Objectives: Nursing evaluations are an important component of residents' professional development as nurses are present for interactions with patients and nonphysician providers. Despite this, there has been few prior studies on the benefits, harms, or effectiveness of using nursing evaluations to help guide emergency medicine residents' development. We hypothesized that gender bias exists in nursing evaluations and that female residents, compared to their male counterparts, would receive more negative feedback on the perception of their interpersonal communication skills.Methods: Data were drawn from nursing evaluations of residents between March 2013 and April 2016. All comments were coded if they contained words falling into four main categories: standout, ability, grindstone, and interpersonal. This methodology and the list of words that guided coding were based on the work of prior scholars. Names and gendered pronouns were obscured and each comment was manually reviewed and coded for valence (positive, neutral, negative) and strength (certain or tentative) by at least two members of the research team. Following the qualitative coding, quantitative analysis was performed to test for differences. To evaluate whether any measurable differences in ability between male and female residents existed, we compiled and compared American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination scores and relevant milestone evaluations between female and male residents from the same period in which the residents were evaluated by nursing staff.Results: Of 1,112 nursing evaluations, 30% contained comments. Chi-square tests on the distribution of valence (positive, neutral, or negative) indicated statistically significant differences in ability and grindstone categories based on the gender of the resident. A total of 51% of ability comments about female residents were negative compared to 20% of those about male residents (v 2 = 11.83, p < 0.01). A total of 57% of grindstone comments about female residents were negative as opposed 24% of those about male residents (v 2 = 6.03, p < 0.01).Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that, despite the lack of difference in ability or competence as measured by in-service examination scores and milestone evaluations, nurses evaluate female residents lower in their abilities and work ethic compared to male residents.From the

BackgroundTo reduce fatal drug overdoses, two approaches many states have followed is to pass laws expanding naloxone access and Good Samaritan protections for lay persons with high likelihood to respond to an opioid overdose. Most prior research has examined attitudes and knowledge among lay responders in large metropolitan areas who actively use illicit substances. The present study addresses current gaps in knowledge related to this issue through an analysis of data collected from a broader group of lay responders who received naloxone kits from 20 local health departments across Indiana.MethodsPostcard surveys were included inside naloxone kits distributed in 20 Indiana counties, for which 217 returned cards indicated the person completing it was a lay responder. The survey captured demographic information and experiences with overdose, including the use of 911 and knowledge about Good Samaritan protections.ResultsFew respondents had administered naloxone before, but approximately one third had witnessed a prior overdose and the majority knew someone who had died from one. Those who knew someone who had overdosed were more likely to have obtained naloxone for someone other than themselves. Also, persons with knowledge of Good Samaritan protections or who had previously used naloxone were significantly more likely to have indicated calling 911 at the scene of a previously witnessed overdose. Primary reasons for not calling 911 included fear of the police and the person who overdosed waking up on their own.ConclusionsKnowing someone who has had a fatal or non-fatal overdose appears to be a strong motivating factor for obtaining naloxone. Clarifying and strengthening Good Samaritan protections, educating lay persons about these protections, and working to improve police interactions with the public when they are called to an overdose scene are likely to improve implementation and outcomes of naloxone distribution and opioid-related Good Samaritan laws.

Solving the opioid crisis requires immediate, innovative, and sustainable solutions. A number of promising strategies are being carried out by U.S. states and territories as part of their Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) plans funded through the 21st Century Cures Act, and they provide an opportunity for researchers to assess effectiveness of these interventions using pragmatic approaches. This paper describes a pilot study of Project Planned Outreach, Intervention, Naloxone, and Treatment (POINT), the intervention that served as the basis for Indiana's STR-funded, emergency department (ED)-based peer specialist expansion that was conducted in preparation for a larger, multisite pragmatic trial. Through the pilot, we identified, documented, and corrected for challenges encountered while implementing planned study protocols. Per the project's funding mechanism, the ability to move to the larger trial was determined by the achievement of 3 milestones: (1) successful replication of the intervention; (2) demonstrated ability to obtain the necessary sample size; and (3) observe a higher level of engagement in medication for addiction treatment in the POINT group compared to standard care. Overall implementation of the study protocols was successful, with only minor refinements to proposed procedures being required in light of challenges with (1) data access, (2) recruitment, and (3) identification of the expansion hospitals. All three milestones were reached. Challenges in implementing protocols and reaching milestones resulted in refinements that improved the study design overall. The subsequent trial will add to the limited but growing evidence on ED-based peer supports. Capitalizing on STR efforts to study an already scaling and promising intervention is likely to lead to faster and more sustainable results with greater generalizability than traditional, efficacy-focused clinical research.

No abstract

Background.-Emergency Departments (ED) are the first line of evaluation for patients at risk and in crisis, with or without overt suicidality (ideation, attempts). Currently employed triage and assessments methods miss some of the individuals who subsequently become suicidal. The Convergent Functional Information for Suicidality (CFI-S) 22 item checklist of risk factors, that does not ask directly about suicidal ideation, has demonstrated good predictive ability for suicidality in previous studies in psychiatric outpatients, but has not been tested in the real worldsetting of emergency departments (EDs). Methods.-We administered CFI-S prospectively to a convenience sample of consecutive ED patients. Median administration time was 3 minutes. Patients were also asked at triage about suicidal thoughts or intentions per standard ED suicide clinical screening (SCS), and the treating ED physician was asked to fill a physician gestalt visual analog scale (VAS) for likelihood of future suicidality spectrum events (SSE) (ideation, preparatory acts, attempts, completed suicide). We performed structured chart review and telephone follow-up at 6 months post index visit. Results.-The median time to complete the CFI-S was three minutes (1 st to 3 rd quartile 3-6 minutes). Of the 338 patients enrolled, 45 (13.3%) were positive on the initial SCS, and 32 (9.5%) experienced a SSE in the 6 months follow-up. Overall, across genders, SCS had a modest diagnostic discrimination for future SSE (ROC AUC 0.63,). The physician VAS was better (AUC 0.76 CI 0.66-0.85), and the CFI-S was slightly higher (AUC 0.81, CI 0.76-0.87). The top CFI-S differentiating items were psychiatric illness, perceived uselessness, and social isolation. The top CFI-S items were family history of suicide, age, and past history of suicidal acts.