• Adrian D Haimovich, TaylorR AndrewRADepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. Electronic address: richard.taylor@yale.edu., Erika Chang-Sing, Taylor Brashear, Laura D Cramer, Kevin Lopez, and Ambrose H Wong.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
• Ann Emerg Med. 2024 Feb 1; 83 (2): 100107100-107.

Study ObjectiveAlthough 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionIn 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.Copyright © 2023 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

29 keywords...

hide…