Introduction: Tetanus vaccination status is an important consideration for emergency physicians managing patients with tetanus-prone wounds. Physicians must identify at-risk patients, but vaccination histories are often unknown and commonly lack documentation. The study objective was to determine the potential impact of an online immunization registry (Florida SHOTS – State Health Online Tracking System) on the appropriate administration of tetanus prophylaxis for pediatric patients managed in the emergency department (ED).

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients less than 18 years old who received ED tetanus prophylaxis at two separate sites between January 2011–May 2015. The Florida SHOTS database was accessed to determine vaccination status for each patient in the study group at the time of the encounter. We compared vaccination status for each patient, as documented in the electronic health record (EHR), with Florida SHOTS data to determine whether tetanus prophylaxis was indicated. The proportion of patients receiving tetanus prophylaxis in the ED, who were subsequently identified as up to date with tetanus vaccination per Florida SHOTS, was determined.

Results: We identified 743 patients who received ED tetanus prophylaxis. Forty-three (6%) were listed as “up to date” on the EHR and 656 (93%) were listed as “not up to date.” In comparison, 209 (30%) of the study group were identified as “up to date” via Florida SHOTS, and 477 (70%) were not. We accessed the Florida SHOTS record retrospectively to determine whether the vaccine was required. It was determined that 174 (25%) of the patients received tetanus prophylaxis unnecessarily as they were already up to date per Florida SHOTS documentation.

Conclusions: Twenty-five percent of patients vaccinated for tetanus in the ED could have been spared if Florida SHOTS data had been used by providers at the time of the encounter. Access to Florida SHOTS provides valuable information regarding vaccination status that impacts patient care and resource utilization in the ED.

Methods: In this study we employed a “secret shopper,” cross-sectional telephonic survey. A team attempted phone contact with a representative sample of EDs and asked respondents about the availability of SANEs and EC in their ED. Reported availability was correlated with variables including region, urban/rural status, hospital size, faith affiliation, academic affiliation, and existence of legislative requirements to offer EC.

Results: Over a two-month period in 2019, 1,046 calls to hospitals were attempted and 960 were completed (91.7% response rate). Of the 4,360 eligible hospitals listed in a federal database, 960 (22.0%) were contacted. Access to SANEs and EC were reported to be available in 48.9% (95%confidence interval [CI] 45.5–52.0) and 42.5% (95% CI 39.4–45.7) of hospitals, respectively. Access to EC was positively correlated with SANE availability. The EDs reporting SANE and EC availability were more likely to be large, rural, and affiliated with an academic institution. Those reporting access to EC were more likely to be in the Northeast and in states with legislative requirements to offer EC.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that perceived access to sexual assault services and emergency contraception in EDs in the United States remains poor with regional and legislative disparities. Results suggest disparities in perceived access to EC and SANE in the ED, which have implications for improving ED practices regarding care of sexual assault victims.