BACKGROUND: Differential opioid prescribing patterns have been reported in non-White patient populations. However, these disparities have not been well described among hospitalized medical inpatients. OBJECTIVE: To describe differences in opioid prescribing patterns among inpatients discharged from the general medicine service based on race/ethnicity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For this retrospective study, we performed a multivariable logistic regression for patient race/ethnicity and whether patients received an opioid prescription at discharge and a negative binomial regression for days of opioids prescribed at discharge. The study included all 10,953 inpatients discharged from the general medicine service from June 2012 to November 2018 at University of California San Francisco Medical Center who received opioids during the last 24 hours of their hospitalization. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We examined two primary outcomes: whether a patient received an opioid prescription at discharge, and, for patients prescribed opioids, the number of days dispensed. RESULTS: Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to receive an opioid prescription at discharge (predicted population rate of 47.6% vs 50.7%; average marginal effect [AME], -3.1%; 95% CI, -5.5% to -0.8%). Asian patients were more likely to receive an opioid prescription on discharge (predicted population rate, 55.6% vs 50.7%; AME, +4.9; 95% CI, 1.5%-8.3%). We also found that Black patients received a shorter duration of opioid days compared with White patients (predicted days of opioids on discharge, 15.7 days vs 17.8 days; AME, -2.1 days; 95% CI, -3.3 to -0.9). CONCLUSION: Black patients were less likely to receive opioids and received shorter courses at discharge compared with White patients, adjusting for covariates. Asian patients were the most likely to receive an opioid prescription.

BACKGROUND: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) may have worse health outcomes and differences in processes of care. Language status may particularly affect situations that depend on communication, such as symptom management or end-of-life (EOL) care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess whether opioid prescribing and administration differs by English proficiency (EP) status among hospitalized patients receiving EOL care. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study identified all adult patients receiving comfort care on the general medicine service from January 2013 to September 2021. We assessed for differences in the quantity of opioids administered (measured by oral morphine equivalents [OME]) by patient LEP status using multivariable linear regression, controlling for other patient and medical factors. RESULTS: We identified 2652 patients receiving comfort care at our institution during the time period, of whom 1813 (68%) died during the hospitalization. There were no significant differences by LEP status in terms of mean OME per day (LEP received 30.8 fewer OME compared to EP, p = .91) or in the final 24 h before discharge (LEP received 61.7 more OME compared to EP, p = .80). CONCLUSION: LEP was not associated with differences in the amount of opioids received for patients whose EOL management involved standardized order sets for symptom management at our hospital.

Background

Though patient census has been used to describe resident physician workload, this fails to account for variations in patient complexity. Changes in clinical orders captured through electronic health records may provide a complementary window into workload. We aimed to determine whether electronic order volume correlated with measures of patient complexity and whether higher order volume was associated with quality metrics.

Methods

In this retrospective study of admissions to the internal medicine teaching service of an academic medical center in a 13-month period, we tested the relationship between electronic order volume and patient level of care and severity of illness category. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between daily team orders and two discharge-related quality metrics (receipt of a high-quality patient after-visit summary (AVS) and timely discharge summary), adjusted for team census, patient severity of illness, and patient demographics.

Results

Our study included 5,032 inpatient admissions for whom 929,153 orders were entered. Mean daily order volume was significantly higher for patients in the intensive care unit than in step-down units and general medical wards (40 vs. 24 vs. 19, P < .001). Order volume was also significantly correlated with severity of illness (P < .001). Patients were 12% less likely to receive a timely discharge summary for every 100 additional team orders placed on the day prior to discharge (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82-0.95).

Conclusions

Electronic order volume is significantly associated with patient complexity and may provide valuable additional information in measuring resident physician workload.

Study Design Retrospective reliability and validity study. Objective To validate a recently translated Russian language version of the Oswestry Disability Index (R-ODI) using standardized methods detailed from previous validations in other languages. Methods We included all subjects who were seen in our spine surgery clinic, over the age of 18, and fluent in the Russian language. R-ODI was translated by six bilingual people and combined into a consensus version. R-ODI and visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires for leg and back pain were distributed to subjects during both their initial and follow-up visits. Test validity, stability, and internal consistency were measured using standardized psychometric methods. Results Ninety-seven subjects participated in the study. No change in the meaning of the questions on R-ODI was noted with translation from English to Russian. There was a significant positive correlation between R-ODI and VAS scores for both the leg and back during both the initial and follow-up visits (p < 0.01 for all). The instrument was shown to have high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.82) and moderate test-retest stability (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.70). Conclusions The R-ODI is both valid and reliable for use among the Russian-speaking population in the United States.

OBJECTIVES:Early identification of sepsis is critical to improving patient outcomes. Impact of the new sepsis definition (Sepsis-3) on timing of recognition in the emergency department has not been evaluated. Our study objective was to compare time to meeting systemic inflammatory response syndrome (Sepsis-2) criteria, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (Sepsis-3) criteria, and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria using electronic health record data. DESIGN:Retrospective, observational study. SETTING:The emergency department at the University of California, San Francisco. PATIENTS:Emergency department encounters between June 2012 and December 2016 for patients greater than or equal to 18 years old with blood cultures ordered, IV antibiotic receipt, and identification with sepsis via systemic inflammatory response syndrome or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment within 72 hours of emergency department presentation. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We analyzed timestamped electronic health record data from 16,612 encounters identified as sepsis by greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria or a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score greater than or equal to 2. The primary outcome was time from emergency department presentation to meeting greater than or equal to 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, and/or greater than or equal to 2 quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria. There were 9,087 patients (54.7%) that met systemic inflammatory response syndrome-first a median of 26 minutes post-emergency department presentation (interquartile range, 0-109 min), with 83.1% meeting Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria a median of 118 minutes later (interquartile range, 44-401 min). There were 7,037 patients (42.3%) that met Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-first, a median of 113 minutes post-emergency department presentation (interquartile range, 60-251 min). Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was met in 46.4% of patients a median of 351 minutes post-emergency department presentation (interquartile range, 67-1,165 min). Adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality were 39% greater in patients who met systemic inflammatory response syndrome-first compared with those who met Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-first (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.20-1.61). CONCLUSIONS:Systemic inflammatory response syndrome and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment initially identified distinct populations. Using systemic inflammatory response syndrome resulted in earlier electronic health record sepsis identification in greater than 50% of patients. Using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment alone may delay identification. Using systemic inflammatory response syndrome alone may lead to missed sepsis presenting as acute organ dysfunction. Thus, a combination of inflammatory (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) and organ dysfunction (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) criteria may enhance timely electronic health record-based sepsis identification.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid administration is extremely common in the inpatient setting, yet we do not know how the administration of opioids varies across different medical conditions and patient characteristics on internal medicine services. Our goal was to assess racial, ethnic, and language-based inequities in opioid prescribing practices for patients admitted to internal medicine services. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients admitted to internal medicine services from 2013 to 2021 and identified subcohorts of patients treated for the six most frequent primary hospital conditions (pneumonia, sepsis, cellulitis, gastrointestinal bleed, pyelonephritis/urinary tract infection, and respiratory disease) and three select conditions typically associated with pain (abdominal pain, acute back pain, and pancreatitis). We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis to determine how average administered daily opioids, measured as morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), were associated with race, ethnicity, and language, while adjusting for additional patient demographics, hospitalization characteristics, medical comorbidities, prior opioid therapy, and substance use disorders. RESULTS: The study cohort included 61,831 patient hospitalizations. In adjusted models, we found that patients with limited English proficiency received significantly fewer opioids (66 MMEs, 95% CI: 52, 80) compared to English-speaking patients (101 MMEs, 95% CI: 91, 111). Asian (59 MMEs, 95% CI: 51, 66), Latinx (89 MMEs, 95% CI: 79, 100), and multi-race/ethnicity patients (81 MMEs, 95% CI: 65, 97) received significantly fewer opioids compared to white patients (103 MMEs, 95% CI: 94, 112). American Indian/Alaska Native (227 MMEs, 95% CI: 110, 344) patients received significantly more opioids. Significant inequities were also identified across race, ethnicity, and language groups when analyses were conducted within the subcohorts. Most notably, Asian and Latinx patients received significantly fewer MMEs and American Indian/Alaska Native patients received significantly more MMEs compared to white patients for the top six most frequent conditions. Most patients from minority groups also received fewer MMEs compared to white patients for three select pain conditions. Discussion. There are notable inequities in opioid prescribing based on patient race, ethnicity, and language status for those admitted to inpatient internal medicine services across all conditions and in the subcohorts of the six most frequent hospital conditions and three pain-associated conditions. This represents an institutional and societal opportunity for quality improvement initiatives to promote equitable pain management.

AIM: Nurses assess patients pain using several validated tools. It is not known what disparities exist in pain assessment for medicine inpatients. Our purpose was to measure differences in pain assessment across patient characteristics, including race, ethnicity, and language status. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adult general medicine inpatients from 2013 to 2021. The primary exposures were race/ethnicity and limited English proficiency (LEP) status. The primary outcomes were 1) the type and odds of which pain assessment tool nursing used and 2) the relationship between pain assessments and daily opioid administration. RESULTS: Of 51,602 patient hospitalizations, 46.1% were white, 17.4% Black, 16.5% Asian, and 13.2% Latino. 13.2% of patients had LEP. The most common pain assessment tool was the Numeric Rating Scale (68.1%), followed by the Verbal Descriptor Scale (23.7%). Asian patients and patients with LEP were less likely to have their pain documented numerically. In multivariable logistic regression, patients with LEP (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.65) and Asian patients (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.70-0.78) had the lowest odds of numeric ratings. Latino, Multi-Racial, and patients classified as Other also had lower odds than white patients of numeric ratings. Asian patients and patients with LEP received the fewest daily opioids across all pain assessment categories. CONCLUSIONS: Asian patients and patients with LEP were less likely than other patient groups to have a numeric pain assessment and received the fewest opioids. These inequities may serve as the basis for the development of equitable pain assessment protocols.

Background

Sepsis progresses rapidly and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Bedside risk stratification scores can quickly identify patients at greatest risk of poor outcomes; however, there is lack of consensus on the best scale to use.

Objective

To compare the ability of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), the National Early Warning System (NEWS2), and the Shock Index-which does not require mental status assessment-to predict poor outcomes among patients with suspected sepsis during triage.

Design, setting, and participants

Retrospective cohort study of adults presenting to an academic emergency department (ED) from June 2012 to December 2018 who had blood cultures and intravenous antibiotics within 24 hours.

Main outcomes and measures

Clinical data were collected from the electronic health record. Patients were considered positive at qSOFA ≥2, Shock Index >0.7, or NEWS2 ≥5 scores. We calculated test characteristics and area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) to predict in-hospital mortality and ED-to-intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

Results

We included 23,837 ED patients; 1,921(8.1%) were qSOFA-positive, 4,273 (17.9%) Shock Index-positive, and 11,832 (49.6%) NEWS2-positive. There were 1,427 (6.0%) deaths and 3,149 (13.2%) ED-to-ICU admissions in the sample. NEWS2 had the highest sensitivity for in-hospital mortality (76.0%) and ED-to-ICU admission (78.9%). qSOFA had the highest specificity for in-hospital mortality (93.4%) and ED-to-ICU admission (95.2%). Shock Index exhibited the highest AUROC for in-hospital mortality (0.648; 95 CI, 0.635-0.662) and ED-to-ICU admission (0.680; 95% CI, 0.617-0.689). Test characteristics were similar among those with sepsis.

Conclusions

Institution priorities should drive score selection, balancing sensitivity and specificity. In our study, qSOFA was highly specific and NEWS2 was the most sensitive for ruling out patients at high risk. Performance of the Shock Index fell between qSOFA and NEWS2 and could be considered because it is easy to implement.

Background

Limited English proficiency (LEP) has been implicated in poor health outcomes. Sepsis is a frequently fatal syndrome that is commonly encountered in hospital medicine. The impact of LEP on sepsis mortality is not currently known.

Objective

To determine the association between LEP and sepsis mortality.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

800-bed, tertiary care, academic medical center.

Patients

Electronic health record data were obtained for adults admitted to the hospital with sepsis between June 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016.

Measurements

The primary predictor was LEP. Patients were defined as having LEP if their self-reported primary language was anything other than English and interpreter services were required during hospitalization. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Mortality was compared across races stratified by LEP using chi-squared tests of significance. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to investigate the association between mortality, race, and LEP, adjusting for baseline characteristics, comorbidities, and illness severity.

Results

Among 8,974 patients with sepsis, we found that 1 in 5 had LEP, 62% of whom were Asian. LEP was highly associated with death across all races except those identifying as Black and Latino. LEP was associated with a 31% increased odds of mortality after adjusting for illness severity, comorbidities, and other baseline characteristics, including race (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06-1.63, P = .02).

Conclusions

In a single-center study of patients hospitalized with sepsis, LEP was associated with mortality across nearly all races. This is a novel finding that will require further exploration into the causal nature of this association.