Evaluating a medical directive for nurse-initiated analgesia in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Although acute pain is a common presentation in the Emergency Department (ED), analgesics are often delayed until the patient is seen by a physician. We assessed the effect of a medical directive for nurse-initiated analgesia on time to first dose of analgesics, proportion of patients receiving analgesics in less than 30min, and total length of stay in the ED. METHODS: A medical directive for nurse-initiated analgesia was introduced in our ED in October 2011. This before-after health record review included all patients presenting to the ED with musculoskeletal back pain in 4month periods before and after implementation of the medical directive. RESULTS: A total of 524 cases were reviewed, of which 401 were included - 201 and 200 in the before and after implementation groups respectively. After implementation there was a shorter time to first dose of analgesic (mean of 118 vs 160min, p<0.001), and a higher proportion of patients receiving analgesics in the first 30min (20% vs 4%, p<0.001). However there was no difference in total proportion of patients receiving analgesics (71% vs 67%, p=0.46) or total length of stay in the ED (337 vs 323min, p=0.51). CONCLUSIONS: A medical directive for nurse-initiated analgesia in the ED was associated with significantly reduced time to the first dose of analgesic, and increased the proportion of patients receiving analgesics within 30min. We can conclude that medical directives for nurse-initiated analgesia effectively improve the timeliness and quality of care for patients with acute pain.

Adverse events in patients with return emergency department visits.

OBJECTIVES: This study describes the proportion of emergency department (ED) returns within 7 days due to adverse events, defined as adverse outcomes related to healthcare received. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: We used an electronically triggered adverse event surveillance system at a tertiary care ED from May to June 2010 to examine ED returns within 7 days of index visit. PARTICIPANTS: One of three trained nurses determined whether the visit was related to index emergency care. For such records, one of three trained emergency physicians conducted adverse event determinations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We determined adverse event type and severity and analysed the data with descriptive statistics, χ(2) tests and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 13,495 index ED visits, 923 (6.8%) were followed by ED returns within 7 days. The median age of all patients was 47 years and 52.8% were women. After nursing review, 211 cases required physician review. Of these, 53 visits were adverse events (positive predictive value (PPV)=5.7%, 95% CI 4.4% to 7.4%) and 30 (56.6%) were preventable. Common adverse event types involved management, diagnostic or medication issues. We observed one potentially preventable death and 58.5% of adverse events resulting in transient disability. The PPV of a modified trigger with a cut-off of return within 72 h, resulting in admission was 11.9% (95% CI 6.8% to 18.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our electronic trigger efficiently identified adverse events among 12% of patients with ED returns within 72 h, requiring hospital admission. Given the high degree of preventability of the identified adverse events, this trigger also holds promise as a performance measurement tool.

Adverse events among patients registered in high-acuity areas of the emergency department: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To enhance patient safety, it is important to understand the frequency and causes of adverse events (defined as unintended injuries related to health care management). We performed this study to describe the types and risk of adverse events in high-acuity areas of the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This prospective cohort study examined the outcomes of consecutive patients who received treatment at 2 tertiary care EDs. For discharged patients, we conducted a structured telephone interview 14 days after their initial visit; for admitted patients, we reviewed the inpatient charts. Three emergency physicians independently adjudicated flagged outcomes (e.g., death, return visits to the ED) to determine whether an adverse event had occurred. RESULTS: We enrolled 503 patients; one-half (n = 254) were female and the median age was 57 (range 18-98) years. The majority of patients (n = 369, 73.3%) were discharged home. The most common presenting complaints were chest pain, generalized weakness and abdominal pain. Of the 107 patients with flagged outcomes, 43 (8.5%, 95% confidence interval 8.1%-8.9%) were considered to have had an adverse event through our peer review process, and over half of these (24, 55.8%) were considered preventable. The most common types of adverse events were as follows: management issues (n = 18, 41.9%), procedural complications (n = 13, 30.2%) and diagnostic issues (n = 10, 23.3%). The clinical consequences of these adverse events ranged from minor (urinary tract infection) to serious (delayed diagnosis of aortic dissection). CONCLUSION: We detected a higher proportion of preventable adverse events compared with previous inpatient studies and suggest confirmation of these results is warranted among a wider selection of EDs.