Quality and safety implications of emergency department information systems.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "meaningful use" incentive programs, in tandem with the boundless additional requirements for detailed reporting of quality metrics, have galvanized hospital efforts to implement hospital-based electronic health records. As such, emergency department information systems (EDISs) are an important and unique component of most hospitals' electronic health records. System functionality varies greatly and affects physician decisionmaking, clinician workflow, communication, and, ultimately, the overall quality of care and patient safety. This article is a joint effort by members of the Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Section and the Informatics Section of the American College of Emergency Physicians. The aim of this effort is to examine the benefits and potential threats to quality and patient safety that could result from the choice of a particular EDIS, its implementation and optimization, and the hospital's or physician group's approach to continuous improvement of the EDIS. Specifically, we explored the following areas of potential EDIS safety concerns: communication failure, wrong order-wrong patient errors, poor data display, and alert fatigue. Case studies are presented that illustrate the potential harm that could befall patients from an inferior EDIS product or suboptimal execution of such a product in the clinical environment. The authors have developed 7 recommendations to improve patient safety with respect to the deployment of EDISs. These include ensuring that emergency providers actively participate in selection of the EDIS product, in the design of processes related to EDIS implementation and optimization, and in the monitoring of the system's ongoing success or failure. Our recommendations apply to emergency departments using any type of EDIS: custom-developed systems, best-of-breed vendor systems, or enterprise systems.

A survey of the use of time-out protocols in emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: Time-outs, as one of the elements of the Joint Commission Universal Protocol for Preventing Wrong Site, Wrong Procedure, and Wrong Person Surgery has been in effect since July 1, 2004. Time-outs are required by The Joint Commission for all hospital procedures regardless of location, including emergency departments (EDs). Attitudes about ED time-outs were assessed for a sample of senior emergency physicians serving in leadership roles for a national professional society. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was administered to members of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Council at the October 2009 ACEP Council meeting on the use of time-outs in the ED. A total of 225 (72%) of the 331 councilors present filled out the survey. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (13%) of respondents were unaware of a formal time-out policy in their ED, 79 (35%) reported that ED time-outs were warranted, and 5 (2%) reported they knew of an instance where a time-out may have prevented an error. Chest tubes (167 respondents [74%]) and the use of sedation (142 respondents [63%]) were most commonly identified as ED procedures that necessitated a time-out. Episodes of any wrong-site error in their EDs were reported by 16 (7%) of the respondents. Wrong patient (9 respondents [4%]) and wrong procedure (2 respondents [1%]) errors were less common. CONCLUSIONS: Although the time-out requirement has been in effect since 2004, more than 1 in 10 of ED physicians in this sample ofED physician leaders were unaware of it. According to the respondents, medical errors preventable by time-outs were rare; however, time-outs may be useful for certain procedures, particularly when there is a risk of wrong-site, wrong-patient, or wrong-procedure medical errors.

Improving handoffs in the emergency department.

Patient handoffs at shift change are a ubiquitous and potentially hazardous process in emergency care. As crowding and lengthy evaluations become the standard for an increasing proportion of emergency departments (EDs), the number of patients handed off will likely increase. It is critical now more than ever before to ensure that handoffs supply valid and useful shared understandings between providers at transitions of care. The purpose of this article is to provide the most up-to-date evidence and collective thinking about the process and safety of handoffs between physicians in the ED. It offers perspectives from other disciplines, provides a conceptual framework for handoffs, and categorizes models of existing practices. Legal and risk management issues are also addressed. A proposal for the development of handoff quality measures is outlined. Practical strategies are suggested to improve ED handoffs. Finally, a research agenda is proposed to provide a roadmap to future work that may increase knowledge in this area.

Clinical practice guideline: benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.

OBJECTIVES: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), which is the most common vestibular disorder in adults, with a lifetime prevalence of 2.4 percent. The guideline targets patients aged 18 years or older with a potential diagnosis of BPPV, evaluated in any setting in which an adult with BPPV would be identified, monitored, or managed. This guideline is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage adults with BPPV. PURPOSE: The primary purposes of this guideline are to improve quality of care and outcomes for BPPV by improving the accurate and efficient diagnosis of BPPV, reducing the inappropriate use of vestibular suppressant medications, decreasing the inappropriate use of ancillary tests such as radiographic imaging and vestibular testing, and to promote the use of effective repositioning maneuvers for treatment. In creating this guideline, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of audiology, chiropractic medicine, emergency medicine, family medicine, geriatric medicine, internal medicine, neurology, nursing, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, physical therapy, and physical medicine and rehabilitation. RESULTS: The panel made strong recommendations that 1) clinicians should diagnose posterior semicircular canal BPPV when vertigo associated with nystagmus is provoked by the Dix-Hallpike maneuver. The panel made recommendations against 1) radiographic imaging, vestibular testing, or both in patients diagnosed with BPPV, unless the diagnosis is uncertain or there are additional symptoms or signs unrelated to BPPV that warrant testing; and 2) routinely treating BPPV with vestibular suppressant medications such as antihistamines or benzodiazepines. The panel made recommendations that 1) if the patient has a history compatible with BPPV and the Dix-Hallpike test is negative, clinicians should perform a supine roll test to assess for lateral semicircular canal BPPV; 2) clinicians should differentiate BPPV from other causes of imbalance, dizziness, and vertigo; 3) clinicians should question patients with BPPV for factors that modify management including impaired mobility or balance, CNS disorders, lack of home support, and increased risk for falling; 4) clinicians should treat patients with posterior canal BPPV with a particle repositioning maneuver (PRM); 5) clinicians should reassess patients within 1 month after an initial period of observation or treatment to confirm symptom resolution; 6) clinicians should evaluate patients with BPPV who are initial treatment failures for persistent BPPV or underlying peripheral vestibular or CNS disorders; and 7) clinicians should counsel patients regarding the impact of BPPV on their safety, the potential for disease recurrence, and the importance of follow-up. The panel offered as options that 1) clinicians may offer vestibular rehabilitation, either self-administered or with a clinician, for the initial treatment of BPPV and 2) clinicians may offer observation as initial management for patients with BPPV and with assurance of follow-up. The panel made no recommendation concerning audiometric testing in patients diagnosed with BPPV. DISCLAIMER: This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance in managing benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. The guideline is not intended to replace clinical judgement or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.