Dataset Information

Kiosk versus in-person screening for alcohol and drug use in the emergency department: patient preferences and disclosure.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Annually eight million emergency department (ED) visits are attributable to alcohol use. Screening ED patients for at-risk alcohol and substance use is an integral component of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment programs, shown to be effective at reducing substance use. The objective is to evaluate ED patients' acceptance of and willingness to disclose alcohol/substance use via a computer kiosk versus an in-person interview.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, survey-based study. Eligible participants included those who presented to walk-in triage, were English-speaking, ?18 years, were clinically stable and able to consent. Patients had the opportunity to access the kiosk in the ED waiting room, and were approached for an in-person survey by a research assistant (9am-5pm weekdays). Both surveys used validated assessment tools to assess drug and alcohol use. Disclosure statistics and preferences were calculated using chi-square tests and McNemar's test.

Results

A total of 1,207 patients were screened: 229 in person only, 824 by kiosk, and 154 by both in person and kiosk. Single-modality participants were more likely to disclose hazardous drinking (p=0.003) and high-risk drug use (OR=22.3 [12.3-42.2]; p<0.0001) via kiosk. Participants who had participated in screening via both modalities were more likely to reveal high-risk drug use on the kiosk (p=0.003). When asked about screening preferences, 73.6% reported a preference for an in-person survey, which patients rated higher on privacy and comfort.

Conclusion

ED patients were significantly more likely to disclose at-risk alcohol and substance use to a computer kiosk than an interviewer. Paradoxically patients stated a preference for in-person screening, despite reduced disclosure to a human screener.

SUBMITTER: Hankin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4380369 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Kiosk versus in-person screening for alcohol and drug use in the emergency department: patient preferences and disclosure.

Hankin Abigail A Haley Leon L Baugher Amy A Colbert Kia K Houry Debra D

The western journal of emergency medicine 20150310 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Annually eight million emergency department (ED) visits are attributable to alcohol use. Screening ED patients for at-risk alcohol and substance use is an integral component of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment programs, shown to be effective at reducing substance use. The objective is to evaluate ED patients' acceptance of and willingness to disclose alcohol/substance use via a computer kiosk versus an in-person interview.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a cr ...[more]

PMID: 25834660

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency department (ED) crowding is an increasing problem associated with adverse patient outcomes. ED expansion is one method advocated to reduce ED crowding. The objective of this analysis was to determine the effect of ED expansion on measures of ED crowding.MethodsThis was a retrospective study using administrative data from two 11-month periods before and after the expansion of an ED from 33 to 53 adult beds in an academic medical center. ED volume, staffing, and hospital admission and occupancy data were obtained either from the electronic health record (EHR) or from administrative records. The primary outcome was the rate of patients who left without being treated (LWBT), and the secondary outcome was total ED boarding time for admitted patients. A multivariable robust linear regression model was used to determine whether ED expansion was associated with the outcome measures.ResultsThe mean (±SD) daily adult volume was 128 (±14) patients before expansion and 145 (±17) patients after. The percentage of patients who LWBT was unchanged: 9.0% before expansion versus 8.3% after expansion (difference = 0.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.16% to 1.4%). Total ED boarding time increased from 160 to 180 hours/day (difference = 20 hours, 95% CI = 8 to 32 hours). After daily ED volume, low-acuity area volume, daily wait time, daily boarding hours, and nurse staffing were adjusted for, the percentage of patients who LWBT was not independently associated with ED expansion (p = 0.053). After ED admissions, ED intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, elective surgical admissions, hospital occupancy rate, ICU occupancy rate, and number of operational ICU beds were adjusted for, the increase in ED boarding hours was independently associated with the ED expansion (p = 0.005).ConclusionsAn increase in ED bed capacity was associated with no significant change in the percentage of patients who LWBT, but had an unintended consequence of an increase in ED boarding hours. ED expansion alone does not appear to be an adequate solution to ED crowding.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. METHODS:We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person. RESULTS:Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved. CONCLUSION:We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.

Project description:BackgroundVirtual urgent care (VUC) is intended to support diversion of patients with low-acuity complaints and reduce the need for in-person emergency department visits. We aimed to describe subsequent health care utilization and outcomes of patients who used VUC compared with similar patients who had an in-person emergency department visit.MethodsWe used patient-level encounter data that were prospectively collected for patients using VUC services provided by 14 pilot programs in Ontario, Canada. We linked the data to provincial administrative databases to identify subsequent 30-day health care utilization and outcomes. We defined 2 subgroups of VUC users; those with a documented prompt referral to an emergency department by a VUC provider, and those without. We matched patients in each cohort to an equal number of patients presenting to an emergency department in person, based on encounter date, medical concern and the logit of a propensity score. For the subgroup of patients not promptly referred to an emergency department, we matched patients to those who were seen in an emergency department and then discharged home.ResultsOf the 19 595 patient VUC visits linked to administrative data, we matched 2129 patients promptly referred to the emergency department by a VUC provider to patients presenting to the emergency department in person. Index visit hospital admissions (9.4% v. 8.7%), 30-day emergency department visits (17.0% v. 17.5%), and hospital admissions (12.9% v. 11.0%) were similar between the groups. We matched 14 179 patients who were seen by a VUC provider with no documented referral to the emergency department. Patients seen by VUC were more likely to have a subsequent in-person emergency department visit within 72 hours (13.7% v. 7.0%), 7 days (16.5% v. 10.3%) and 30 days (21.9% v. 17.9%), but hospital admissions were similar within 72 hours (1.1% v. 1.3%), and higher within 30 days for patients who were discharged home from the emergency department (2.6% v. 3.4%).InterpretationThe impact of the provincial VUC pilot program on subsequent health care utilization was limited. There is a need to better understand the inherent limitations of virtual care and ensure future virtual providers have timely access to in-person outpatient resources, to prevent subsequent emergency department visits.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency department (ED) patients comprise a high-risk population for alcohol misuse and sexual risk for HIV. In order to design future interventions to increase HIV screening uptake, we examined the interrelationship among alcohol misuse, sexual risk for HIV and HIV screening uptake among these patients.MethodsA random sample of 18-64-year-old English- or Spanish-speaking patients at two EDs during July-August 2009 completed a self-administered questionnaire about their alcohol use using the Alcohol Use Questionnaire, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and the HIV Sexual Risk Questionnaire. Study participants were offered a rapid HIV test after completing the questionnaires. Binging (? five drinks/occasion for men, ? four drinks for women) was assessed and sex-specific alcohol misuse severity levels (low-risk, harmful, hazardous, dependence) were calculated using AUDIT scores. Analyses were limited to participants who had sexual intercourse in the past 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the associations between HIV screening uptake and (1) alcohol misuse, (2) sexual risk for HIV, and (3) the intersection of HIV sexual risk and alcohol misuse. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. All models were adjusted for patient demographic characteristics and separate models for men and women were constructed.ResultsOf 524 participants (55.0% female), 58.4% identified as white, non-Hispanic, and 72% reported previous HIV testing. Approximately 75% of participants reported drinking alcohol within the past 30 days and 74.5% of men and 59.6% of women reported binge drinking. A relationship was found between reported sexual risk for HIV and alcohol use among men (AOR 3.31 [CI 1.51-7.24]) and women (AOR 2.78 [CI 1.48-5.23]). Women who reported binge drinking were more likely to have higher reported sexual risk for HIV (AOR 2.55 [CI 1.40-4.64]) compared to women who do not report binge drinking. HIV screening uptake was not higher among those with greater alcohol misuse and sexual risk among men or women.ConclusionsThe apparent disconnection between HIV screening uptake and alcohol misuse and sexual risk for HIV among ED patients in this study is concerning. Brief interventions emphasizing these associations should be evaluated to reduce alcohol misuse and sexual risk and increase the uptake of ED HIV screening.

Dataset Information

Kiosk versus in-person screening for alcohol and drug use in the emergency department: patient preferences and disclosure.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Kiosk versus in-person screening for alcohol and drug use in the emergency department: patient preferences and disclosure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets