BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in opioid prescribing in the emergency department (ED) are well described, yet the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: (1) To examine the effect of neighborhood SES on the prescribing of opioids for moderate to severe pain; and (2) to determine if racial disparities in opioid prescribing persist after accounting for SES. DESIGN: We used cross-sectional data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey between 2006 and 2009 to examine the prescribing of opioids to patients presenting with moderate to severe pain (184 million visits). We used logistic regression to examine the association between the prescribing of opioids, SES, and race. Models were adjusted for age, sex, pain-level, injury-status, frequency of emergency visits, hospital type, and region. MAIN MEASURES: Our primary outcome measure was whether an opioid was prescribed during a visit for moderate to severe pain. SES was determined based on income, percent poverty, and educational level within a patient's zip code. RESULTS: Opioids were prescribed more frequently at visits from patients of the highest SES quartile compared to patients in the lowest quartile, including percent poverty (49.0 % vs. 39.4 %, P<0.001), household income (47.3 % vs. 40.7 %, P < 0.001), and educational level (46.3 % vs. 42.5 %, P=0.01). Black patients were prescribed opioids less frequently than white patients across all measures of SES. In adjusted models, black patients (AOR 0.73; 95 % CI 0.66-0.81) and patients from poorer areas (AOR 0.76; 95 % CI 0.68-0.86) were less likely to receive opioids after accounting for pain-level, age, injury-status, and other covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to emergency departments from lower SES regions were less likely to receive opioids for equivalent levels of pain than those from more affluent areas. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to receive opioids for equivalent levels of pain than whites, independent of SES.

Purpose: The aim of this quality improvement (QI) project was to increase the coprescription of naloxone kits at patient discharge as a harm reduction strategy to combat the opioid epidemic. An interdisciplinary team identified hospitalized medical patients who were at high risk for an opioid overdose or opioid-related adverse event. Methods: Led by a physician champion, an interdisciplinary QI team composed of physicians (MDs and doctors of osteopathic medicine), advanced practice providers (NPs and physician assistants), RNs, care coordinators, social workers, and pharmacists developed and implemented a naloxone distribution program on one medical unit at an academic tertiary care center. The team developed and implemented criteria to identify high-risk patients, workflow for patient screening, staff and patient education programs, and processes for naloxone kit delivery to the patient's bedside. Data on naloxone kit distribution from the seven months prior to implementation (March 2018 to September 2018) and the seven months after implementation (October 2018 to April 2019) were evaluated and are reported descriptively. Results: Two patients preimplementation and 64 patients postimplementation received a naloxone kit at discharge. In the postimplementation group, common reasons for identifying a patient as at high risk for an overdose or adverse event were a prescription for a pain medication at a daily dosage greater than or equal to 50 morphine milligram equivalents (50% of patients), concomitant opioid and benzodiazepine use (19%), history of substance use disorder (11%), and medication-assisted treatment (9%). Most patients in the postimplementation group (86%) received a naloxone kit at a personal cost of $1 or less. Conclusion: This unit-based pilot project was successful in identifying patients at high risk for an opioid overdose or opioid-related adverse event and in providing naloxone kits and education at hospital discharge.

Staphylococcus schleiferi is a Gram-positive coccus bacterium first discovered in 1988 that is typically associated with skin and ear infections in dogs, cats and birds. It is infrequently described as a human pathogen. There are, however, emerging reports of S. schleiferi infections in diverse clinical scenarios in humans, particularly in patients with weakened immune systems. S. schleiferi may be underrecognised due to limitations in routine microbiology diagnostic protocols and mislabelling as other Staphylococcus sp. We present a rare case of S. schleiferi diabetic foot osteomyelitis with subsequent bacteraemia in an immunocompromised host.

Food insecurity has been linked to numerous chronic conditions and higher healthcare costs; however, screening for food insecurity lags behind screening for other social determinants of health, particularly in the hospital setting. Although our hospital serves a population with a high prevalence of food insecurity, no process previously existed to universally screen patients. Our multidisciplinary team developed and implemented a process to screen hospitalized adults for food insecurity and connect them with food resources, which we piloted on a 26-bed hospital medicine unit. We integrated a validated 2-item screen into the electronic health record (EHR) nursing admission workflow, and provided 2 weeks of nursing education before process implementation. Adherence to screening was monitored weekly and adjustments were made using plan-do-study-act cycles. After 28 weeks, 361/587 (61.5%; weekly average 61.1%) encounters were screened (compared with a baseline of 2.2%), with 21/361 (5.8%) identified as food insecure. The implementation of an EHR-based food insecurity screening process in the hospital setting increased screening and identification of food insecure patients. Through improved integration of screening questions into the existing nursing workflow and continued education, success was sustained despite challenges with nursing staff turnover and staff shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic.