Introduction: Although bronchiolitis is a common reason for infant hospitalization, significant heterogeneity persists in its management. The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends that inhaled albuterol not be used in routine care of children with bronchiolitis. Our objective was to identify factors associated with pre-admission (e.g., emergency department or primary care) use of albuterol among infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis.

Methods: We analyzed data from a 17-center observational study of 1,016 infants (age <1 year) hospitalized with bronchiolitis between 2011-2014. Pre-admission albuterol use was ascertained by chart review, and data were available for 1,008 (99%) infants. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify infant characteristics independently associated with pre-admission albuterol use.

Results: Half of the infants (n=508) received at least one albuterol treatment before admission. Across the 17 hospitals, pre-admission albuterol use ranged from 23-84%. In adjusted analysis, independent predictors of albuterol use were the following: age ≥2 months (age 2.0-5.9 months [odds ratio (OR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) {1.45-3.01}] and age 6.0-11.9 months [OR 2.89, 95% CI {1.99-4.19}]); prior use of a bronchodilator (OR 1.89, 95% CI [1.24-2.90]); and presence of wheezing documented in pre-admission chart (OR 3.94, 95% CI [2.61-5.93]). By contrast, albuterol use was less likely among those with ≥7 days since the start of breathing problem (OR 0.66, 95% CI [0.44-1.00]) and parent-reported fever (OR 0.75, 95% CI [0.58-0.96]).

Conclusion: Variation in pre-admission albuterol use suggests that local practice had a strong influence on use, but that patient characteristics also influenced the decision. While we agree with current guidelines in recommending against albuterol for all infants with bronchiolitis, our understanding of possible subgroups of responders may improve through investigation of infants with the identified characteristics.

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) visits related to opioid use disorder (OUD) have increased nearly twofold over the last decade. Treatment with buprenorphine has been demonstrated to decrease opioid-related overdose deaths. In this study, we aimed to better understand ED clinicians’ attitudes toward the initiation of buprenorphine treatment in the ED.

Methods: We performed a mixed-methods study consisting of a survey of 174 ED clinicians (attending physicians, residents, and physician assistants) and semi-structured interviews with 17 attending emergency physicians at a tertiary-care academic hospital.

Results: A total of 93 ED clinicians (53% of those contacted) completed the survey. While 80% of respondents agreed that buprenorphine should be administered in the ED for patients requesting treatment, only 44% felt that they were prepared to discuss medication for addiction treatment. Compared to clinicians with fewer than five years of practice, those with greater experience were less likely to approve of ED-initiated buprenorphine. In our qualitative analysis, physicians had differing perspectives on the role that the ED should play in treating OUD. Most physicians felt that a buprenorphine-based intervention in the ED would be feasible with institutional support, including training opportunities, protocol support within the electronic health record, counseling and support staff, and a robust referral system for outpatient follow-up.

Conclusion: ED clinicians’ perception of buprenorphine varied by years of practice and training level. Most ED clinicians did not feel prepared to initiate buprenorphine in the ED. Qualitative interviews identified several addressable barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine.