Disparate Utilization of Urine Drug Screen Nationwide in the Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain

Author:

Overbeek Daniel1,Janke Alexander2,Watson C. James3,Salhi Rama4,Kim Erin5,Boatright Dowin6,Losman Eve7

Affiliation:

1. University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Department of Emergency Medicine, Rochester, New York

2. Yale School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, VA Ann Arbor/University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

3. Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical Toxicology Program, Boston, Massachusetts; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts

4. Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts

5. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan

6. New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, New York, New York

7. University of Michigan, Department of Emergency Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Abstract

Introduction: Urine drug screens (UDS) have unproven clinical utility in emergency department (ED) chest pain presentations. A test with such limited clinical utility may exponentiate biases in care, but little is known about the epidemiology of UDS use for this indication. We hypothesized that UDS utilization varies nationally across race and gender. Methods: This was a retrospective observational analysis of adult ED visits for chest pain in the 2011– 2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We calculated the utilization of UDS across race/ ethnicity and gender and then characterized predictors of use via adjusted logistic regression models. Results: We analyzed 13,567 adult chest pain visits, representative of 85.8 million visits nationally. Use of UDS occurred for 4.6% of visits (95% CI 3.9%-5.4%). White females underwent UDS at 3.3% of visits (95% CI 2.5%-4.2%), and Black females at 4.1% (95% CI 2.9%-5.2%). White males were tested at 5.8% of visits (95% CI 4.4%-7.2%), while Black males were tested at 9.3% of visits (95% CI 6.4%-12.2%). A multivariate logistic regression model including race, gender, and time period shows significantly increased odds of ordering UDS for Black patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.45 (95% CI 1.11-1.90, p = 0.007) and male patients (OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.55-2.58, p < 0.001) as compared to White patients and female patients. Conclusion: We identified wide disparities in the utilization of UDS for the evaluation of chest pain. If UDS were used at the rate observed for White women, Black men would undergo nearly 50,000 fewer tests annually. Future research should weigh the potential of the UDS to magnify biases in care against the unproven clinical utility of the test.

Publisher

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine

Subject

General Medicine,Emergency Medicine

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3