IMPORTANCE Latinx individuals, particularly immigrants, are at higher risk than non-Latinx White individuals of contracting and dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Little is known about Latinx experiences with COVID-19 infection and treatment. OBJECTIVE To describe the experiences of Latinx individuals who were hospitalized with and survived COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The qualitative study used semistructured phone interviews of 60 Latinx adults who survived a COVID-19 hospitalization in public hospitals in San Francisco, California, and Denver, Colorado, from March 2020 to July 2020. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Data analysis was conducted from May 2020 to September 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Themes and subthemes that reflected patient experiences. RESULTS Sixty people (24 women and 36 men; mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years) participated. All lived in low-income areas, 47 participants (78%) had more than 4 people in the home, and most (44 participants [73%]) were essential workers. Four participants (9%) could work from home, 12 (20%) had paid sick leave, and 21 (35%) lost their job because of COVID-19. We identified 5 themes (and subthemes) with public health and clinical care implications: COVID-19 was a distant and secondary threat (invincibility, misinformation and disbelief, ingrained social norms); COVID-19 was a compounder of disadvantage (fear of unemployment and eviction, lack of safeguards for undocumented immigrants, inability to protect self from COVID-19, and high-density housing); reluctance to seek medical care (worry about health care costs, concerned about ability to access care if uninsured or undocumented, undocumented immigrants fear deportation); health care system interactions (social isolation and change in hospital procedures, appreciation for clinicians and language access, and discharge with insufficient resources or clinical information); and faith and community resiliency (spirituality, Latinx COVID-19 advocates). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In interviews, Latinx patients with COVID-19 who survived hospitalization described initial disease misinformation and economic and immigration fears as having driven exposure and delays in presentation. To confront COVID-19 as a compounder of social disadvantage, public health authorities should mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation, immigration fears, and challenges to health care access, as well as create policies that provide work protection and address economic disadvantages.

No abstract

Background Acute healthcare utilization attributed to alcohol use disorders (AUD) and other substance use disorders (SUD) is rising. Objective To describe the prevalence and characteristics of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations made by adults with AUD or SUD. Design, Setting, and Participants Observational study with retrospective analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2014 to 2018), a nationally representative survey of acute care visits with information on the presence of AUD or SUD abstracted from the medical chart. Main Measures Outcome measured as the presence of AUD or SUD. Key Results From 2014 to 2018, the annual average prevalence of AUD or SUD was 9.4% of ED visits (9.3 million visits) and 11.9% hospitalizations (1.4 million hospitalizations). Both estimates increased over time (30% and 57% relative increase for ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively, from 2014 to 2018). ED visits and hospitalizations from individuals with AUD or SUD, compared to individuals with neither AUD nor SUD, had higher percentages of Medicaid insurance (ED visits: AUD: 33.1%, SUD: 35.0%, neither: 24.4%; hospitalizations: AUD: 30.7%, SUD: 36.3%, neither: 14.8%); homelessness (ED visits: AUD: 6.2%, SUD 4.4%, neither 0.4%; hospitalizations: AUD: 5.9%, SUD 7.3%, neither: 0.4%); coexisting depression (ED visits: AUD: 26.3%, SUD 24.7%, neither 10.5%; hospitalizations: AUD: 33.5%, SUD 35.3%, neither: 13.9%); and injury/trauma (ED visits: AUD: 51.3%, SUD 36.3%, neither: 26.4%; hospitalizations: AUD: 31.8%, SUD: 23.8%, neither: 15.0%). Conclusions In this nationally representative study, 1 in 11 ED visits and 1 in 9 hospitalizations were made by adults with AUD or SUD, and both increased over time. These estimates are higher or similar than previous national estimates using claims data. This highlights the importance of identifying opportunities to address AUD and SUD in acute care settings in tandem with other medical concerns, particularly among visits presenting with injury, trauma, or coexisting depression. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07069-w.

Hospital‐based clinicians frequently care for patients with opioid withdrawal or opioid use disorder (OUD) and are well‐positioned to identify and initiate treatment for these patients. With rising numbers of hospitalizations related to opioid use and opioid‐related overdose, the Society of Hospital Medicine convened a working group to develop a Consensus Statement on the management of OUD and associated conditions among hospitalized adults. The guidance statement is intended for clinicians practicing medicine in the inpatient setting (e.g., hospitalists, primary care physicians, family physicians, advanced practice nurses, and physician assistants) and is intended to apply to hospitalized adults at risk for, or diagnosed with, OUD. To develop the Consensus Statement, the working group conducted a systematic review of relevant guidelines and composed a draft statement based on extracted recommendations. Next, the working group obtained feedback on the draft statement from external experts in addiction medicine, SHM members, professional societies, harm reduction organizations and advocacy groups, and peer reviewers. The iterative development process resulted in a final Consensus Statement consisting of 18 recommendations covering the following topics: (1) identification and treatment of OUD and opioid withdrawal, (2) perioperative and acute pain management in patients with OUD, and (3) methods to optimize care transitions at hospital discharge for patients with OUD. Most recommendations in the Consensus Statement were derived from guidelines based on observational studies and expert consensus. Due to the lack of rigorous evidence supporting key aspects of OUD‐related care, the working group identified important issues necessitating future research and exploration.

Background Hospital-based addiction care focuses on assessing and diagnosing substance use disorders, managing withdrawal, and initiating medications for addiction treatment. Hospital harm reduction is generally limited to prescribing naloxone. Hospitals can better serve individuals with substance use disorders by incorporating harm reduction education and equipment provision as essential addiction care. We describe the implementation of a hospital intervention that provides harm reduction education and equipment (e.g., syringes, pipes, and fentanyl test strips) to patients via an addiction consult team in an urban, safety-net hospital. Methods We performed a needs assessment to determine patient harm reduction needs. We partnered with a community-based organization who provided us harm reduction equipment and training. We engaged executive, regulatory, and nursing leadership to obtain support. After ensuring regulatory compliance, training our team, and developing a workflow, we implemented this harm reduction program that provides education and equipment to individuals whose substance use goals do not include abstinence. Results During a 12-month period we provided 195 individuals harm reduction kits. Conclusions This intervention allowed us to advance hospital-based addiction care, better educate and engage patients, staff, and clinicians, and reduce stigma. By establishing a community harm reduction partner, obtaining support from hospital leadership, and incorporating feedback from staff, clinicians, and patients, we successfully implemented harm reduction education and equipment provision in a hospital setting as part of evidence-based addiction care. Trial registration: Commentary, none.

The Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction (AMERSA) acknowledges that racism profoundly affects persons who use alcohol and other drugs. Racism's deadly effects compounded with other social determinants of health result in a cascade of negative impacts. The AMERSA Board of Directors (BOD) proposes an initial set of strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion using a framework that speaks to four key AMERSA experiences: engagement, education, mentorship, and leadership. Through these strategies, AMERSA commits to promoting equity and inclusion to dismantle the individual, institutional, and structural racism that has permeated the United States for centuries.

Across the USA, morbidity and mortality from substance use are rising as reflected by increases in acute care hospitalisations for substance use complications and substance-related deaths. Patients with substance use disorders (SUD) have long and costly hospitalisations and higher readmission rates compared to those without SUD. Hospitalisation presents an opportunity to diagnose and treat individuals with SUD and connect them to ongoing care. However, SUD care often remains unaddressed by hospital providers due to lack of a systems approach and addiction medicine knowledge, and is compounded by stigma. We present a blueprint to launching an interprofessional inpatient addiction care team embedded in the hospital medicine division of an urban, safety-net integrated health system. We describe key factors for successful implementation including: (1) demonstrating the scope and impact of SUD in our health system via a needs assessment; (2) aligning improvement areas with health system leadership priorities; (3) involving executive leadership to create goal and initiative alignment; and (4) obtaining seed funding for a pilot programme from our Medicaid health plan partner. We also present challenges and lessons learnt.

In-hospital substance use is common among patients with addiction because of undertreated withdrawal, undertreated pain, negative feelings, and stigma. Health care system responses to in-hospital substance use often perpetuate stigma and criminalization of people with addiction, long etched into our culture by the racist War on Drugs. In this commentary, we describe how our hospital convened an interprofessional workgroup to revise our in-hospital substance use policy. Our updated policy recommends health care workers respond to substance use concerns by offering patients adequate pain control, evidence-based addiction treatment, and supportive services instead of punitive responses. We provide best-practice recommendations for in-hospital substance use policies.