When the economy falters, hearts suffer: Economic recessions as a social determinant of health in cardiovascular emergencies.

INTRODUCTION: While the relationships between cardiovascular disease (CVD), stress, and financial strain are well studied, the association between recessionary periods and macroeconomic conditions on incidence of disease-specific CVD emergency department (ED) visits is not well established. OBJECTIVES: This retrospective observational study aimed to assess the relationship between macroeconomic trends and CVD ED visits. METHODS: This study uses data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey (NHAMCS), Federal Reserve Economic Database (FRED), National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), and CVD groupings from National Vital Statistics (NVS) and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from 1999 to 2020 to analyze ED visits in relation to macroeconomic indicators and NBER defined recessions and expansions. RESULTS: CVD ED visits grew by 79.7% from 1999 to 2020, significantly more than total ED visits (27.8%, p < 0.001). A national estimate of 213.2 million CVD ED visits, with 22.9 million visits in economic recessions were analyzed. A secondary group including a 6-month period before and after each recession (defined as a "broadened recession") was also analyzed to account for potential leading and lagging effects of the recession, with a total of 50.0 million visits. A significantly higher proportion of CVD ED visits related to heart failure (HF) and other acute ischemic heart diseases (IHD) was observed during recessionary time periods both directly and with a 6-month lead and lag (p < 0.05). The proportion of aortic aneurysm and dissection (AAA) and atherosclerosis (ASVD) ED visits was significantly higher (p = 0.024) in the recession period with a 6-month lead and lag. When controlled for common demographic factors, economic approximations of recession such as the CPI, federal funds rate, and real disposable income were significantly associated with increased CVD ED visits. CONCLUSION: Macroeconomic trends have a significant relationship with the overall mix of CVD ED visits and represent an understudied social determinant of health.

Prevalence of Discrimination, Abuse, and Harassment in Emergency Medicine Residency Training in the US.

Importance: The prevalence of workplace mistreatment and its association with the well-being of emergency medicine (EM) residents is unclear. More information about the sources of mistreatment might encourage residency leadership to develop and implement more effective strategies to improve professional well-being not only during residency but also throughout the physician's career. Objective: To examine the prevalence, types, and sources of perceived workplace mistreatment during training among EM residents in the US and the association between mistreatment and suicidal ideation. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study conducted from February 25 to 29, 2020, all residents enrolled in EM residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) who participated in the 2020 American Board of Emergency Medicine computer-based In-training Examination were invited to participate. A multiple-choice, 35-item survey was administered after the examination asking residents to self-report the frequency, sources, and types of mistreatment experienced during residency training and whether they had suicidal thoughts. Main Outcomes and Measures: The types and frequency of workplace mistreatment and the sources of the mistreatment were identified, and rates of self-reported suicidality were obtained. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine resident and program characteristics associated with suicidal thoughts. Results: Of 8162 eligible EM residents, 7680 (94.1%) responded to at least 1 question on the survey; 6503 (79.7%) completed the survey in its entirety. A total of 243 ACGME-accredited residency programs participated, and 1 did not. The study cohort included 4768 male residents (62.1%), 2698 female residents (35.1%), 4919 non-Hispanic White residents (64.0%), 2620 residents from other racial/ethnic groups (Alaska Native, American Indian, Asian or Pacific Islander, African American, Mexican American, Native Hawaiian, Puerto Rican, other Hispanic, or mixed or other race) (34.1%), 483 residents who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or other (LGBTQ+) (6.3%), and 5951 residents who were married or in a relationship (77.5%). Of the total participants, 3463 (45.1%) reported exposure to some type of workplace mistreatment (eg, discrimination, abuse, or harassment) during the most recent academic year. A frequent source of mistreatment was identified as patients and/or patients' families; 1234 respondents (58.7%) reported gender discrimination, 867 (67.5%) racial discrimination, 282 (85.2%) physical abuse, and 723 (69.1%) sexual harassment from patients and/or family members. Suicidal thoughts occurring during the past year were reported by 178 residents (2.5%), with similar prevalence by gender (108 men [2.4%]; 59 women [2.4%]) and race/ethnicity (113 non-Hispanic White residents [2.4%]; 65 residents from other racial/ethnic groups [2.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, EM residents reported that workplace mistreatment occurred frequently. The findings suggest common sources of mistreatment for which educational interventions may be developed to help ensure resident wellness and career satisfaction.

Reducing Hospital Readmissions via Optimization of Emergency Department Care.

Over the past 5 years, early hospital readmissions have become a national focus. With several recent publications highlighting the high rates of early hospital readmissions among transplant recipients, more work is needed to identify risk factors and strategies for reducing unnecessary readmissions among this patient population. Although the American Society of Transplant Surgeons is advocating the exclusion of transplant recipients from the calculation of hospital readmission rates, the outcome of their advocacy efforts remains uncertain. One potential strategy for reducing early hospital readmissions is to critically examine care received by transplant recipients in the emergency department (ED), a critical pathway to readmission. As a starting point, research is needed to assess rates of ED presentation among transplant recipients, diagnostic algorithms, and communication among clinical teams. Mixed-methods studies that enhance understanding of system-level barriers to optimized evaluation and treatment of transplant recipients in the ED may lead to quality improvement interventions that reduce unnecessary readmissions, even if the rates of transplant recipients presenting to the ED remains high.

Ambulatory Care Sensitive Hospitalizations Through the Emergency Department by Payer: Comparing 2003 and 2009.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations (ACSHs) are hospitalizations that may have been preventable with timely and effective outpatient care. Approximately 75% of all ACSHs occur through the emergency department (ED). ACSHs through the ED (ED ACSHs) have significant implications for costs and ED crowding. OBJECTIVE: This study compares rates of ED ACSHs for 2003 and 2009 among patients 18 to 64 years of age with private insurance, Medicaid, or no insurance. METHODS: Nationally representative estimates of ED ACSHs, defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) prevention quality indicators (PQIs), were generated from the 2003 and 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Samples. Census data were used to calculate direct age- and sex-standardized ACSH rates by non-Medicare payers for both years. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2009, the overall rate of ED ACSHs decreased from 7.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.57-7.75) to 7.3 (95% CI 7.2-7.4) per 1000 18- to 64-year-old non-Medicare patients. ED ASCH rates declined significantly from 42.4 (95% CI 42.0-42.8) to 25.3 (95% CI 25.0-25.6) per 1000 patients with Medicaid, and declined modestly from 3.8 (95% CI 3.8-3.9) to 3.3 (95% CI 3.2-3.4) per 1000 patients with private insurance. However, the ED ACSH rate increased for the uninsured population from 5.4 (95% CI 5.2-5.7) to 6.2 (95% CI 5.9-6.4) per 1000 patients. CONCLUSION: Expansion of Medicaid over the study period was not associated with an increase in ED ACSHs for Medicaid patients. However, an increase in the uninsured population was associated with an increase in the rate of ED ACSH for uninsured patients.

Communication about opioid versus nonopioid analgesics in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The Medication Communication Index (MCI) was used to compare counseling about opioids to nonopioid analgesics in the Emergency Department (ED) setting. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of prospectively collected audio recordings of ED patient visits. SETTING: Urban, academic medical center (>85,000 annual patient visits). PARTICIPANTS: Patient participants aged >18 years with one of four low acuity diagnoses: ankle sprain, back pain, head injury, and laceration. ED clinician participants included resident and attending physicians, nursing staff, and ED technicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The MCI is a five-point index that assigns points for communicating the following: medication name (1), purpose (1), duration (1), adverse effects (1), number of tablets (0.5), and frequency of use (0.5). Recording transcripts were scored with the MCI, and total scores were compared between drug classes. RESULTS: The 41 patients received 56 prescriptions (27 nonopioids, 29 opioids). Nonopioid median MCI score was 3 and opioid score was 4.5 (p=0.0008). Patients were counseled equally about name (nonopioid 100 percent, opioid 96.6 percent, p=0.34) and purpose (88.9 percent, 89.7 percent, p=0.93). However, patients receiving opioids were counseled more frequently about duration of use (nonopioid 40.7 percent, opioid 69.0 percent, p=0.03) and adverse effects (18.5 percent, 93.1 percent, p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, opioids (ß=0.54, p=0.04), number of medications prescribed (ß=-0.49, p=0.05), and time spent in the ED (ß=0.007, p=0.006) were all predictors of total MCI score. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of counseling about analgesic medications in the ED differs by drug class. When counseling patients about all analgesic medications, providers should address not only medication name and purpose but also the less frequently covered topics of medication dosing, timing, and adverse effects.

Improving patient knowledge and safe use of opioids: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The use of opioid analgesics in the United States has significantly increased in recent years. However, there is minimal consensus on what discharge counseling should accompany these high-risk prescriptions and large variations in what is done in practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a dual-modality (written and spoken) literacy-appropriate educational strategy on patients' knowledge of and safe use of opioid analgesics. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive discharged patients at an urban academic ED (>88,000 visits) with new prescriptions for hydrocodone-acetaminophen were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either usual care or the educational intervention. The educational intervention was a one-page information sheet about hydrocodone-acetaminophen, which was both given to the patients and read aloud by the research assistant (nonblinded). Follow-up phone calls were conducted 4 to 7 days after the visit to assess patient knowledge about the medication and self-report of activities associated with safety of use (e.g., double-dipping with acetaminophen, storage, use with alcohol or while driving). RESULTS: A total of 274 patients were enrolled; 210 completed follow-up (110 usual care and 100 intervention). No significant differences in baseline characteristics emerged between the study arms; 42% were male, and 51% were white, with a median age of 43 years. Half of patients had non-back pain orthopedic injuries (49.5%). On follow-up, overall knowledge was poor, with only 28% able to name both active ingredients in the medication. The intervention group had better knowledge of precautions related to taking additional acetaminophen (usual care 18.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.9% to 25.5% vs. intervention 38%, 95% CI = 28.3% to 47.7%; difference = 27.6, 95% CI of difference = 21.5 to 33.7) and knowledge of side effects (usual care median = 1, interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 2 vs. intervention median = 2, IQR = 1 to 2; p < 0.0001). Additionally, those who received the intervention were less likely to have reported driving within 6 hours after taking hydrocodone (usual care 13.6%, 95% CI = 7.2% to 20% vs. intervention 3%, 95% CI = -0.3% to 6.3%; difference = 10.6, 95% CI of difference = 3.4 to 17.9). There was no difference between groups related to knowledge about drinking alcohol while taking hydrocodone (overall 18.1%) or knowledge that the opioid could be addictive (overall 72.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This simple strategy improved several, but not all, aspects of patient knowledge and resulted in fewer patients in the intervention arm driving while taking hydrocodone. Integration of a patient education document into conversations about opioids holds promise for improving patient knowledge about these high-risk medications.

Talk-time in the emergency department: duration of patient-provider conversations during an emergency department visit.

BACKGROUND: Analyses of patient flow through the emergency department (ED) typically focus on metrics such as wait time, total length of stay (LOS), or boarding time. Less is known about how much interaction a patient has with clinicians after being placed in a room, or what proportion of their in-room visit is also spent waiting. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the proportion of time that a patient spent in conversation with providers during an ED visit. METHODS: Seventy-four audio-taped encounters of patients with low-acuity diagnoses were analyzed. Recorded ED visits were edited to remove downtime. The proportion of time the patient spent in conversation with providers (talk-time) was calculated as follows: (talk-time = [edited audio time/{LOS - door-to-doctor time}]). RESULTS: Participants were 46% male; mean age was 41 years (standard deviation 15.7 years). Median LOS was 126 min (interquartile range [IQR] 96 to 163 min), median time in a patient care area was 76 min (IQR 55 to 122 min). Median time in conversation with providers was 19 min (IQR 14 to 27 min), corresponding to a talk-time percentage of 24.9% (IQR 17.8%-35%). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that patients with older age, longer visits, and those requiring a procedure had more talk-time: total talk-time = 13 s + 9 s × (total time in room in minutes) + 8 s × (years in age of patient) + 482 s × (procedural diagnosis). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 75% of a patient's time in a care area is spent not interacting with providers. Although some of the time waiting is out of the providers' control (eg, awaiting imaging studies), this significant downtime represents an opportunity for both process improvement efforts and innovative patient-education efforts to make use of remaining downtime.

Is emergency department quality related to other hospital quality domains?

OBJECTIVES: Systems theory suggests that there should be relatively high correlations among quality measures within an organization. This was an examination of hospital performance across three types of quality measures included in Medicare's Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program: emergency department (ED)-related clinical process measures, inpatient clinical process measures, and patient experience measures. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether hospital achievement and improvement on the ED quality measures represent a distinct domain of quality. METHODS: This was an exploratory, descriptive analysis using publicly available data. Composite scores for the ED, inpatient, and patient experience measures included in the HVBP program were calculated. Correlations and frequencies were run to examine the extent to which achievement and improvement were related across the three quality domains and the number of hospitals that were in the top quartile for performance across multiple quality domains. RESULTS: Achievement scores were calculated for 2,927 hospitals, and improvement scores were calculated for 2,842 hospitals. There was a positive, moderate correlation between ED and inpatient achievement scores (correlation coefficient of 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 0.53), but all other correlations were weak (0.16 or less). Only 96 hospitals (3.3%) scored in the top quartile for achievement across the three quality domains; 73 (2.6%) scored in the top quartile for improvement across all three quality domains. CONCLUSIONS: Little consistency was found in achievement or improvement across the three quality domains, suggesting that the ED performance represents a distinct domain of quality. Implications include the following: 1) there are broad opportunities for hospitals to improve, 2) patients may not experience consistent quality levels throughout their hospital visit, 3) quality improvement interventions may need to be tailored specifically to the department, and 4) consumers and policy-makers may not be able to draw conclusions on overall facility quality based on information about one domain.

Transforming emergency care for older adults.

Already crowded and stressful, US emergency departments (EDs) are facing the challenge of serving an aging population that requires complex and lengthy evaluations. Creative solutions are necessary to improve the value and ensure the quality of emergency care delivered to older adults while more fully addressing their complex underlying physical, social, cognitive, and situational needs. Developing models of geriatric emergency care, including some that are already in use at dedicated geriatric EDs, incorporate a variety of physical, procedural, and staffing changes. Among the options for "geriatricizing" emergency care are approaches that may eliminate the need for an ED visit, such as telemedicine; for initial hospitalization, such as patient observation units; and for rehospitalization, such as comprehensive discharge planning. By transforming their current safety-net role to becoming a partner in care coordination, EDs have the opportunity to become better integrated into the broader health care system, improve patient health outcomes, contribute to optimizing the health care system, and reduce overall costs of care-keys to improving emergency care for patients of all ages.

Understanding patient-provider conversations: what are we talking about?

OBJECTIVES: Effective patient-provider communication is a critical aspect of the delivery of high-quality patient care; however, research regarding the conversational dynamics of an overall emergency department (ED) visit remains unexplored. Identifying both patterns and relative frequency of utterances within these interactions will help guide future efforts to improve the communication between patients and providers within the ED setting. The objective of this study was to analyze complete audio recordings of ED visits to characterize these conversations and to determine the proportion of the conversation spent on different functional categories of communication. METHODS: Patients at an urban academic ED with four diagnoses (ankle sprain, back pain, head injury, and laceration) were recruited to have their ED visits audio recorded from the time of room placement until discharge. Patients were excluded if they were age < 18 years, were non-English-speaking, had significant history of psychiatric disease or cognitive impairment, or were medically unstable. Audio editing was performed to remove all silent downtime and non-patient-provider conversations. Audiotapes were analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). RIAS is the most widely used medical interaction analysis system; coders assign each "utterance" (or complete thought) spoken by the patient or provider to one of 41 mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all 41 categories and then grouped according to RIAS standards for "functional groupings." The percentage of total utterances in each functional grouping is reported. RESULTS: Twenty-six audio recordings were analyzed. Patient participants had a mean (±SD) age of 38.8 (±16.0) years, and 30.8% were male. Intercoder reliability was good, with mean intercoder correlations of 0.76 and 0.67 for all categories of provider and patient talk, respectively. Providers accounted for the majority of the conversation in the tapes (median = 239 utterances, interquartile range [IQR] = 168 to 308) compared to patients (median = 145 utterances, IQR = 80 to 198). Providers' utterances focused most on patient education and counseling (34%), followed by patient facilitation and activation (e.g., orienting the patient to the next steps in the ED or asking if the patient understood; 30%). Approximately 15% of the provider talk was spent on data gathering, with the majority (86%) focusing on biomedical topics rather than psychosocial topics (14%). Building a relationship with the patient (e.g., social talk, jokes/laughter, showing approval, or empathetic statements) constituted 22% of providers' talk. Patients' conversation was mainly focused in two areas: information giving (47% of patient utterances: 83% biomedical, 17% psychosocial) and building a relationship (45% of patient utterances). Only 5% of patients' utterances were devoted to question asking. Patient-centeredness scores were low. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, both providers and patients spent a significant portion of their talk time providing information to one another, as might be expected in the fast-paced ED setting. Less expected was the result that a large percentage of both provider and patient utterances focused on relationship building, despite the lack of traditional, longitudinal provider-patient relationships.

Use of risk assessment analysis by failure mode, effects, and criticality to reduce door-to-balloon time.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services currently endorses a door-to-balloon time of 90 minutes or less for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Recent evidence shows that a door-to-balloon time of 60 minutes significantly decreases inhospital mortality. We seek to use a proactive risk assessment method of failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) to evaluate door-to-balloon time process, to investigate how each component failure may affect the performance of a system, and to evaluate the frequency and the potential severity of harm of each failure. METHODS: We conducted a 2-part study: FMECA of the door-to-balloon time system and process of care, and evaluation of a single institution's door-to-balloon time operational data using a retrospective observational cohort design. A multidisciplinary group of FMECA participants described the door-to-balloon time process to then create a comprehensive map and table listing all process steps and identified process failures, including their frequency, consequence, and causes. Door-to-balloon time operational data were assessed by "on" versus "off" hours. RESULTS: Fifty-one failure points were identified across 4 door-to-balloon time phases. Of the 12 high-risk failures, 58% occurred between ECG and catheterization laboratory activation. Total door-to-balloon time during on hours had a median time of 55 minutes (95% confidence interval 46 to 60 minutes) compared with 77 minutes (95% confidence interval 68 to 83 minutes) during off hours. CONCLUSION: The FMECA revealed clear areas of potential delay and vulnerability that can be addressed to decrease door-to-balloon time from 90 to 60 minutes. FMECAs can provide a robust assessment of potential risks and can serve as the platform for significant process improvement and system redesign for door-to-balloon time.

An early look at performance on the emergency care measures included in Medicare's hospital inpatient Value-Based Purchasing Program.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Medicare's new, mandatory Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing Program introduces financial rewards or penalties to hospitals according to achievement or improvement on several publicly reported quality measures. Our objective was to describe hospital reporting on the 4 emergency department (ED)-related program measures, variation in performance on the ED measures across hospital characteristics, and the characteristics of hospitals that were more likely to receive performance scores based on improvement versus achievement. METHODS: This was an exploratory, descriptive analysis. We merged 2008 to 2010 performance data from Hospital Compare with the 2009 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We calculated a composite score for the 4 ED measures and used Kruskal-Wallis tests to examine differences in performance across hospital characteristics. We also examined differences in the percentage of scores that were awarded according to improvement versus achievement. RESULTS: There were 2,927 hospitals that qualified for the value-based purchasing program and were included in the analysis. For-profit hospitals received the highest scores; public hospitals and hospitals lacking The Joint Commission (TJC) accreditation received the lowest scores. Public hospitals had the largest share of scores awarded according to improvement (39.8%); for-profit hospitals had the lowest (27.8%). CONCLUSION: We found variation in performance by hospital characteristics on the ED-related program measures. Although public and non-TJC-accredited hospitals trailed in performance, they showed strong signs of improvement, signaling that performance gaps by ownership and accreditation may decrease. Considering the increasing scope of the value-based purchasing program, ED leaders should monitor both achievement and improvement on the 4 ED-related program measures.

Emergency department team communication with the patient: the patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication is important for the delivery of quality care. The Emergency Department (ED) environment poses significant challenges to effective communication. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine patients' perceptions of their ED team's communication skills. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in an urban, academic ED. Patients completed the Communication Assessment Tool for Teams (CAT-T) survey upon ED exit. The CAT-T was adapted from the psychometrically validated Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) to measure patient perceptions of communication with a medical team. The 14 core CAT-T items are associated with a 5-point scale (5 = excellent); results are reported as the percent of participants who responded "excellent." Responses were analyzed for differences based on age, sex, race, and operational metrics (wait time, ED daily census). RESULTS: There were 346 patients identified; the final sample for analysis was 226 patients (53.5% female, 48.2% Caucasian), representing a response rate of 65.3%. The scores on CAT-T items (reported as % "excellent") ranged from 50.0% to 76.1%. The highest-scoring items were "let me talk without interruptions" (76.1%), "talked in terms I could understand" (75.2%), and "treated me with respect" (74.3%). The lowest-scoring item was "encouraged me to ask questions" (50.0%). No differences were noted based on patient sex, race, age, wait time, or daily census of the ED. CONCLUSIONS: The patients in this study perceived that the ED teams were respectful and allowed them to talk without interruptions; however, lower ratings were given for items related to actively engaging the patient in decision-making and asking questions.