Introduction: Methamphetamine use is on the rise with increasing emergency department (ED) visits, behavioral health crises, and deaths associated with use and overdose. Emergency clinicians describe methamphetamine use as a significant problem with high resource utilization and violence against staff, but little is known about the patient’s perspective. In this study our objective was to identify the motivations for initiation and continued methamphetamine use among people who use methamphetamine and their experiences in the ED to guide future ED-based approaches. 

Methods: This was a qualitative study of adults residing in the state of Washington in 2020, who used methamphetamine in the prior 30 days, met criteria for moderate- to high-risk use, reported recently receiving care in the ED, and had phone access. Twenty individuals were recruited to complete a brief survey and semi-structured interview, which was recorded and transcribed prior to being coded. Modified grounded theory guided the analysis, and the interview guide and codebook were iteratively refined. Three investigators coded the interviews until consensus was reached. Data was collected until thematic saturation. 

Results: Participants described a shifting line that separates the positive attributes from the negative consequences of using methamphetamine. Many initially used methamphetamine to enhance social interactions, combat boredom, and escape difficult circumstances by numbing the senses. However, continued use regularly led to isolation, ED visits for the medical and psychological sequelae of methamphetamine use, and engagement in increasingly risky behaviors. Because of their overwhelmingly frustrating experiences in the past, interviewees anticipated difficult interactions with healthcare clinicians, leading to combativeness in the ED, avoidance of the ED at all costs, and downstream medical complications. Participants desired a non-judgmental conversation and linkage to outpatient social resources and addiction treatment.

Conclusion: Methamphetamine use can lead patients to seek care in the ED, where they often feel stigmatized and are provided little assistance. Emergency clinicians should acknowledge addiction as a chronic condition, address acute medical and psychiatric symptoms adequately, and provide positive connections to addiction and medical resources. Future work should incorporate the perspectives of people who use methamphetamine into ED-based programs and interventions.

Introduction: Despite literature on a variety of social risks and needs screening interventions in emergency department (ED) settings, there is no universally accepted or evidence-based process for conducting such interventions. Many factors hamper or promote implementation of social risks and needs screening in the ED, but the relative impact of these factors and how best to mitigate/leverage them is unknown. 

Methods: Drawing on an extensive literature review, expert assessment, and feedback from participants in the 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference through moderated discussions and follow-up surveys, we identified research gaps and rated research priorities for implementing screening for social risks and needs in the ED. We identified three main knowledge gaps: 1) screening implementation mechanics; 2) outreach and engagement with communities; and 3) addressing barriers and leveraging facilitators to screening. Within these gaps, we identified 12 high-priority research questions as well as research methods for future studies. 

Results: Consensus Conference participants broadly agreed that social risks and needs screening is generally acceptable to patients and clinicians and feasible in an ED setting. Our literature review and conference discussion identified several research gaps in the specific mechanics of screening implementation, including screening and referral team composition, workflow, and use of technology. Discussions also highlighted a need for more collaboration with stakeholders in screening design and implementation.  Additionally, discussions identified the need for studies using adaptive designs or hybrid effectiveness-implementation models to test multiple strategies for implementation and sustainability. 

Conclusion: Through a robust consensus process we developed an actionable research agenda for implementing social risks and needs screening in EDs. Future work in this area should use implementation science frameworks and research best practices to further develop and refine ED screening for social risks and needs and to address barriers as well as leverage facilitators to such screening.

Introduction: Recent policy changes in Washington State presented a unique opportunity to pair evidence-based interventions with first responder services to combat increasing opioid overdoses. However, little is known about how these interventions should be implemented. In partnership with the Research with Expert Advisors on Drug Use team, a group of academically trained and community-trained researchers with lived and living experience of substance use, we examined facilitators and barriers to adopting leave-behind naloxone, field-based buprenorphine initiation, and HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing for first responder programs.

Methods: Our team completed semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 32 first responders, mobile integrated health staff, and emergency medical services (EMS) leaders in King County, Washington, from February–May 2022. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using an integrated deductive and inductive thematic analysis approach grounded in community-engaged research principles. We collected data until saturation was achieved. Data collection and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Two investigators coded independently until 100% consensus was reached.

Results: Our thematic analysis revealed several perceived facilitators (ie, tension for change, relative advantage, and compatibility) and barriers (ie, limited adaptability, lack of evidence strength and quality, and prohibitive cost) to the adoption of these evidence-based clinical interventions for first responder systems. There was widespread support for the distribution of leave-behind naloxone, although funding was identified as a barrier. Many believed field-based initiation of buprenorphine treatment could provide a more effective response to overdose management, but there were significant concerns that this intervention could run counter to the rapid care model. Lastly, participants worried that HIV and HCV testing was inappropriate for first responders to conduct but recommended that this service be provided by mobile integrated health staff.

Conclusion: These results have informed local EMS strategic planning, which will inform roll out of process improvements in King County, Washington. Future work should evaluate the impact of these interventions on the health of overdose survivors.