Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE:The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery has published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to guide management of common otolaryngologic (ENT) conditions. While these CPGs have been disseminated within specialty journals, many patients' first presentation of certain ENT complaints is to primary and acute care settings, including the emergency department (ED). It is less clear whether practice in these settings is concordant with specialty CPGs. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. METHODS:A retrospective review of medical records was performed at an academic tertiary care center with ED diagnoses of 1) Bell's palsy/facial weakness (BP) or 2) acute otitis externa (AOE) from May 2014-June 2018. Individual chart abstraction was performed for all encounters with these diagnoses for the purpose of assessing providers' adherence to CPGs. RESULTS:During the study period, 224 patients were diagnosed with BP and 465 patients were diagnosed with AOE. Of the patients diagnosed with BP, 94% (n = 211/224) were prescribed oral steroids, concordant with guidelines, while 36% of these patients received head computed tomography (CT) scans and 43% received laboratory tests, counter to the guidelines. For those with a diagnosis of AOE, 28.6% received topical antibiotics only as primary treatment (n = 133/465) in accordance with guidelines while systemic antibiotics were prescribed in 42.2% (n = 196/465) discordant with the guidelines and 29.2% received both topical and systemic antibiotics (n = 136/465). CONCLUSIONS:CPGs developed by subspecialty societies provide evidence-based recommendations for the care of patients with particular conditions, but may not be disseminated broadly outside of the specialty. Further research is required to understand the reasons behind divergent management of such conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:3 Laryngoscope, 2020.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Novel long-acting lipoglycopeptide antibiotics allow for the treatment and discharge of selected emergency department (ED) patients with cellulitis who require intravenous antibiotics. Telehealth systems have shown success in remote management of dermatologic conditions; we implemented a telehealth follow-up program for patients diagnosed with cellulitis in the ED, treated with single-dose dalbavancin, and discharged. METHODS:This was a prospective, multi-center observational study. Patients were included based on clinical criteria and ability to complete follow-up using a smartphone and enroll in an online care portal. We examined the rate of successful telehealth follow-up at 24- and 72-hour intervals from discharge. We also examined the ED return rate within 14 days, reviewed any visits to determine cause of return, and for admission. RESULTS:55 patients were enrolled. 54/55 patients completed at least one telehealth follow up encounter (98.2%). 13 patients (23.6%) had a return ED visit within 14 days; no patients required admission for worsening cellulitis. Patient engagement in the telehealth program decreased over time; there was an approximately 11% decrease in engagement between the 24 and 72-hour follow-up call, and a 15% decrease in engagement between the 24 and 72-hour image upload. Patients over 65 had a lower rate of image upload (31%) than younger patients (80.6%). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:A telehealth follow-up system for discharged emergency department patients with cellulitis demonstrated high rates of engagement. In these patients who -may have otherwise required admission for intravenous antibiotics, telehealth-facilitated outpatient management resulted in a low ED return rate and no inpatient admissions for cellulitis.

BACKGROUND:Telemedicine use rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study assessed quality aspects of rapid expansion of a virtual urgent care (VUC) telehealth system and the effects of a secondary telephonic screening initiative during the pandemic. METHODS:A retrospective cohort analysis was performed in a single health care network of VUC patients from March 1, 2020, through April 20, 2020. Researchers abstracted demographic data, comorbidities, VUC return visits, emergency department (ED) referrals and ED visits, dispositions, intubations, and deaths. The team also reviewed incomplete visits. For comparison, the study evaluated outcomes of non-admission dispositions from the ED: return visits with and without admission and deaths. We separately analyzed the effects of enhanced callback system targeting higher-risk patients with COVID-like illness during the last two weeks of the study period. RESULTS:A total of 18,278 unique adult patients completed 22,413 VUC visits. Separately, 718 patient-scheduled visits were incomplete; the majority were no-shows. The study found that 50.9% of all patients and 74.1% of patients aged 60 years or older had comorbidities. Of VUC visits, 6.8% had a subsequent VUC encounter within 72 hours; 1.8% had a subsequent ED visit. Of patients with enhanced follow-up, 4.3% were referred for ED evaluation. Mortality was 0.20% overall; 0.21% initially and 0.16% with enhanced follow-up (p = 0.59). Males and black patients were significantly overrepresented in decedents. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Appropriately deployed VUC services can provide a pragmatic strategy to care for large numbers of patients. Ongoing surveillance of operational, technical, and clinical factors is critical for patient quality and safety with this modality.

BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic quickly challenged New York City health care systems. Telemedicine has been suggested to manage acute complaints and divert patients from in-person care. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to describe and assess the impact of a rapidly scaled virtual urgent care platform during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented to a virtual urgent care platform over 1 month during the COVID-19 pandemic surge. We described scaling our telemedicine urgent care capacity, described patient clinical characteristics, assessed for emergency department (ED) referrals, and analyzed postvisit surveys. RESULTS:During the study period, a total of 17,730 patients were seen via virtual urgent care; 454 (2.56%) were referred to an ED. The most frequent diagnoses were COVID-19 related or upper respiratory symptoms. Geospatial analysis indicated a wide catchment area. There were 251 providers onboarded to the platform; at peak, 62 providers supplied 364 h of coverage in 1 day. The average patient satisfaction score was 4.4/5. There were 2668 patients (15.05%) who responded to the postvisit survey; 1236 (49.35%) would have sought care in an ED (11.86%) or in-person urgent care (37.49%). CONCLUSIONS:A virtual urgent care platform was scaled to manage a volume of more than 800 patients a day across a large catchment area during the pandemic surge. About half of the patients would otherwise have presented to an ED or urgent care in person. Virtual urgent care is an option for appropriate patients while minimizing in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:It is difficult to determine illness severity for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, especially among stable-appearing emergency department (ED) patients. We evaluated patient outcomes among ED patients with a documented ambulatory oxygen saturation measurement. METHODS:This was a retrospective chart review of ED patients seen at New York University Langone Health during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. We identified ED patients who had a documented ambulatory oxygen saturation. We studied the outcomes of high oxygen requirement (defined as >4 liters per minute) and mechanical ventilation among admitted patients and bounceback admissions among discharged patients. We also performed logistic regression and compared the performance of different ambulatory oxygen saturation cutoffs in predicting these outcomes. RESULTS:Between March 15-April 14, 2020, 6194 patients presented with fever, cough, or shortness of breath at our EDs. Of these patients, 648 (11%) had a documented ambulatory oxygen saturation, of which 165 (24%) were admitted. Notably, admitted and discharged patients had similar initial vital signs. However, the average ambulatory oxygen saturation among admitted patients was significantly lower at 89% compared to 96% among discharged patients (p<0.01). Among admitted patients with an ambulatory oxygen saturation, 30% had high oxygen requirements and 8% required mechanical ventilation. These rates were predicted by low ambulatory oxygen saturation (p<0.01). Among discharged patients, 50 (10%) had a subsequent ED visit resulting in admission. Although bounceback admissions were predicted by ambulatory oxygen saturation at the first ED visit (p<0.01), our analysis of cutoffs suggested that this association may not be clinically useful. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Measuring ambulatory oxygen saturation can help ED clinicians identify patients who may require high levels of oxygen or mechanical ventilation during admission. However, it is less useful for identifying which patients may deteriorate clinically in the days after ED discharge and require subsequent hospitalization.

BACKGROUND:The emergency department is a critical juncture in the trajectory of care of patients with serious, life-limiting illness. Implementation of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool automates identification of older adults who may benefit from palliative care instead of relying upon providers to identify such patients, thus improving quality of care by assisting providers with adhering to guidelines. The Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) study aims to optimize the use of the electronic health record by creating a CDS tool to identify high risk patients most likely to benefit from primary palliative care and provide point-of-care clinical recommendations. METHODS:A clinical decision support tool entitled Emergency Department Supportive Care Clinical Decision Support (Support-ED) was developed as part of an institutionally-sponsored value based medicine initiative at the Ronald O. Perelman Department of Emergency Medicine at NYU Langone Health. A multidisciplinary approach was used to develop Support-ED including: a scoping review of ED palliative care screening tools; launch of a workgroup to identify patient screening criteria and appropriate referral services; initial design and usability testing via the standard System Usability Scale questionnaire, education of the ED workforce on the Support-ED background, purpose and use, and; creation of a dashboard for monitoring and feedback. RESULTS:The scoping review identified the Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) survey as a validated instrument in which to adapt and apply for the creation of the CDS tool. The multidisciplinary workshops identified two primary objectives of the CDS: to identify patients with indicators of serious life limiting illness, and to assist with referrals to services such as palliative care or social work. Additionally, the iterative design process yielded three specific patient scenarios that trigger a clinical alert to fire, including: 1) when an advance care planning document was present, 2) when a patient had a previous disposition to hospice, and 3) when historical and/or current clinical data points identify a serious life-limiting illness without an advance care planning document present. Monitoring and feedback indicated a need for several modifications to improve CDS functionality. CONCLUSIONS:CDS can be an effective tool in the implementation of primary palliative care quality improvement best practices. Health systems should thoughtfully consider tailoring their CDSs in order to adapt to their unique workflows and environments. The findings of this research can assist health systems in effectively integrating a primary palliative care CDS system seamlessly into their processes of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03424109. Registered 6 February 2018, Grant Number: AT009844-01.

Objective/UNASSIGNED:Given the high mortality and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation of COVID-19 patients, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen for COVID-19 patients with respiratory distress. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This is a single-center clinical trial of COVID-19 patients at NYU Winthrop Hospital from March 31 to April 28, 2020. Patients in this trial received hyperbaric oxygen therapy at 2.0 atmospheres of pressure in monoplace hyperbaric chambers for 90 minutes daily for a maximum of five total treatments. Controls were identified using propensity score matching among COVID-19 patients admitted during the same time period. Using competing-risks survival regression, we analyzed our primary outcome of inpatient mortality and secondary outcome of mechanical ventilation. Results/UNASSIGNED:We treated 20 COVID-19 patients with hyperbaric oxygen. Ages ranged from 30 to 79 years with an oxygen requirement ranging from 2 to 15 liters on hospital days 0 to 14. Of these 20 patients, two (10%) were intubated and died, and none remain hospitalized. Among 60 propensity-matched controls based on age, sex, body mass index, coronary artery disease, troponin, D-dimer, hospital day, and oxygen requirement, 18 (30%) were intubated, 13 (22%) have died, and three (5%) remain hospitalized (with one still requiring mechanical ventilation). Assuming no further deaths among controls, we estimate that the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratios were 0.37 for inpatient mortality (p=0.14) and 0.26 for mechanical ventilation (p=0.046). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Though limited by its study design, our results demonstrate the safety of hyperbaric oxygen among COVID-19 patients and strongly suggests the need for a well-designed, multicenter randomized control trial.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To develop natural language processing (NLP) to identify incidental lung nodules (ILNs) in radiology reports for assessment of management recommendations. METHOD AND MATERIALS/METHODS:We searched the electronic health records for patients who underwent chest CT during 2014 and 2017, before and after implementation of a department-wide dictation macro of the Fleischner Society recommendations. We randomly selected 950 unstructured chest CT reports and reviewed manually for ILNs. An NLP tool was trained and validated against the manually reviewed set, for the task of automated detection of ILNs with exclusion of previously known or definitively benign nodules. For ILNs found in the training and validation sets, we assessed whether reported management recommendations agreed with Fleischner Society guidelines. The guideline concordance of management recommendations was compared between 2014 and 2017. RESULTS:The NLP tool identified ILNs with sensitivity and specificity of 91.1% and 82.2%, respectively, in the validation set. Positive and negative predictive values were 59.7% and 97.0%. In reports of ILNs in the training and validation sets before versus after introduction of a Fleischner reporting macro, there was no difference in the proportion of reports with ILNs (108 of 500 [21.6%] versus 101 of 450 [22.4%]; P = .8), or in the proportion of reports with ILNs containing follow-up recommendations (75 of 108 [69.4%] versus 80 of 101 [79.2%]; P = .2]. Rates of recommendation guideline concordance were not significantly different before and after implementation of the standardized macro (52 of 75 [69.3%] versus 60 of 80 [75.0%]; P = .43). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:NLP reliably automates identification of ILNs in unstructured reports, pertinent to quality improvement efforts for ILN management.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine rates of and possible reasons for guideline-discordant ordering of CT pulmonary angiography for the evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department. METHODS:A retrospective review was performed of 212 consecutive encounters (January 6, 2016, to February 25, 2016) with 208 unique patients in the emergency department that resulted in CT pulmonary angiography orders. For each encounter, the revised Geneva score and two versions of the Wells criteria were calculated. Each encounter was then classified using a two-tiered risk stratification method (PE unlikely versus PE likely). Finally, the rate of and possible explanations for guideline-discordant ordering were assessed via in-depth chart review. RESULTS:The frequency of guideline-discordant studies ranged from 53 (25%) to 79 (37%), depending on the scoring system used; 46 (22%) of which were guideline discordant under all three scoring systems. Of these, 18 (39%) had at least one patient-specific factor associated with increased risk for PE but not included in the risk stratification scores (eg, travel, thrombophilia). CONCLUSIONS:Many of the guideline-discordant orders were placed for patients who presented with evidence-based risk factors for PE that are not included in the risk stratification scores. Therefore, guideline-discordant ordering may indicate that in the presence of these factors, the assessment of risk made by current scoring systems may not align with clinical suspicion.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Emergency departments (ED) care for society's most vulnerable older adults who present with exacerbations of chronic disease at the end of life, yet the clinical paradigm focuses on treatment of acute pathologies. Palliative care interventions in the ED capture high-risk patients at a time of crisis and can dramatically improve patient-centred outcomes. This study aims to implement and evaluate Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) on ED disposition, healthcare utilisation and survival in older adults with serious illness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:This is the protocol for a pragmatic, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial to test the effectiveness of PRIM-ER in 35 EDs across the USA. The intervention includes four core components: (1) evidence-based, multidisciplinary primary palliative care education; (2) simulation-based workshops; (3) clinical decision support; and (4) audit and feedback. The study is divided into two phases: a pilot phase, to ensure feasibility in two sites, and an implementation and evaluation phase, where we implement the intervention and test the effectiveness in 33 EDs over 2 years. Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data, we will assess the primary outcomes in approximately 300 000 patients: ED disposition to an acute care setting, healthcare utilisation in the 6 months following the ED visit and survival following the index ED visit. Analysis will also determine the site, provider and patient-level characteristics that are associated with variation in impact of PRIM-ER. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION/UNASSIGNED:Institutional Review Board approval was obtained at New York University School of Medicine to evaluate the CMS data. Oversight will also be provided by the National Institutes of Health, an Independent Monitoring Committee and a Clinical Informatics Advisory Board. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER/BACKGROUND:NCT03424109; Pre-results.