Disparities Associated With Electronic Behavioral Alerts for Safety and Violence Concerns in the Emergency Department - 18/01/24
, Erika Chang-Sing, BS b, Taylor Brashear, BS b, Laura D. Cramer, PhD, ScM c, Kevin Lopez, PhD b, Ambrose H. Wong, MD, MHS bAbstract |
Study objective |
Although electronic behavioral alerts are placed as an alert flag in the electronic health record to notify staff of previous behavioral and/or violent incidents in emergency departments (EDs), they have the potential to reinforce negative perceptions of patients and contribute to bias. We provide characterization of ED electronic behavioral alerts using electronic health record data across a large, regional health care system.
Methods |
We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of adult patients presenting to 10 adult EDs within a Northeastern United States health care system from 2013 to 2022. Electronic behavioral alerts were manually screened for safety concerns and then categorized by the type of concern. In our patient-level analyses, we included patient data at the time of the first ED visit where an electronic behavioral alert was triggered or, if a patient had no electronic behavioral alerts, the earliest visit in the study period. We performed a mixed-effects regression analysis to identify patient-level risk factors associated with safety-related electronic behavioral alert deployment.
Results |
Of the 2,932,870 ED visits, 6,775 (0.2%) had associated electronic behavioral alerts across 789 unique patients and 1,364 unique electronic behavioral alerts. Of the encounters with electronic behavioral alerts, 5,945 (88%) were adjudicated as having a safety concern involving 653 patients. In our patient-level analysis, the median age for patients with safety-related electronic behavioral alerts was 44 years (interquartile range 33 to 55 years), 66% were men, and 37% were Black. Visits with safety-related electronic behavioral alerts had higher rates of discontinuance of care (7.8% vs 1.5% with no alert; P<.001) as defined by the patient-directed discharge, left-without-being-seen, or elopement-type dispositions. The most common topics in the electronic behavioral alerts were physical (41%) or verbal (36%) incidents with staff or other patients. In the mixed-effects logistic analysis, Black non-Hispanic patients (vs White non-Hispanic patients: adjusted odds ratio 2.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.13 to 3.17), aged younger than 45 (vs aged 45-64 years: adjusted odds ratio 1.41; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.70), male (vs female: adjusted odds ratio 2.09; 95% CI 1.76 to 2.49), and publicly insured patients (Medicaid: adjusted odds ratio 6.18; 95% CI 4.58 to 8.36; Medicare: adjusted odds ratio 5.63; 95% CI 3.96 to 8.00 vs commercial) were associated with a higher risk of a patient having at least 1 safety-related electronic behavioral alert deployment during the study period.
Conclusion |
In our analysis, younger, Black non-Hispanic, publicly insured, and male patients were at a higher risk of having an ED electronic behavioral alert. Although our study is not designed to reflect causality, electronic behavioral alerts may disproportionately affect care delivery and medical decisions for historically marginalized populations presenting to the ED, contribute to structural racism, and perpetuate systemic inequities.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Please see page 101 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
| Supervising editors: Hemal K. Kanzaria, MD; Richelle J. Cooper, MD, MSHS. Specific detailed information about possible conflict of interest for individual editors is available at editors. |
|
| Author contributions: ADH, RAT, and AHW conceived the study and designed the analyses. ECS and TB performed manual review of behavioral alerts under the supervision of ADH. RAT, LDC, and KL provided statistical advice on study design and analyzed the data. ADH, RAT, and AHW drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. ADH and RAT contributed equally to this work. ADH and RAT take responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
| Data sharing statement: Data cannot be shared publicly because it contains HIPAA compliant information. Data are available from the Yale University Institutional Data Access/Ethics Committee (contact via [email protected]) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. |
|
| Authorship: All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
| Funding and support: By Annals’ policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org/). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. This work was supported by the Robert E. Leet and Clara Guthrie Patterson Trust Mentored Research Award, the National Institute of Mental Health (1K23MH126366-01A1), and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (1R21MD017327-01). |
|
| A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 83 - N° 2
P. 100-107 - février 2024 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
