Common step-wise interventions improved primary care clinic visits and reduced emergency department discharge failures: a large-scale retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: It is critical to understand whether providing health insurance coverage, assigning a dedicated Primary Care Physician (PCP), and arranging timely post-Emergency Department (ED) clinic follow-up can improve compliance with clinic visits and reduce ED discharge failures. We aim to determine the benefits of providing these common step-wise interventions and further investigate the necessity of urgent PCP referrals on behalf of ED discharged patients. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective observational study. All patients discharged from the ED over the period Jan 1, 2015 through Dec 31, 2017 were included in the study population. Step-wise interventions included providing charity health insurance, assigning a dedicated PCP, and providing ED follow-up clinics. PCP clinic compliance and ED discharge failures were measured and compared among groups receiving different interventions. RESULT: A total of 227,627 patients were included. Fifty-eight percent of patients receiving charity insurance had PCP visits in comparison to 23% of patients without charity insurance (p < 0.001). Seventy-seven percent of patients with charity insurance and PCP assignments completed post-ED discharge PCP visits in comparison to only 4.5% of those with neither charity insurance nor PCP assignments (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Step-wise interventions increased patient clinic follow-up compliance while simultaneously reducing ED discharge failures. Such interventions might benefit communities with similar patient populations.

Risks predicting prolonged hospital discharge boarding in a regional acute care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged hospital discharge boarding can impact patient flow resulting in upstream Emergency Department crowding. We aim to determine the risks predicting prolonged hospital discharge boarding and their direct and indirect effects on patient flow. METHODS: Retrospective review of a single hospital discharge database was conducted. Variables including type of disposition, disposition boarding time, case management consultation, discharge medications prescriptions, severity of illness, and patient homeless status were analyzed in a multivariate logistic regression model. Hospital charges, potential savings of hospital bed hours, and whether detailed discharge instructions provided adequate explanations to patients were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 11,527 admissions was entered into final analysis. The median discharge boarding time was approximately 2 h. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) of patients transferring to other hospitals was 7.45 (95% CI 5.35-10.37), to court or law enforcement custody was 2.51 (95% CI 1.84-3.42), and to a skilled nursing facility was 2.48 (95% CI 2.10-2.93). AOR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.71) if the disposition order was placed during normal office hours (0800-1700). AOR of early case management consultation was 1.52 (95% CI 1.37-1.68) versus 1.73 (95% CI 1.03-2.89) for late consultation. Eighty-eight percent of patients experiencing discharge boarding times within 2 h of disposition expressed positive responses when questioned about the quality of explanations of discharge instructions and follow-up plans based on satisfaction surveys. Similar results (86% positive response) were noted among patients whose discharge boarding times were prolonged (> 2 h, p = 0.44). An average charge of $6/bed/h was noted in all hospital discharges. Maximizing early discharge boarding (≤ 2 h) would have resulted in 16,376 hospital bed hours saved thereby averting $98,256.00 in unnecessary dwell time charges in this study population alone. CONCLUSION: Type of disposition, case management timely consultation, and disposition to discharge dwell time affect boarding and patient flow in a tertiary acute care hospital. Efficiency of the discharge process did not affect patient satisfaction relative to the perceived quality of discharge instruction and follow-up plan explanations. Prolonged disposition to discharge intervals result in unnecessary hospital bed occupancy thereby negatively impacting hospital finances while delivering no direct benefit to patients.

Role of HEART score in evaluating clinical outcomes among emergency department patients with different ethnicities.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the role of the HEART (history, EKG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score in the evaluation of six clinical outcomes among three groups of patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study among three ED patient groups including White, Black, and Hispanic patients. ED providers used the HEART score to assess the need for patient hospital admission and for emergent cardiac imaging tests (CITs). HEART scores were measured using classification accuracy rates. Performance accuracies were measured in terms of HEART score in relation to four clinical outcomes (positive findings of CITs, ED returns, hospital readmissions, and 30-day major adverse cardiac events [MACE]). RESULTS: A high classification accuracy rate (87%) was found for use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. HEART scores showed moderate accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.66-0.78) in predicting results of emergent CITs, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Providers adhered to use of the HEART score to determine hospital admission. The HEART score may be associated with emergent CIT findings, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day MACE outcomes, with no differences among White, Black, and Hispanic patient populations.

Dedicated homeless clinics reduce inappropriate emergency department utilization.

BACKGROUND: The homeless patient population is known to have a high occurrence of inappropriate emergency department (ED) utilization. The study hospital initiated a dedicated homeless clinic targeting patients experiencing homelessness with a combination of special features. We aim to determine whether this mode of care can reduce inappropriate ED utilization among homeless patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study from July 1, 2017 to Dec 31, 2017. The study enrolled all homeless patients who visited any hospital regular clinic, dedicated homeless clinic, and ED at least once during the study period. ED homeless patients were divided into four groups (A: no clinic visits; B: those who only visited hospital regular clinic; C: those who only visited dedicated homeless clinic; and D: those who visited both hospital regular clinic and dedicated homeless clinic). The New York University algorithm was used to determine appropriate ED utilization. We compared inappropriate ED utilization among patients from these groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the risks of different clinical visits in association with inappropriate ED utilization. RESULTS: A total of 16,323 clinic and 8511 ED visits occurred among 5022 unique homeless patients, in which 2450 unique patients were seen in hospital regular clinic, 784 patients in dedicated homeless clinic, 688 patients in both hospital regular clinic and dedicated homeless clinic, and 1110 patients with no clinic visits. Twenty-nine percent (230/784) of patients from dedicated homeless clinic utilized the ED, among which 21% (175/844) of their ED visits were considered inappropriate. In contrast, 40% of patients from hospital regular clinic utilized the ED, among which 29% were inappropriate (P < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50-0.74, P < 0.001) on dedicated homeless clinic predicting inappropriate ED visits in multivariate logistic regression. CONCLUSION: Implementing a dedicated homeless clinic with these features can reduce ED inappropriate utilization among patients experiencing homelessness.

Productivity, efficiency, and overall performance comparisons between attendings working solo versus attendings working with residents staffing models in an emergency department: A Large-Scale Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Attending physician productivity and efficiency can be affected when working simultaneously with Residents. To gain a better understanding of this effect, we aim to compare productivity, efficiency, and overall performance differences among Attendings working solo versus working with Residents in an Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: Data were extracted from the electronic medical records of all patients seen by ED Attendings and/or Residents during the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. Attending productivity was measured based on the number of new patients enrolled per hour per provider. Attending efficiency was measured based on the provider-to-disposition time (PDT). Attending overall performance was measured by Attending Performance Index (API). Furthermore, Attending productivity, efficiency, and overall performance metrics were compared between Attendings working solo and Attendings working with Residents. The comparisons were analyzed after adjusting for confounders via propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 15 Attendings and 266 Residents managing 111,145 patient encounters over the study period were analyzed. The mean (standard deviation) of Attending productivity and efficiency were 2.9 (1.6) new patients per hour and 2.7 (1.8) hours per patient for Attendings working solo, in comparison to 3.3 (1.9) and 3.0 (2.0) for Attendings working with Residents. When paired with Residents, the API decreased for those Attendings who had a higher API when working solo (average API dropped from 0.21 to 0.19), whereas API increased for those who had a lower API when working solo (average API increased from 0.13 to 0.16). CONCLUSION: In comparison to the Attending working solo staffing model, increased productivity with decreased efficiency occurred among Attendings when working with Residents. The overall performance of Attendings when working with Residents varied inversely against their performance when working solo.

Emergency Medicine Resident Efficiency and Emergency Department Crowding.

OBJECTIVES: Provider efficiency has been reported in the literature but there is a lack of efficiency analysis among emergency medicine (EM) residents. We aim to compare efficiency of EM residents of different training levels and determine if EM resident efficiency is affected by emergency department (ED) crowding. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective observation study from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2017. The number of new patients per resident per hour and provider-to-disposition (PTD) time of each patient were used as resident efficiency markers. A crowding score was assigned to each patient upon the patient's arrival to the ED. We compared efficiency among EM residents of different training levels under different ED crowding statuses. Dynamic efficiency changes were compared monthly through the entire academic year (July to next June). RESULTS: The study enrolled a total of 150,920 patients. A mean of 1.9 patients/hour was seen by PGY-1 EM residents in comparison to 2.6 patients/hour by PGY-2 and -3 EM residents. Median PTD was 2.8 hours in PGY-1 EM residents versus 2.6 hours in PGY-2 and -3 EM residents. There were no significant differences in acuity across all patients seen by EM residents. When crowded conditions existed, residency efficiency increased, but such changes were minimized when the ED became overcrowded. A linear increase of resident efficiency was observed only in PGY-1 EM residents throughout the entire academic year. CONCLUSION: Resident efficiency improved significantly only during their first year of EM training. This efficiency can be affected by ED crowding.

Identifying diverse concepts of discharge failure patients at emergency department in the USA: a large-scale retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Identifying patients who are at high risk for discharge failure allows for implementation of interventions to improve their care. However, discharge failure is currently defined in literature with great variability, making targeted interventions more difficult. We aim to derive a screening tool based on the existing diverse discharge failure models. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a single-centre retrospective cohort study in the USA. Data from all patients discharged from the emergency department were collected from 1 January 2015 through 31 December 2017 and followed up within 30 days. METHODS: Scoring systems were derived using modified Framingham methods. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operational characteristic (AUC) were calculated and compared using both the broad and restricted discharge failure models. RESULTS: A total of 227 627 patients were included. The Screening for Healthcare fOllow-Up Tool (SHOUT) scoring system was derived based on the broad and restricted discharge failure models and applied back to the entire study cohort. A sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 71% were found in SHOUT scores to identify patients with broad discharge failure with AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.84). When applied to a 3-day restricted discharge failure model, a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 60% were found to identify patients with AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.80). CONCLUSION: The SHOUT scoring system was derived and used to screen and identify patients that would ultimately become discharge failures, especially when using broad definitions of discharge failure. The SHOUT tool was internally validated and can be used to identify patients across a wide spectrum of discharge failure definitions.