SQuID (subcutaneous insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis) II: Clinical and operational effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: We previously demonstrated safe treatment of low- to moderate-severity (LTM) diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) using the SQuID protocol (subcutaneous insulin in DKA) in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) observation setting, with decreased emergency department length of stay (EDLOS). Here, we expand eligibility to include sicker patients and admission to a regular medical floor and collected more detailed clinical data in a near-real-time fashion. METHODS: This is a real-world, prospective, observational cohort study in an urban academic hospital (March 4, 2023-March 4, 2024). LTM DKA patients were treated with IV insulin (floor or ICU) or on SQuID. We compare fidelity (time to glargine and dextrose-containing fluids), safety (rescue dextrose for hypoglycemia), effectiveness (time to anion gap closure, time on protocol), and operational efficiency (time to bed request, EDLOS, and ICU admission rate since implementation of the protocol). RESULTS: Of 84 patients with LTM DKA, 62 (74%) of were treated with SQuID and 22 (26%) with IV insulin. Fidelity was high in both groups. Rescue dextrose was required in five (8%) versus four (18%) patients, respectively (difference 9%, -31% to 10%). Compared to the IV insulin group, time to anion gap was 1.4 h shorter (95% CI -3.4 to 0.2 h) and time on protocol was 10.4 h shorter (95% CI -22.3 to -5.0 h) in SQuID patients. Median EDLOS was lower in the SQuID cohort 9.8 h (IQR 6.0-13.6) than the IV floor cohort 18.3 h (IQR 13.4-22.0 h), but longer than the overall IV insulin cohort. Since inception of SQuID, ICU admission rate in LTM DKA has decreased from 54% to under 21%. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study, we observed excellent fidelity, equivalent or superior safety, and clinical and operational effectiveness with SQuID compared to IV insulin. The SQuID protocol has become the de facto default pathway for treatment of LTM DKA. Since inception of SQuID, ICU admissions in LTM DKA have decreased 33%.

SQuID (subcutaneous insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis): Clinician acceptability.

BACKGROUND: We previously implemented the SQuID protocol (subcutaneous insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]) demonstrating safe, effective treatment of low- to moderate-severity DKA in a non-intensive care unit setting. Since success and sustainability of interventions rely on staff buy-in, we assessed acceptability of SQuID among emergency department (ED) and inpatient clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in an urban academic hospital (March 2023-November 2023), surveying ED nurses (RNs) and physicians (MDs) and floor RNs and MDs treating patients on SQuID via emailed survey links. Clinicians could only take the survey once. We used Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, validated for staff acceptability of a new intervention, assessing eight domains with 5-point Likert responses. Clinicians were asked about prior experience with SQuID, and we assessed ED MD and RN preference (SQuID vs. intravenous [IV] insulin). Surveys included free-text boxes for comments. We present descriptive statistics including proportions with 95% confidence interval and medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs) and conducted thematic analysis of free-text comments. RESULTS: Our overall response rate (107/133) was 80% (34/42 ED RNs, 13/16 floor RNs, 47/57 ED MDs, 13/17 floor MDs), with first-time users of SQuID ranging from 7.7% (hospitalist MDs) to 35.3% (ED RNs) of participants. ED clinicians preferred SQuID over IV insulin (67% vs. 12%, 21% no preference). Acceptability was high across all domains and clinician types (median 4, IQR 4-5). Overall percentage of positive responses (4s and 5s) across domains was 92% (ED RNs [89%], floor RNs [89%], ED MDs [97%], floor MDs [87%]). We identified several themes among participant comments. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability was high across clinician types; 65% of ED clinicians preferred SQuID to IV insulin. Clinicians liked SQuID (affective attitude), found it easy to use (burden), were confident in its use (self-efficacy), felt that it improved outcomes (perceived effectiveness), found that it was fair to patients (ethicality), found that it made sense (intervention coherence), and found that it did not interfere with other activities (opportunity cost).

The emergency department trigger tool: Multicenter trigger query validation.

OBJECTIVES: We previously described derivation and validation of the emergency department trigger tool (EDTT) for adverse event (AE) detection. As the first step in our multicenter study of the tool, we validated our computerized screen for triggers against manual review, establishing our use of this automated process for selecting records to review for AEs. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of visits to three urban, academic EDs over 18 months by patients ≥ 18 years old. We reviewed 912 records: 852 with at least one of 34 triggers found by the query and 60 records with none. Two first-level reviewers per site each manually screened for triggers. After completion, computerized query results were revealed, and reviewers could revise their findings. Second-level reviewers arbitrated discrepancies. We compare automated versus manual screening by positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs), present population trigger frequencies, proportions of records triggered, and how often manual ratings were changed to conform with the query. RESULTS: Trigger frequencies ranged from common (>25%) to rare (1/1000) were comparable at U.S. sites and slightly lower at the Canadian site. Proportions of triggered records ranged from 31% to 49.4%. Overall query PPV was 95.4%; NPV was 99.2%. PPVs for individual trigger queries exceeded 90% for 28-31 triggers/site and NPVs were >90% for all but three triggers at one site. Inter-rater reliability was excellent, with disagreement on manual screening results less than 5% of the time. Overall, reviewers amended their findings 1.5% of the time when discordant with query findings, more often when the query was positive than when negative (47% vs. 23%). CONCLUSIONS: The EDTT trigger query performed very well compared to manual review. With some expected variability, trigger frequencies were similar across sites and proportions of triggered records ranged 31%-49%. This demonstrates the feasibility and generalizability of implementing the EDTT query, providing a solid foundation for testing the triggers' utility in detecting AEs.

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry: Structure, Use, and Limitations for Research.

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR) is a qualified clinical data registry that collects data from participating emergency departments (EDs) in the United States for quality measurement, improvement, and reporting purposes. This article aims to provide an overview of the data collection and validation process, describe the existing data structure and elements, and explain the potential opportunities and limitations for ongoing and future research use. CEDR data are primarily collected for quality reporting purposes and are obtained from diverse sources, including electronic health records and billing data that are de-identified and stored in a secure, centralized database. The CEDR data structure is organized around clinical episodes, which contain multiple data elements that are standardized using common data elements and are mapped to established terminologies to enable interoperability and data sharing. The data elements include patient demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnostic and treatment procedures, and outcomes. Key limitations include the limited generalizability due to the selective nature of participating EDs and the limited validation and completeness of data elements not currently used for quality reporting purposes, including demographic data. Nonetheless, CEDR holds great potential for ongoing and future research in emergency medicine due to its large-volume, longitudinal, near real-time, clinical data. In 2021, the American College of Emergency Physicians authorized the transition from CEDR to the Emergency Medicine Data Institute, which will catalyze investments in improved data quality and completeness for research to advance emergency care.

Impact of Predictive Text Clinical Decision Support on Imaging Order Entry in the Emergency Department.

PURPOSE: Imaging clinical decision support (CDS) is designed to assist providers in selecting appropriate imaging studies and is now federally required. The aim of this study was to understand the effect of CDS on decisions and workflows in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The authors' institution's order entry platform serves up structured indications for imaging orders. Imaging orders are scored by CDS on the basis of appropriate use criteria (AUC). CDS triggers alerts for imaging orders with low AUC scores. Because free text alone cannot be scored by CDS, an artificial intelligence predictive text (AIPT) module was implemented to guide the selection of structured indications when free-text indications are entered. A total of 17,355 imaging orders in the ED over 6 months were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: CDS alerts for low AUC scores were triggered for 3% of all imaging study orders (522 of 17,355). Providers spent an average of 24 seconds interacting with alerts. In 18 of 522 imaging orders with alerts, alternative studies were ordered. After AIPT implementation, the percentage of unscored studies significantly decreased from 81% to 45% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a quaternary academic ED, CDS alerts triggered by low AUC scores caused minimal increase in time spent on imaging order entry but had a relatively marginal impact on imaging study selection. AIPT implementation increased the number of scored studies and could potentially enhance CDS effects. CDS implementation enables the collection of novel data regarding which imaging studies receive low AUC scores. Future work could include exploring alternative models of CDS implementation to maximize its impact.

A Critical Appraisal of AHRQ's "Diagnostic Errors" Report.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report "Diagnostic Errors in the Emergency Department" generated significant mass media interest with negative implications for the safety of contemporary emergency care. The assumptions and methodology underlying this report are problematic, while multiple ongoing efforts to improve the quality and quantity of diagnostic research are missed, neglected, or ignored. The AHRQ report identifies reasonable target diseases for targeting diagnostic quality improvement efforts, as well as viable methods by which to measure any initiatives impact on diagnostic error. We note additional opportunities to improve the status quo by funding emergency department-based diagnostic research and healthcare system-level patient safety research and highlighting innovative approaches to diagnostic science within emergency medicine.

The SQuID protocol (subcutaneous insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis): Impacts on ED operational metrics.

BACKGROUND: Studies using fast-acting subcutaneous (SQ) insulin analogs in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) have demonstrated efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness, allowing treatment of mild-to-moderate (MTM)-severity DKA patients in non-intensive care unit (ICU) settings. However, emergency department (ED)-based studies are few, with limited exploration of impacts on operational metrics. METHODS: We implemented the SQuID (Subcutaneous Insulin in Diabetic Ketoacidosis) protocol for adults with MTM-severity DKA in an urban academic ED, collecting data from August 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022. We examined fidelity (frequency of required q2h glucose checks), safety (proportion of patients administered rescue dextrose for hypoglycemia), and ED length of stay (EDLOS) for the SQuID cohort compared to patients (non-ICU) treated with a traditional insulin infusion. We also examined ICU admission rate among MTM-severity DKA patients after introduction of SQuID to two historical control periods (pre-intervention and pre-COVID). We used Mann-Whitney U to test for differences in EDLOS distributions, bootstrapped (n = 1000) confidence intervals (CIs) for EDLOS median differences, and the two-sample z-test for differences in ICU admissions. RESULTS: We identified 177 MTM-severity DKA patients in the study period (78 SQuID, 99 traditional cohort) and 163 preintervention and 161 pre-COVID historical control patients. Fidelity to the SQuID pathway was good, with glucose checks exceeding the q2-h requirement. We found no difference in the proportion of rescue dextrose administration compared to the traditional pathway. We observed significant reductions in median EDLOS for the SQuID cohort compared to the traditional cohort during the study period (-3.0, 95% CI -8.5 to -1.4), the preintervention period (-1.4, 95% CI -3.1 to -0.1), and the pre-COVID control period (-3.6, 95% CI -7.5 to -1.8). CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study at an academic ED, treatment of patients with MTM-severity DKA with a SQ insulin protocol was effective, demonstrated equivalent safety, and reduced ED length of stay.

Near-Miss Events Detected Using the Emergency Department Trigger Tool.

OBJECTIVES: Near misses include conditions with potential for harm, intercepted medical errors, and events requiring monitoring or intervention to prevent harm. Little is reported on near misses or their importance for quality and safety in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This is a secondary evaluation of data from a retrospective study of the ED Trigger Tool (EDTT) at an urban, academic ED (data from October 1, 2014, to October 31, 2015; 92,859 eligible visits). All patients 18 years and older completing a visit were eligible. We ran the EDTT, a computerized query for triggers on 13 months of ED visit data, reviewing 5582 selected records using a 2-tiered approach. Events were categorized by occurrence (ED vs present on arrival [POA]), severity, omission/commission, and type, using a taxonomy with categories, subcategories, and cross-cutting modifiers. RESULTS: We identified 1458 ED near misses in 1269 of 5582 records (22.7%) and 80 near misses that were POA. Patient care events represented most ED near misses, including delays in diagnosis, treatment, and failure to monitor, primarily driven by ED boarding and crowding. Medication events were second most common (17%), including 80 medication administration errors. Of 80 POA events, 42% were related to overanticoagulation. We estimate that 19.3% of all ED visits include a near miss. CONCLUSIONS: Near-miss events are relatively common (22.7% of our sample, 19.3% in the population) and are associated with an increased risk for an adverse event. Most events were patient care related (77%) involving delays due to crowding and ED boarding followed by medication administration errors. The EDTT is a high-yield approach for detecting important near misses and latent system deficiencies that impact patient safety.

Implementation of ultrasound after central venous catheter insertion: A qualitative study in early adopters.

BACKGROUND: The adoption rate of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for the confirmation of central venous catheter (CVC) positioning and exclusion of post procedure pneumothorax is low despite advantages in workflow compared to traditional chest X-ray (CXR). To explore why, we convened focus groups to address barriers and facilitators of implementation for POCUS guided CVC confirmation and de-implementation of post-procedure CXR. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with emergency medicine and critical care providers to discuss current practices in POCUS for CVC confirmation. The semi-structured focus group interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We performed qualitative content analysis of the resulting transcripts using a consensual qualitative research approach (NVivo software), aiming to identify priority categories that describe the barriers and facilitators of POCUS guided CVC confirmation. RESULTS: The coding dictionary of barriers and facilitators consisted of 21 codes from the focus group discussions. Our qualitative analysis revealed that 12 codes emerged spontaneously (inductively) within the focus group discussions and aligned directly to CFIR constructs. Common barriers included provider influences (e.g. knowledge and beliefs about POCUS for CVC confirmation), external network (e.g. societal guidelines, ancillary staff, and consultants), and inertia (habit or reflexive processes). Common facilitators included ultrasound protocol advantage and champions. Time and provider outcomes (cognitive offload, ownership, and independence) emerged as early barriers but late facilitators. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative analysis demonstrates real and perceived barriers against implementation of POCUS for CVC position confirmation and pneumothorax exclusion. Our findings discovered organizational and personal constructs that will inform development of multifaceted strategies toward implementation of POCUS after CVC insertion.

Economic Evaluation of Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation vs Chest Radiography in Critically Ill Patients: A Labor Cost Model.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence suggesting that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is faster and non-inferior for confirming position and excluding pneumothorax after central venous catheter (CVC) placement compared to traditional radiography, millions of chest radiographs (CXR) are performed annually for this purpose. Whether the use of POCUS results in cost savings compared to CXR is less clear but could represent a relative advantage in implementation efforts. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the labor cost difference for POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC position confirmation practices. METHODS: We developed a model to evaluate the per patient difference in labor cost between POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC confirmation at our local urban, tertiary academic institution. We used internal cost data from our institution to populate the variables in our model. RESULTS: The estimated labor cost per patient was $18.48 using CXR compared to $14.66 for POCUS, resulting in a net direct cost savings of $3.82 (21%) per patient using POCUS for CVC confirmation. CONCLUSION: In this study comparing the labor costs of two approaches for CVC confirmation, the more efficient alternative (POCUS-guided) is not more expensive than traditional CXR. Performing an economic analysis framed in terms of labor costs and work efficiency may influence stakeholders and facilitate earlier adoption of POCUS for CVC confirmation.

Emergency Department Adverse Events Detected Using the Emergency Department Trigger Tool.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Emergency Department Trigger Tool (EDTT) is a novel approach to adverse event detection in the ED. We previously described the derivation, validation, and high-level performance of this tool. Here we further detail adverse events detected to demonstrate the utility of the EDTT and how it might be used for quality improvement. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a retrospective observational study. We ran the EDTT (a computerized query for triggers) on 13 months of ED visit data, reviewing 5,582 selected records using a typical 2-tiered trigger tool approach. The adverse events detected were categorized by place of occurrence (in the ED versus present on arrival), severity, omission/commission, and type using a taxonomy with categories, subcategories, and up to 3 cross-cutting modifiers. We present adverse event data in detail, focusing in turn on each of these descriptors (severity, event types, and cross-cutting themes) and highlight opportunities identified for targeted improvement. RESULTS: We identified 458 adverse events occurring in the ED for a 13-month period, 10% of which required urgent intervention. Nearly all (90%) were acts of commission. Events resulting in harm were most often related to medications administered and patient care. Common cross-cutting event types included adverse events related to bleeding, opioids, and the use of propofol. Most adverse events (80%) led to temporary harm. CONCLUSION: The EDTT identifies a broad spectrum of adverse event types, allowing a review by severity, frequency, and type to better understand existing levels of harm in the ED and identify targets for quality improvement. A multicenter study of the EDTT is currently underway, which will contribute additional power and assess generalizability.

Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department 2 (GRACE-2): Low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department.

This second Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-2) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic "low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department." The multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding four priority questions for adult emergency department patients with low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain. The intended population includes adults with multiple similar presentations of abdominal signs and symptoms recurring over a period of months or years. The panel reached the following recommendations: (1) if a prior negative computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) has been performed within 12 months, there is insufficient evidence to accurately identify populations in whom repeat CTAP imaging can be safely avoided or routinely recommended; (2) if CTAP with IV contrast is negative, we suggest against ultrasound unless there is concern for pelvic or biliary pathology; (3) we suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety may be performed during the ED evaluation; and (4) we suggest an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The GRACE-2 writing group developed clinically relevant questions to address the care of adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, previously undifferentiated abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Four patient-intervention-comparison-outcome-time (PICOT) questions were developed by consensus of the writing group, who performed a systematic review of the literature and then synthesized direct and indirect evidence to formulate recommendations, following GRADE methodology. The writing group found that despite the commonality and relevance of these questions in emergency care, the quantity and quality of evidence were very limited, and even fundamental definitions of the population and outcomes of interest are lacking. Future research opportunities include developing precise and clinically relevant definitions of low-risk, recurrent, undifferentiated abdominal pain and determining the scope of the existing populations in terms of annual national ED visits for this complaint, costs of care, and patient and provider preferences.

Emergency clinician participation and performance in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the largest national pay-for-performance program and the first to afford emergency clinicians unique financial incentives for quality measurement and improvement. With little known regarding its impact on emergency clinicians, we sought to describe participation in the MIPS and examine differences in performance scores and payment adjustments based on reporting affiliation and reporting strategy. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2018 Quality Payment Program (QPP) Experience Report data set. We categorized emergency clinicians by their reporting affiliation (individual, group, MIPS alternative payment model [APM]), MIPS performance scores, and Medicare Part B payment adjustments. We calculated performance scores for common quality measures contributing to the quality category score if reported through qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) or claims-based reporting strategies. RESULTS: In 2018, a total of 59,828 emergency clinicians participated in the MIPS-1,246 (2.1%) reported as individuals, 43,404 (72.5%) reported as groups, and 15,178 (25.4%) reported within MIPS APMs. Clinicians reporting as individuals earned lower overall MIPS scores (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 30.8 [15.0-48.2] points) than those reporting within groups (median [IQR] = 88.4 [49.3-100.0]) and MIPS APMs (median [IQR] = 100.0 [100.0-100.0]; p < 0.001) and more frequently incurred penalties with a negative payment adjustment. Emergency clinicians had higher measure scores if reporting QCDR or QPP non-emergency medicine specialty set measures. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency clinician participation in national value-based programs is common, with one in four participating through MIPS APMs. Those employing specific strategies such as QCDR and group reporting received the highest MIPS scores and payment adjustments, emphasizing the role that reporting strategy and affiliation play in the quality of care.

Repeat computed tomography in recurrent abdominal pain: An evidence synthesis for guidelines for reasonable and appropriate care in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography (CT) imaging is frequently obtained for recurrent abdominal pain after a prior emergency department (ED) evaluation. We evaluate the utility of repeat CT imaging following an indeterminate index CT in low-risk abdominal pain adult ED patients. METHODS: An electronic search was designed for the patient-intervention-control-outcome-timing (PICOT) question: (P) adult patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated atraumatic abdominal pain presenting to the ED after an index-negative CT within 12 months; (I) repeat CT versus (C) no repeat CT; for (O) abdominal surgery or other invasive procedure, mortality, identification of potentially life-threatening diagnosis, and hospital and intensive care unit admission rates; and return ED visit (T), all within 30 days. Four reviewers independently selected evidence for inclusion and then synthesized the results around the most prevalent themes of repeat CT timing, diagnostic yield, ionizing radiation exposure, and predictors of repetitive imaging. RESULTS: Although 637 articles and abstracts were identified, no direct evidence was found. Thirteen documents were synthesized as indirect evidence. None of the indirect evidence defined a low-risk subset of abdominal pain nor did investigators describe whether reimaging occurred for complaints similar to the initial ED evaluation. Included studies did not describe the index CT findings and some reported explanatory findings noted on the original CT for which repeat CTs might have been indicated. The time frame for a repeat CT ranged from hours to 1 year. The frequency of repeat CTs (2%-47%) varied across studies as did the yield of imaging to alter downstream clinical decision making (range = 5%-67%). CONCLUSION: Due to the absence of direct evidence our scoping review is unable to provide high-quality evidence-based recommendations upon which to confidently base an imaging practice guideline. There is no evidence to support or refute performing a CT for low-risk recurrent abdominal pain.

Point-of-care Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation in Ultrasound Nonexperts.

OBJECTIVE: Emerging evidence suggests that chest radiography (CXR) following central venous catheter (CVC) placement is unnecessary when point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used to confirm catheter position and exclude pneumothorax. However, few providers have adopted this practice, and it is unknown what contributing factors may play a role in this lack of adoption, such as ultrasound experience. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS to confirm CVC position and exclude a pneumothorax after brief education and training of nonexperts. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study in a single academic medical center to determine the diagnostic characteristics of a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after brief training performed by POCUS nonexperts. POCUS nonexperts (emergency medicine senior residents and critical care fellows) independently performed a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after a 30-minute didactic training. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol for malposition and pneumothorax detection. Secondary outcomes were efficiency and feasibility of adequate image acquisition, adjudicated by POCUS experts. RESULTS: Twenty-six POCUS nonexperts collected data on 190 patients in the final analysis. There were five (2.5%) CVC malpositions and six (3%) pneumothoraxes on CXR. The positive likelihood ratios of POCUS for malposition detection and pneumothorax were 12.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.26 to 46.69) and 3.41 (95% CI = 0.51 to 22.76), respectively. The accuracy of POCUS for pneumothorax detection compared to CXR was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88 to 0.96) and the sensitivity was 0.17 (95% CI = 0.00 to 0.64). The median (interquartile range) time for CVC confirmation was lower for POCUS (9 minutes [8.5-9.5 minutes]) compared to CXR (29 minutes [1-269 minutes]; Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.01). Adequate protocol image acquisition was achieved in 76% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Thirty-minute training of POCUS in nonexperts demonstrates adequate diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and feasibility of POCUS-guided CVC position confirmation, but not exclusion of pneumothorax.

Central Venous Catheter Adverse Events Are not Associated with Crowding Indicators.

OBJECTIVE: Crowding in the emergency department (ED) impacts a number of important quality and safety metrics. We studied ED crowding measures associated with adverse events (AE) resulting from central venous catheters (CVC) inserted in the ED, as well as the relationship between crowding and the frequency of CVC insertions in an ED cohort admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study from 2008-2010 in an academic tertiary care center. Participants undergoing CVC in the ED or admitted to an ICU were categorized by quartile based on the following: National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale (NEDOCS); waiting room patients (WR); ED patients awaiting inpatient beds (boarders); and ED occupancy (EDO). Main outcomes were the occurrence of an AE during CVC insertion in the ED, and deferred procedures assessed by frequency of CVC insertions in ED patients admitted to the ICU. RESULTS: Of 2,284 ED patients who had a CVC inserted, 293 (13%) suffered an AE. There was no association between AEs from ED CVCs and crowding scales when comparing the highest crowding level or quartile to all other quartiles: NEDOCS (dangerous crowding [13.1%] vs other levels [13.0%], P = 0.98); number of WR patients (14.0% vs 12.7%, P = 0.81); EDO (13.0% vs 12.9%, P = 0.99); and number of boarding patients (12.0% vs 13.3%), P = 0.21). In a cohort of ED patients admitted to the ICU, there was no association between CVC placement rates in the ED and crowding scales comparing the highest vs all other quartiles: NEDOCS (dangerous crowding 16% vs all others 16%, P = 0.97); WR patients (16% vs 16%, P = 0.82), EDO (15% vs. 17%, P = 0.15); and number of boarding patients (17% vs 16%, P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: In a large, academic tertiary-care center, frequency of CVC insertion in the ED and related AEs were not associated with measures of crowding. These findings add to the evidence that the negative effects of crowding, which impact all ED patients and measures of ED performance, are less likely to impair the delivery of prioritized time-critical interventions.