The effect of treatment and clinical course during Emergency Department stay on severity scoring and predicted mortality risk in Intensive Care patients.

BACKGROUND: Treatment and the clinical course during Emergency Department (ED) stay before Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission may affect predicted mortality risk calculated by the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-IV, causing lead-time bias. As a result, comparing standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) among hospitals may be difficult if they differ in the location where initial stabilization takes place. The aim of this study was to assess to what extent predicted mortality risk would be affected if the APACHE-IV score was recalculated with the initial physiological variables from the ED. Secondly, to evaluate whether ED Length of Stay (LOS) was associated with a change (delta) in these APACHE-IV scores. METHODS: An observational multicenter cohort study including ICU patients admitted from the ED. Data from two Dutch quality registries were linked: the Netherlands Emergency department Evaluation Database (NEED) and the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry. The ICU APACHE-IV, predicted mortality, and SMR based on data of the first 24 h of ICU admission were compared with an ED APACHE-IV model, using the most deviating physiological variables from the ED or ICU. RESULTS: A total of 1398 patients were included. The predicted mortality from the ICU APACHE-IV (median 0.10; IQR 0.03-0.30) was significantly lower compared to the ED APACHE-IV model (median 0.13; 0.04-0.36; p < 0.01). The SMR changed from 0.63 (95%CI 0.54-0.72) to 0.55 (95%CI 0.47-0.63) based on ED APACHE-IV. Predicted mortality risk changed more than 5% in 321 (23.2%) patients by using the ED APACHE-IV. ED LOS > 3.9 h was associated with a slight increase in delta APACHE-IV of 1.6 (95% CI 0.4-2.8) compared to ED LOS < 1.7 h. CONCLUSION: Predicted mortality risks and SMRs calculated by the APACHE IV scores are not directly comparable in patients admitted from the ED if hospitals differ in their policy to stabilize patients in the ED before ICU admission. Future research should focus on developing models to adjust for these differences.

Impact of a well-developed primary care system on the length of stay in emergency departments in the Netherlands: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The Netherlands has a well-developed primary care system, which increasingly collaborates with hospital emergency departments (EDs). In this setting, insight into crowding in EDs is limited. This study explored links between patients' ED Length of Stay (LOS) and their care pathways. METHODS: Observational multicenter study of 7000 ED patient records from 1 February 2013. Seven EDs spread over the Netherlands, representing overall Dutch EDs, were included. This included three EDs with and four EDs without an integrated primary-care-physician (PCP) cooperative, forming one Emergency Care Access Point (ECAP). The main outcome was LOS of patients comparing different care pathways (origin and destination of ED attenders). RESULTS: The median LOS of ED attenders was 130.0 min (IQR 79.0-140.0), which increased with patients' age. Random coefficient regression analysis showed that LOS for patients referred by medical professionals was 32.9 min longer compared to self-referred patients (95% CI 27.7-38.2 min). LOS for patients admitted to hospital was 41.2 min longer compared to patients followed-up at the outpatient clinic (95% CI 35.3-46.6 min), 49.9 min longer compared to patients followed-up at the PCP (95% CI 41.5-58.3 min) and 44.6 min longer compared to patients who did not receive follow-up (95% CI 38.3-51.0 min). There was no difference in LOS between hospitals with or without an ECAP. CONCLUSIONS: With 130 min, the median LOS in Dutch EDs is relatively short, comparing to other Western countries, which ranges from 176 to 480 min. Although integration of EDs with out-of-hours primary care was not related to LOS, the strong primary care system probably contributed to the overall short LOS of ED patients in the Netherlands.

The prediction of 24-h mortality by the respiratory rate and oxygenation index compared with National Early Warning Score in emergency department patients: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The ROX index combines respiratory rate and oxygenation to predict the response to oxygen therapy in pneumonia. It is calculated by dividing the patient's oxygen saturation, by the inspired oxygen concentration, and then by the respiratory rate (e.g. 95%/0.21/16 = 28). Since this index includes the most essential physiological variables to detect deterioration, it may be a helpful risk tool in the emergency department (ED). Although small studies suggest it can predict early mortality, no large study has compared it with the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), the most widely validated risk score for death within 24 h. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the ability of the ROX index with the NEWS to predict mortality within 24 h of arrival at the hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational multicentre analysis of data in the Netherlands Emergency Department Evaluation Database (NEED) on 270 665 patients attending four participating Dutch EDs. The ROX index and NEWS were determined on ED arrival and prior to ED treatment. RESULTS: The risk of death within 24 h increased with falling ROX and rising NEWS values. The area under the receiving operating characteristic curves for 24-h mortality of NEWS was significantly higher than for the ROX index [0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-0.92 versus 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; P < 0.01]. However, the observed and predicted mortality by the ROX index was identical to mortality of 5%, after which mortality was underestimated. In contrast, up to a predicted 24-h mortality of 3% NEWS slightly underestimates mortality, and above this level over-estimates it. The standardized net benefit of ROX is slightly higher than NEWS up to a predicted 24-h mortality of 3%. CONCLUSION: The prediction of 24-h mortality by the ROX index is more accurate than NEWS for most patients likely to be encountered in the ED. ROX may be used as a first screening tool in the ED.

Emergency departments in The Netherlands.

Emergency medicine in The Netherlands is faced with an increasing interest by politicians and stakeholders in health care. This is due to crowding, increasing costs, criticism of the quality of emergency care, restructuring of out-of-hours services in primary care and the introduction of a training programme for emergency physicians in 2000. A comprehensive search was conducted of published research, policy reports and updated Dutch websites on acute care. Publications were included in this review if these referred to emergency care, including emergency departments (ED), general practitioner (GP) cooperatives and emergency medical services in The Netherlands and were written in English or Dutch. The literature search identified 14 eligible papers. The manual search identified 11 additional papers. Seven reports and two PhD theses were also included. Given the lack of relevant empirical research the review was liberal in its inclusion, but the analysis focused on research when available. ED in The Netherlands are in different stages of development. However, it is obvious that the presence of emergency physicians is increasing and more ED will be staffed by emergency physicians. Although this seems an important step, it does not necessarily imply a good position of the emergency physician in the ED. What the characteristics of the future patient of the Dutch ED will be is dependent on the development of different ED levels of care and GP cooperatives. The lack of empirical research also points out the need for research on quality of care in Dutch ED.

Paediatric procedural sedation and analgesia by emergency physicians in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine.

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric patients receive less procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department compared with adults, especially in countries where emergency medicine is at an early stage of development. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the adverse events and efficacy of paediatric PSA in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine and to describe which factors aided implementation. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicentre, observational study of paediatric patients undergoing PSA by the first trained emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. A standardized data collection form was used at all participating hospitals to collect data on adverse events, amnesia, pain scores, and procedure completion. A survey was used to interpret which factors had aided PSA implementation. RESULTS: We recorded 351 paediatric PSA. The mean age was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval: 9.1-10.0). Esketamine was most frequently used (42.4%), followed by propofol (34.7%). The adverse event rate was low (3.0%). Amnesia was present in 86.8%. The median pain score was 2 (out of 10) for patients without amnesia. Procedures were successfully completed in 93.9% of the cases. CONCLUSION: Paediatric PSA provided by the first EPs in The Netherlands showed appropriate levels of sedation and analgesia with a high rate of procedure completion and a low rate of adverse events. Our paper suggests that EPs provided with a proper infrastructure of mentorship, training and guidelines can implement effective paediatric PSA.

Procedural sedation and analgesia practices by emergency physicians in the Netherlands: a nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: Several efforts have been made to assure and to improve the quality of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) performed by emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. This study investigated the current PSA practice and competences of EPs in both adult and paediatric patients. In particular, if residency and current training, awareness of guidelines is sufficient for registered EPs to adequately perform PSA and if the availability of both adult and paediatric PSA in the ED is adequate. METHODS: A cross-sectional nationwide survey was performed amongst Dutch EPs (n = 463) in June 2016. We collected data on background, training, practice, and competencies of both adult and paediatric PSA. We investigated guideline adherence, reasons for not performing PSA, and desired improvements. RESULTS: The respondents (n = 191) represented 84.6% hospitals with EPs and 41.3% of all EPs in The Netherlands. Nearly all EPs (97.8%) performed PSA in adult patients compared to only 59.1% who performed PSA in paediatric patients (p < 0.001). The major reason for not performing paediatric PSA was caused by a lack of exposure during the training-program (74.1%). PSA-guideline knowledge (98.3%) and PSA related adverse event registration (98.3%) were excellent. Lack of 24/7-availability of both adult and paediatric emergency department PSA was mainly caused by a shortage of EPs. Self-reflection indicated that EPs feel less competent in performing paediatric PSA when compared to adult PSA. CONCLUSION: This nationwide survey demonstrates that there is still a significant gap between the performance of adult and paediatric PSA even though guideline adherence and registration of PSA-related adverse events appear to be adequate. Enhancement of paediatric PSA training in combination with an increase of EP-staffing can help improve the availability of adult and paediatric PSA in the emergency department.

Complaints and Diagnoses of Emergency Department Patients in the Netherlands: A Comparative Study of Integrated Primary and Emergency Care.

OBJECTIVE: In the Netherlands, an increasing number of emergency departments (EDs) and general practitioner cooperatives collaborate by creating one Emergency-Care-Access-Point (ECAP). This has resulted in fewer patients at ECAP EDs. The objective of this study was to explore differences in patient characteristics, presented complaints and ED discharge diagnoses between EDs with an ECAP and EDs without an ECAP. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed with 1800 consecutive patient records sampled from six EDs spread over the Netherlands in 2013. We extracted data on time and date of presentation, sex, age, presenting complaint, discharge diagnosis, origin and follow up. RESULTS: At ECAP EDs, the mean age was 47.8 years (95%CI 46.1-49.4) compared to 41.3 (95%CI 39.7-42.9). Compared to non-ECAP EDs, more patients were referred by medical professionals (74.7% versus 46.8%), more patients received hospital admission (45.2% versus 29.0%) and fewer patients received GP follow-up (4.1% versus 16.9%). There was no significant difference in presenting complaints between ECAP and non-ECAP EDs. Most prevalent complaints were trauma (25.7% versus 29.7%), abdominal pain (12.1% versus 10.9%) and general symptoms (7.8% versus 4.8%). The most prevalent ED diagnoses significantly differed with fractures and dislocations (10.8%), sprains and strains (10.4%) and respiratory infections (6.8%) at ECAP EDs versus fractures and dislocations (10.7%), wounds (9.3%) and sprains and strains (8.9%) at non-ECAP EDs. CONCLUSION: Compared to non-ECAP EDs, patients at ECAP EDs were older, medical professionals referred more patients and more patients received a hospital admission. We found some small differences in discharge diagnoses between ECAP EDs compared to non-ECAP EDs, but no difference in presented complaints.