The effect of a nursing strike on emergency department operational metrics.

BACKGROUND: In July of 2017, after more than 15 months of negotiations, an academic teaching hospital in Boston failed to reach an agreement on the terms of contract renewal with its nursing union resulting in a strike. Replacement nurses were hired by the hospital to fulfill nursing duties for five days. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to measure the effects of this nursing strike on the patients seen in the emergency department (ED) by examining operational metrics before and during the strike. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patient visits occurring for the five days of the strike (July 12-16, 2017) compared with the analogous five-day period immediately preceding that of the strike (July 5-9, 2017). RESULTS: During the strike, ED volume decreased by 23.6% (691 vs. 528 visits), and the decrease was more pronounced for adult vs. pediatric visits. There were no differences in patient sex, race/ethnicity or age groups. EMS transports decreased by 49.1% (171 vs. 87 transports). Although patient dispositions were similar in both periods, length of stay decreased for discharged patients (median 204 vs 178 minutes, p=0.01), and did not change significantly for admitted patients (median 322 vs. 320 minutes, p=0.33). There was one patient death in each of the periods. CONCLUSION: Although rare, nursing strikes do occur. These data may be useful for hospitals preparing for a strike.

Single-operator ultrasound-guided intravenous line placement by emergency nurses reduces the need for physician intervention in patients with difficult-to-establish intravenous access.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians (EPs) have become facile with ultrasound-guided intravenous line (USIV) placement in patients for whom access is difficult to achieve, though the procedure can distract the EP from other patient care activities. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that adequately trained Emergency Nurses (ENs) can effectively perform single-operator USIV placement with less physician intervention than is required with blind techniques. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter pilot study. Interested ENs received a 2-h tutorial from an experienced EP. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had either two failed blind peripheral intravenous (i.v.) attempts, or if they reported or had a known history of difficult i.v. placement. Consenting patients were assigned to have either EN USIV placement or standard of care (SOC). RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled, of which 29 were assigned to USIV and 21 to SOC. There were no significant differences in age, race, gender, or reason for inclusion. Physicians were called to assist in 11/21 (52.4%) of SOC cases and 7/29 (24.1%) of USIV cases (p = 0.04). Mean time to i.v. placement (USIV 27.6 vs. SOC 26.4 minutes, p = 0.88) and the number of skin punctures (USIV 2.0 vs. SOC 2.1, p = 0.70) were not significantly different. Patient satisfaction was higher in the USIV group, though the difference did not reach statistical significance (USIV 86.2% vs. SOC 63.2%, p = 0.06). Patient perception of pain on a 10-point scale was also similar (USIV 4.9 vs. SOC 5.5, p = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: ENs performing single-operator USIV placement in patients with difficult-to-establish i.v. access reduces the need for EP intervention.