the types of COVID-19 publications within these journals.

METHODS

We reviewed 125 top-ranked general medicine journals and 20 top-ranked EM-specific journals for COVID-19-related publications. We abstracted article titles and manuscript details for each COVID-19-related article published between January 1-June 30, 2020, and categorized articles as one of the following: original research; case report; review; or commentary. We abstracted data for preprint publications over the same time period and determined whether articles from the general medicine and EM journals had been previously published as preprint articles. Our primary outcomes were the following: 1) lag time (days) between global cumulative World Health Organization (WHO)-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and publications; 2) lag times between preprint article publication and peer-reviewed journal publication; and 3) lag times between submission and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary outcome was to characterize COVID-19-related publications.

RESULTS

The first original research publications appeared in a general medicine journal 20 days and in an EM journal 58 days after the first WHO-confirmed case of COVID-19. We found median and mean lag times between preprint publications and journal publications of 32 days (19, 49) and 36 days (22) for general medicine journals, and 26 days (16, 36) and 25 days (13) for EM journals. Median and mean lag times between submission and publication were 30 days (19, 45) and 35 days (13) for general medicine journals, and 23 days (11, 39) and 27 days (19) for EM journals. Of 2530 general medicine journal articles and 351 EM journal articles, 28% and 23.6% were original research. We noted substantial closing of the preprint to peer-reviewed publication (160 days pre-pandemic) and peer-reviewed journal submission to publication (194 days pre-pandemic) lag times for COVID-19 manuscripts.

CONCLUSION

We found a rapid and robust response with shortened publication lag times to meet the need for the publication of original research and other vital medical information related to COVID-19 during the first six months of 2020.

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.

Anti-immigrant Rhetoric and the Experiences of Latino Immigrants in the Emergency Department

Introduction

Anti-immigrant rhetoric and increased enforcement of immigration laws have induced worry and safety concerns among undocumented Latino immigrants (UDLI) and legal Latino residents/citizens (LLRC), with some delaying the time to care.1 In this study, we conducted a qualitative analysis of statements made by emergency department (ED) patients – a majority of whom were UDLI and LLRC – participating in a study to better understand their experiences and fears with regard to anti-immigrant rhetoric, immigration enforcement, and ED utilization.

Methods

We conducted a multi-site study, surveying patients in three California safety-net EDs serving large immigrant populations from June 2017–December 2018. Of 1684 patients approached, 1337 (79.4%) agreed to participate; when given the option to provide open-ended comments, 260 participants provided perspectives about their experiences during the years immediately following the 2016 United States presidential election. We analyzed these qualitative data using constructivist grounded theory.

Results

We analyzed comments from 260 individuals. Among ED patients who provided qualitative data, 59% were women and their median age was 45 years (Interquartile range 33–57 years). Undocumented Latino immigrants comprised 49%, 31% were LLRC, and 20% were non-Latino legal residents. As their primary language, 68% spoke Spanish. We identified six themes: fear as a barrier to care (especially for UDLI); the negative impact of fear on health and wellness (physical and mental health, delays in care); factors influencing fear (eg, media coverage); and future solutions, including the need for increased communication about rights.

Conclusion

Anti-immigrant rhetoric during the 2016 US presidential campaign contributed to fear and safety concerns among UDLI and LLRC accessing healthcare. This is one of the few studies that captured firsthand experiences of UDLI in the ED. Our findings revealed fear-based barriers to accessing emergency care, protective and contributing factors to fear, and the negative impact of fear. There is a need for increased culturally informed patient communication about rights and resources, strategic media campaigns, and improved access to healthcare for undocumented individuals.

Emergency physician stressors, concerns, and behavioral changes during COVID-19: A longitudinal study

Objectives

The objective was to provide a longitudinal assessment of anxiety levels and work and home concerns of U.S. emergency physicians during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Methods

We performed a longitudinal, cross‐sectional email survey of clinically active emergency physicians (attending, fellow, and resident) at seven academic emergency departments. Follow‐up surveys were sent 4 to 6 weeks after the initial survey and assessed the following: COVID‐19 patient exposure, availability of COVID‐19 testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety/stress, changes in behaviors, and performance on a primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen (PC‐PTSD‐5). Logistic regression explored factors associated with a high PC‐PTSD‐5 scale score (≥3), indicating increased risk for PTSD.

Results

Of the 426 surveyed initial respondents, 262 (61.5%) completed the follow‐up survey. While 97.3% (255/262) reported treating suspected COVID‐19 patients, most physicians (162/262, 61.8%) had not received testing themselves. In follow‐up, respondents were most concerned about the relaxing of social distancing leading to a second wave (median score = 6, IQR = 4–7). Physicians reported a consistently high ability to order COVID‐19 tests for patients (median score = 6, IQR = 5–7) and access to personal protective equipment (median score = 6, IQR = 5–6). Women physicians were more likely to score ≥ 3 than men on the PC‐PTSD‐5 screener on the initial survey (43.3% vs. 22.5%; Δ 20.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.3% to 31.5%), and despite decreases in overall proportions, this discrepancy remained in follow‐up (34.7% vs. 16.8%; Δ 17.9%, 95% CI = 7.1% to 28.1%). In examining the relationship between demographics, living situations, and institution location on having a PC‐PTSD‐5 score ≥ 3, only female sex was associated with a PC‐PTSD‐5 score ≥ 3 (adjusted odds ratio = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.28 to 4.79).

Conclusions

While exposure to suspected COVID‐19 patients was nearly universal, stress levels in emergency physicians decreased with time. At both initial and follow‐up assessments, women were more likely to test positive on the PC‐PTSD‐5 screener compared to men.

Symptoms of Anxiety, Burnout, and PTSD and the Mitigation Effect of Serologic Testing in Emergency Department Personnel During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Study Objective

Among a comprehensive range of frontline emergency department health care personnel, we assessed symptoms of anxiety and burnout, specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related stressors, and risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We also determined whether COVID-19 serologic testing of HCP decreased their self-reported anxiety.

Methods

In a prospective cohort study from May 13, 2020, to July 8, 2020, we used electronic surveys to capture participant self-reported symptoms before and after serologic testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies. Participants were physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and nonclinical ED personnel at 20 geographically diverse United States EDs. We evaluated these domains: 1) the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on overall stress and anxiety; 2) COVID-19-related work stressors; 3) burnout; and 4) PTSD risk (measured using the Primary Care-PTSD Screen for DSM-5, a 5-item screening instrument in which a score of ≥3 signifies high risk for PTSD). We also assessed perceptions of whether results of COVID-19 antibody testing decreased participants’ self-reported anxiety.

Results

Of 1,606 participants, 100% and 88% responded to the baseline and follow-up surveys, respectively. At baseline, approximately half (46%) reported symptoms of emotional exhaustion and burnout from their work, and 308 (19.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3% to 21.1%) respondents screened positive for increased PTSD risk. Female respondents were more likely than males to screen positive (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.78). Common concerns included exposing their family and the health of coworkers diagnosed with COVID-19. After receiving antibody test results, 54% (95% CI 51.8 to 56.7) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that knowledge of their immune status had decreased their anxiety. A positive serology result indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting decreased anxiety (2.83, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.83).

Conclusion

Symptoms of anxiety and burnout were prevalent across the spectrum of ED staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. One-fifth of ED personnel appeared to be at risk for PTSD. Increased provision of serologic testing may help to mitigate anxiety.

NAloxone CARdiac Arrest Decision Instruments (NACARDI) for targeted antidotal therapy in occult opioid overdose precipitated cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

We have recently demonstrated that a significant proportion of fatal out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) are precipitated by occult overdose, which could benefit from antidote therapy administered adjunctively with other cardiac resuscitation measures. We sought to develop simple decision instruments that EMS providers and other first responders can use to rapidly identify occult opioid overdose-associated OHCAs.

METHODS

We examined data from February 2011 through December 2017 in the Postmortem Systematic Investigation of Sudden Cardiac Death study, in which San Francisco (California) County EMS-attended OHCA deaths received autopsy and expert panel adjudication of cause of death. Using classification tree analyses, we derived highly sensitive and specific decision instruments that predicted our primary outcome of occult opioid OD-associated OHCA. We then calculated screening performance characteristics of these instruments.

RESULTS

Of 767 OHCA deaths, 80 (10.4%) were associated with occult opioid overdose. Of the eight models with 100% sensitivity for opioid overdose-associated cardiac arrest, the highest specificity model (23.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 20.3-26.7%) was age < 60 years OR race = black or non-Latinx white OR arrest in public place. The highest specificity instrument (96.3%, 95% CI 94.6-97.5%) consisting of age < 60 years AND race = black or non-Latinx white AND unwitnessed arrest AND female sex had 25% (95% CI 16-35.9%) sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

We have derived simple decision instruments that can identify patients whose OHCA precipitant was occult opioid overdose. These instruments may be used to guide selective administration of the antidote naloxone in OHCA resuscitations.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students: a multicenter quantitative study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the United States (US) medical education system with the necessary, yet unprecedented Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) national recommendation to pause all student clinical rotations with in-person patient care. This study is a quantitative analysis investigating the educational and psychological effects of the pandemic on US medical students and their reactions to the AAMC recommendation in order to inform medical education policy.

METHODS

The authors sent a cross-sectional survey via email to medical students in their clinical training years at six medical schools during the initial peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey questions aimed to evaluate students' perceptions of COVID-19's impact on medical education; ethical obligations during a pandemic; infection risk; anxiety and burnout; willingness and needed preparations to return to clinical rotations.

RESULTS

Seven hundred forty-one (29.5%) students responded. Nearly all students (93.7%) were not involved in clinical rotations with in-person patient contact at the time the study was conducted. Reactions to being removed were mixed, with 75.8% feeling this was appropriate, 34.7% guilty, 33.5% disappointed, and 27.0% relieved. Most students (74.7%) agreed the pandemic had significantly disrupted their medical education, and believed they should continue with normal clinical rotations during this pandemic (61.3%). When asked if they would accept the risk of infection with COVID-19 if they returned to the clinical setting, 83.4% agreed. Students reported the pandemic had moderate effects on their stress and anxiety levels with 84.1% of respondents feeling at least somewhat anxious. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) (53.5%) was the most important factor to feel safe returning to clinical rotations, followed by adequate testing for infection (19.3%) and antibody testing (16.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the education of US medical students in their clinical training years. The majority of students wanted to return to clinical rotations and were willing to accept the risk of COVID-19 infection. Students were most concerned with having enough PPE if allowed to return to clinical activities.

Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians' Anxiety Levels, Stressors, and Potential Stress Mitigation Measures During the Acceleration Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective

The objective was to assess anxiety and burnout levels, home life changes, and measures to relieve stress of U.S. academic emergency medicine (EM) physicians during the COVID‐19 pandemic acceleration phase.

Methods

We sent a cross‐sectional e‐mail survey to all EM physicians at seven academic emergency departments. The survey incorporated items from validated stress scales and assessed perceptions and key elements in the following domains: numbers of suspected COVID‐19 patients, availability of diagnostic testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety, severity of work burnout, identification of stressors, changes in home behaviors, and measures to decrease provider anxiety.

Results

A total of 426 (56.7%) EM physicians responded. On a scale of 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, and 7 = extremely), the median (interquartile range) reported effect of the pandemic on both work and home stress levels was 5 (4–6). Reported levels of emotional exhaustion/burnout increased from a prepandemic median (IQR) of 3 (2–4) to since the pandemic started a median of 4 (3–6), with a difference in medians of 1.8 (95% confidence interval = 1.7 to 1.9). Most physicians (90.8%) reported changing their behavior toward family and friends, especially by decreasing signs of affection (76.8%). The most commonly cited measures cited to alleviate stress/anxiety were increasing personal protective equipment (PPE) availability, offering rapid COVID‐19 testing at physician discretion, providing clearer communication about COVID‐19 protocol changes, and assuring that physicians can take leave for care of family and self.

Conclusions

During the acceleration phase, the COVID‐19 pandemic has induced substantial workplace and home anxiety in academic EM physicians, and their exposure during work has had a major impact on their home lives. Measures cited to decrease stress include enhanced availability of PPE, rapid turnaround testing at provider discretion, and clear communication about COVID‐19 protocol changes.

A Review of Journal Impact Metrics and Characteristics to Assist Emergency Medicine Investigators with Manuscript Submission Decisions

Introduction

A crucial, yet subjective and non-evidence-based, decision for researchers is where to submit their original research manuscripts. The approach of submitting to journals in descending order of impact factor (IF) is a common but imperfect strategy. The validity of the IF as a measure of journal quality and significance is suspect, and a number of other journal impact scores have emerged, such that no one scale is universally accepted. Furthermore, practical considerations, such as likelihood of manuscript acceptance rates and times for decisions, may influence how authors prioritize journals. In this report, we sought to 1) review emergency medicine (EM) journal impact metrics, and 2) provide a comprehensive list of pertinent journal characteristics that may influence researchers’ choice of submission.

Methods

We systematically reviewed five impact metrics (IF, H Index, CiteScore, Source-Normalized Impact per Paper, and SCImago Journal Rank) and other relevant characteristics of 20 EM journals.

Results

We found good to excellent agreement in ordinal rankings of four of the journal impact metrics, as measured by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The median acceptance rate for original research manuscripts in the EM category was 25% (interquartile range [IQR] 18, 31%), and the median initial decision time was 33 days (IQR 18, 56 days). Fourteen EM journals (70%) accepted brief reports, and 15 (75%) accepted case reports/images.

Conclusion

We recommend replication, expansion, and formalization of this repository of information for EM investigators in a continuously updated, open-access forum sponsored by an independent organization.

Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury in the Pan-scan Era

BACKGROUND

In the era of frequent head-to-pelvis computed tomography (CT) for adult blunt trauma evaluation, we sought to update teachings regarding aortic injury by determining 1) the incidence of aortic injury; 2) the proportion of patients with isolated aortic injury (without other concomitant thoracic injury); 3) the clinical implications of aortic injury (hospital mortality, length of stay [LOS], and rate of surgical interventions); and 4) the screening value of traditional risk factors/markers (such as high-energy mechanism and widened mediastinum on chest x-ray [CXR]) for aortic injury, compared to newer criteria from the recently developed NEXUS Chest CT decision instrument (DI).

METHODS

We conducted a preplanned analysis of patients prospectively enrolled in the NEXUS Chest studies at 10 Level I trauma centers with the following inclusion criteria: age > 14 years, blunt trauma within 6 hours of ED presentation, and receiving chest imaging during ED trauma evaluation.

RESULTS

Of 24,010 enrolled subjects, 42 (0.17%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.13% to 0.24%) had aortic injury. Most patients (79%, 95% CI = 64% to 88%) had an associated thoracic injury, with rib fractures, pneumothorax/hemothorax, and pulmonary contusion occurring most frequently. Compared to patients without aortic injury this cohort had similar mortality (9.5%, 95% CI = 3.8% to 22.1% vs. 5.8%, 95% CI = 5.4% to 6.3%), longer median hospital LOS (11 days vs. 3 days, p < 0.01), and higher median Injury Severity Score (29 vs. 5, p < 0.001). High-energy mechanism and widened mediastinum on CXR had low sensitivity for aortic injury (76% [95% CI = 62% to 87%] and 33% [95% CI = 21% to 49%], respectively), compared to the NEXUS Chest CT DI (sensitivity 100% [95% CI = 92% to 100%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic injury is rare in adult ED blunt trauma patients who survive to receive imaging. Most ED aortic injury patients have associated thoracic injuries and survive to hospital discharge. Widened mediastinum on CXR and high-energy mechanism have relatively low screening sensitivity for aortic injury, but the NEXUS Chest DI detected all cases.

Thoracic Spine Fracture in the Panscan Era

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In the current era of frequent chest computed tomography (CT) for adult blunt trauma evaluation, many minor injuries are diagnosed, potentially rendering traditional teachings obsolete. We seek to update teachings in regard to thoracic spine fracture by determining how often such fractures are observed on CT only (ie, not visualized on preceding trauma chest radiograph), the admission rate, mortality, and hospital length of stay of thoracic spine fracture patients, and how often thoracic spine fractures are clinically significant.

METHODS

This was a preplanned analysis of prospectively collected data from the NEXUS Chest CT study conducted from 2011 to 2014 at 9 Level I trauma centers. The inclusion criteria were older than 14 years, blunt trauma occurring within 6 hours of emergency department (ED) presentation, and chest imaging (radiography, CT, or both) during ED evaluation.

RESULTS

Of 11,477 enrolled subjects, 217 (1.9%) had a thoracic spine fracture; 181 of the 198 thoracic spine fracture patients (91.4%) who had both chest radiograph and CT had their thoracic spine fracture observed on CT only. Half of patients (49.8%) had more than 1 level of thoracic spine fracture, with a mean of 2.1 levels (SD 1.6 levels) of thoracic spine involved. Most patients (62%) had associated thoracic injuries. Compared with patients without thoracic spine fracture, those with it had higher admission rates (88.5% versus 47.2%; difference 41.3%; 95% confidence interval 36.3% to 45%), higher mortality (6.3% versus 4.0%; difference 2.3%; 95% confidence interval 0 to 6.7%), and longer length of stay (median 9 versus 6 days; difference 3 days; P<.001). However, thoracic spine fracture patients without other thoracic injury had mortality similar to that of patients without thoracic spine fracture (4.6% versus 4%; difference 0.6%; 95% confidence interval -2.5% to 8.6%). Less than half of thoracic spine fractures (47.4%) were clinically significant: 40.8% of patients received thoracolumbosacral orthosis bracing, 10.9% had surgery, and 3.8% had an associated neurologic deficit.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic spine fracture is uncommon. Most thoracic spine fractures are associated with other thoracic injuries, and mortality is more closely related to these other injuries than to the thoracic spine fracture itself. More than half of thoracic spine fractures are clinically insignificant; surgical intervention is uncommon and neurologic injury is rare.

Prevalence of Intracranial Injury in Adult Patients With Blunt Head Trauma With and Without Anticoagulant or Antiplatelet Use

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We determine the prevalence of significant intracranial injury among adults with blunt head trauma who are receiving preinjury anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted from December 2007 to December 2015. Patients were enrolled in 3 emergency departments (EDs) in the United States. Adults with blunt head trauma who underwent neuroimaging in the ED were included. Use of preinjury aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin was recorded. Data on direct oral anticoagulants were not specifically recorded. The primary outcome was prevalence of significant intracranial injury on neuroimaging. The secondary outcome was receipt of neurosurgical intervention.

RESULTS

Among 9,070 patients enrolled in this study, the median age was 53.8 years (interquartile range 34.7 to 74.3 years) and 60.7% were men. A total of 1,323 patients (14.6%) were receiving antiplatelet medications or warfarin, including 635 receiving aspirin alone, 109 clopidogrel alone, and 406 warfarin alone. Compared with that of patients without any coagulopathy, the relative risk of significant intracranial injury was 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88 to 1.87) for patients receiving aspirin alone, 0.75 (95% CI 0.24 to 2.30) for those receiving clopidogrel alone, and 1.88 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.75) for those receiving warfarin alone. The relative risk of significant intracranial injury was 2.88 (95% CI 1.53 to 5.42) for patients receiving aspirin and clopidogrel in combination.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving preinjury warfarin or a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel were at increased risk for significant intracranial injury, but not those receiving aspirin alone. Clinicians should have a low threshold for neuroimaging when evaluating patients receiving warfarin or a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel.