The effect of increasing emergency department observation volumes on downstream admission rates.

Rising length of stay and inpatient boarding in emergency departments have directly affected patient satisfaction and nearly all provider-to-patient care metrics. Prior studies suggest that ED observation has significant clinical and financial benefits including decreasing hospitalization and length of stay. ED observation is one method long employed to shorten ED length of stay and to free up inpatient beds, yet many patients continue to be admitted to the hospital with an average hospital length of stay of only one day. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether vigorous tracking and provider reviews of one day hospital admits affected the utilization of ED observation and whether this correlated with significant change in rates of admission from observation status. Between September 2020 and May 2021, in a tertiary care hospital with an annual ED volume of 55,0000, chart reviews of 24-h inpatient discharges were initiated by two senior EM faculty to determine perceived suitability for ED observation. Non-punitive email reviews were then initiated with ED attending providers in order to encourage evaluation of whether these patients would have benefitted from being placed into observation. We then analyzed ED observation patient volumes and subsequent admission rates to the hospital from ED observation and compared these numbers to baseline ED observation volume and admission rates between September 2018 and May 2019. A total of 1448 reviews were conducted on 24-h discharges which correlated with an increase in utilization of ED observation from 11.77% (95% CI [11.62, 12.31]) of total ED volume in our control period to 14.21% (95% CI [13.84, 14.58]) during the study period. We found that the overall admission rate from ED observation increased from 20.12% (95% CI [18.97, 21.26]) baseline to 23.80% (95% CI [22.60, 25.00]) during the same time periods. Our data suggest that increasing the total number of patients placed into observation by 21% correlated with a relative increase in admission rates from ED observation by 18%. This would suggest that our efforts to potentially include more patients into our observation program led to a significant increase in subsequent admission rates. There is likely a balance that must be struck between under- and over-utilization of ED observation, and expanding ED observation may be an effective solution to hospital boarding and ED overcrowding.

Can Asking Emergency Physicians Whether or Not They Would Have Done Something Differently (WYHDSD) be a Useful Screening Tool to Identify Emergency Department Error?

BACKGROUND: Error in emergency medicine remains common and difficult to identify. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if questioning emergency physician reviewers as to whether or not they would have done something differently (Would you have done something differently? [WYHDSD]) can be a useful marker to identify error. METHODS: Prospective data were collected on all patients presenting to an academic emergency department (ED) between 2017 and 2021. All cases who met the following criteria were identified: 1) returned to ED within 72 h and admitted; 2) transferred to intensive care unit from floor within 24 h of admission; 3) expired within 24 h of arrival; or 4) patient or provider complaint. Cases were randomly assigned to emergency physicians and reviewed using an electronic tool to assess for error and adverse events. Reviewers were then mandated to answer WYHDSD in the management of the case. RESULTS: During the study period, 6672 cases were reviewed. Of the 5857 cases where reviewers would not have done something differently, 5847 cases were found to have no error. The question WYHDSD had a sensitivity of 97.4% in predicting error and a negative predictive value of 99.8%. CONCLUSION: There was a significantly higher rate of near misses, adverse events, and errors attributable to an adverse event in cases where the reviewer would have done something differently (WHDSD) compared with cases where they would not. Therefore, asking reviewers if they WHDSD could potentially be used as a marker to identify error and improve patient care in the ED.

Assessing resident and attending error and adverse events in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data looking at resident error or contrasting errors and adverse events among residents and attendings. This type of data could be vital in developing and enhancing educational curricula OBJECTIVES: Using an integrated, readily accessible electronic error reporting system the objective of this study is to compare the frequency and types of error and adverse events attributed to emergency medicine residents with those attributed to emergency medicine attendings. METHODS: Individual events were classified into errors and/or adverse events, and were attributed to one of three groups-residents only, attendings only, or both (if the event had both resident and attending involvement). Error and adverse events were also classified into five different categories of events-systems, documentation, diagnostic, procedural and treatment. The proportion of error events were compared between the residents only and the attendings only group using a one-sample test of proportions. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of a total of 115 observed events over the 11-month data collection period, 96 (83.4%) were errors. A majority of these errors, 40 (41.7%), were attributed to both residents and attendings, 20 (20.8%) were attributed to residents only, and 36 (37.5%) were attributed to attendings only. Of the 19 adverse events, 14 (73.7%) were attributed to both residents and attendings, and 5 (26.3%) adverse events were attributed to attendings only. No adverse events were attributed solely to residents (Table 1). Excluding events attributed to both residents and attendings, there was a significant difference between the proportion of errors attributed to attendings only (64.3%, CI: 50.6, 76.0), and residents only (35.7%, CI: 24.0, 49.0), p = 0.03. (Table 2). There was no significant difference between the residents only and the attendings only group in the distribution of errors and adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.162). (Table 2). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in errors that did not result in adverse events and the rate of errors proceeding to adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.15). (Table 3). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the distribution of the types of errors and adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.09). Treatment related errors were the most common error types, for both the attending and the resident groups. CONCLUSIONS: Resident error, somewhat expectedly, is most commonly related to treatment interventions, and rarely is due to an individual resident mistake. Resident error instead seems to reflect concomitant error on the part of the attending. Error, in general as well as adverse events, are more likely to be attributed to an attending alone rather than to a resident.

Year-to-year trends in emergency medicine morbidity and mortality cases.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) rounds are peer review conferences during which cases with adverse outcomes and difficult management decisions are presented. Their primary objective is to learn from complications and errors, modify behavior and judgment based on previous experiences, and prevent repetition of errors leading to complications. The objective of this study was to determine if M&M conferences can reduce repetitive error making demonstrated by a shift of the incidence of cases presented at M&M by chief complaint (CC) and experience of attendings. METHODS: All M&M cases from 1/1/2014-12/31/2017 derived from an urban, tertiary referral Emergency Department were reviewed and grouped into 12 different CC categories and by attending years of experience (1-4, 5-9 and 10+). Number and percent of M&M cases by CC and years of attending experience were calculated by year and a chi-squared analysis was performed. RESULTS: 350 M&M cases were presented over the four-year study period. There was a significant difference between CC categories from year-to-year (p < 0.001). Attendings with 1-4 years of experience had the majority of cases (46.3%), while those with 5-9 years had the fewest total cases (15.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a persistent significant difference across CC categories of M&M cases from year-to-year, with down-trending and up-trending of specific CCs suggesting that M&M presentation may prevent repetitive errors. Newer attendings show increased rates of M&M cases relative to more experienced attendings. There may be a distinctive educational benefit of participation at M&M for attendings with fewer than five years of clinical experience.

Three- vs. Four-Year Emergency Medicine Training Programs.

Postgraduate training in emergency medicine (EM) varies in length among different programs. This fact creates a dilemma for applicants to the specialty of EM and prevents EM educators from reaching a consensus regarding the optimal length of training. Historically, EM training existed in the postgraduate year (PGY) 1-3, 2-4, and 1-4 formats, until the PGY 2-4 program became obsolete in 2011-2012. Currently, three-quarters of EM programs follow the PGY 1-3 format. In this article, we clarify for the applicants the main differences between the PGY 1-3 and PGY 1-4 formats. We also discuss the institutional, personal, and graduate considerations that explain why an institution or an individual would choose one format over the other.

The Absence of Fever Is Associated With Higher Mortality and Decreased Antibiotic and IV Fluid Administration in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates whether emergency department septic shock patients without a fever (reported or measured) receive less IV fluids, have decreased antibiotic administration, and suffer increased in-hospital mortality. DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study of patients with shock. SETTING: The study was conducted in an urban, academic emergency department. PATIENTS: The original study enrolled consecutive adult (aged 18 yr or older) emergency department patients from November 11, 2012, to September 23, 2013, who met one of the following shock criteria: 1) systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg after at least 1L IV fluids, 2) new vasopressor requirement, or 3) systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg and IV fluids held for concern of fluid overload. The current study is limited to patients with septic shock. Patients were grouped as febrile if they had a subjective fever or a measured temperature >100.4°F documented in the emergency department; afebrile patients lacked both. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 378 patients with septic shock, 207 of 378 (55%; 50-60%) were febrile by history or measurement. Afebrile patients had lower rates of antibiotic administration in the emergency department (81% vs 94%; p < 0.01), lower mean volumes of IV fluids (2,607 vs 3,013 mL; p < 0.01), and higher in-hospital mortality rates (33% vs 11%; p < 0.01). After adjusting for bicarbonate less than 20 mEq/L, lactate concentration, respiratory rate greater than or equal to 24 breaths/min, emergency department antibiotics, and emergency department IV fluids volume, being afebrile remained a significant predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.2-8.2; area under the curve = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: In emergency department patients with septic shock, afebrile patients received lower rates of emergency department antibiotic administration, lower mean IV fluids volume, and suffered higher in-hospital mortality.

Hospital ward transfer to intensive care unit as a quality marker in emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: Minimizing and preventing adverse events and medical errors in the emergency department (ED) is an ongoing area of quality improvement. Identifying these events remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of tracking patients transferred to the ICU within 24h of admission from the ED as a marker of preventable errors and adverse events. METHODS: From November 2011 through June 2016, we prospectively collected data for all patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care academic ED. We utilized an automated electronic tracking system to identify ED patients who were admitted to a hospital ward and then transferred to the ICU within 24h. Reviewers screened for possible error or adverse event and if discovered the case was referred to the departmental Quality Assurance (QA) committee for deliberations and consensus agreement. RESULTS: Of 96,377 ward admissions, 921 (1%) patients were subsequently transferred to the ICU within 24h of ED presentation. Of these 165 (19%) were then referred to the QA committee for review. Total rate of adverse events regardless of whether or not an error occurred was 2.1%, 19/921 (95% CI 1.4% to 3.0%). Medical error on the part of the ED was 2.2%, 20/921 (95% CI 1.5% to 3.1%) and ED Preventable Error in 1.1%, 10/921 (95% CI 0.6% to 1.8%). CONCLUSION: Tracking patients admitted to the hospital from the ED who are transferred to the ICU <24h after admission may be a valuable marker for adverse events and preventable errors in the ED.

Outcomes in variceal hemorrhage following the use of a balloon tamponade device.

BACKGROUND: Variceal hemorrhage is associated with high morbidity and mortality. A balloon tamponade device (BTD), such as the Sengstaken-Blakemore or Minnesota tube, may be used in cases of variceal hemorrhage. While these devices may be effective at controlling acute bleeding, the effect on patient outcomes remains less clear. We sought to describe the number of patients with variceal hemorrhage and a BTD who survive to discharge, survive to one-year, and develop complications related to a BTD. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified patients at a single, tertiary care center who underwent placement of a BTD for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage between 2003 and 2014. Patient characteristics and outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 34 patients with a BTD were identified. Median age was 57.5 (IQR 47-63) and 76% (26/34) were male. Approximately 59% (20/34) of patients survived to discharge, and 41% (13/32) were alive after one year. Two patients were lost to follow-up. Of those surviving to discharge, 95% (19/20) had undergone transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), while 36% (5/14) of patients who did not survive to discharge had TIPS (p<0.01). One complication, an esophageal perforation, was identified and managed conservatively. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients undergoing BTD placement for variceal hemorrhage, approximately 59% of patients were alive at discharge and 41% were alive after one year. Placement of a BTD as a temporizing measure in the management of acute variceal hemorrhage may be helpful, particularly when utilized as a bridge to more definitive therapy.

A Model for Electronic Handoff Between the Emergency Department and Inpatient Units.

BACKGROUND: Patient handoffs between units can introduce risk and time delays. Verbal communication is the most common mode of handoff, but requires coordination between different parties. OBJECTIVE: We present an asynchronous patient handoff process supported by a structured electronic signout for admissions from the emergency department (ED) to the inpatient medicine service. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients admitted to the medical service from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015 at a tertiary referral center with 520 inpatient beds and 57,000 ED visits annually. We developed a model for structured electronic, asynchronous signout that includes an option to request verbal communication after review of the electronic handoff information. RESULTS: During the 2010 academic year (AY) all admissions used verbal communication for signout. The following academic year, electronic signout was implemented and 77.5% of admissions were accepted with electronic signout. The rate increased to 87.3% by AY 2014. The rate of transfer from floor to an intensive care unit within 24 h for the year before and 4 years after implementation of the electronic signout system was collected and calculated with 95% confidence interval. There was no statistically significant difference between the year prior and the years after the implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our handoff model sought to maximize the opportunity for asynchronous signout while still providing the opportunity for verbal signout when deemed necessary. The process was rapidly adopted with the majority of patients being accepted electronically.

Can medical record reviewers reliably identify errors and adverse events in the ED?

BACKGROUND: Chart review has been the mainstay of medical quality assurance practices since its introduction more than a century ago. The validity of chart review, however, has been vitiated by a lack of methodological rigor. OBJECTIVES: By measuring the degree of interrater agreement among a 13-member review board of emergency physicians, we sought to validate the reliability of a chart review-based quality assurance process using computerized screening based on explicit case parameters. METHODS: All patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center emergency department (annual volume of 57,000 patients) between November 2012 and November 2013 were screened electronically. Cases were programmatically flagged for review according to explicit criteria: return within 72hours, procedural evaluation, floor-to-ICU transfer within 24hours of admission, death within 24hours of admission, physician complaints, and patient complaints. Each case was reviewed independently by a 13-member emergency department quality assurance committee all of whom were board certified in emergency medicine and trained in the use of the tool. None of the reviewers were involved in the care of the specific patients reviewed by them. Reviewers used a previously validated 8-point Likert scale to rate the (1) coordination of patient care, (2) presence and severity of adverse events, (3) degree of medical error, and (4) quality of medical judgment. Agreement among reviewers was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each parameter. RESULTS: Agreement and the degree of significance for each parameter were as follows: coordination of patient care (ICC=0.67; P<.001), presence and severity of adverse events (ICC=0.52; P=.001), degree of medical error (ICC=0.72; P<.001), and quality of medical judgment (ICC=0.67; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Agreement in the chart review process can be achieved among physician-reviewers. The degree of agreement attainable is comparable to or superior to that of similar studies reported to date. These results highlight the potential for the use of computerized screening, explicit criteria, and training of expert reviewers to improve the reliability and validity of chart review-based quality assurance.

Utility of Procedural Sedation as a Marker for Quality Assurance in Emergency Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission requires health care organizations to monitor and evaluate procedural sedation. However, the utility of mandatory review of procedural sedation in evaluating health care quality is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether procedural sedation is a useful marker for evaluating error in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We prospectively collected data for patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center ED between October 2013 and June 2015. We used an automated, electronic tracking system to identify patients who underwent procedural sedation. We randomly assigned cases to physician reviewers. Reviewers used a structured tool to determine the presence of error and adverse events. If a reviewer felt that the case had an error or adverse event, it was referred to a quality assurance (QA) committee, which made a final determination as to whether or not an error or adverse event occurred. RESULTS: There were 166 cases of procedural sedation reviewed. Two errors were identified, for an error rate of 1.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.003-0.043). Both errors occurred during the use of propofol to facilitate upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Neither error resulted in an adverse event. One adverse event was identified that was unrelated to physician error (0.6%; 95% CI 0.001-0.033). CONCLUSION: Routine review of procedural sedation performed in the ED offers little advantage over existing QA markers. Directed review of high-risk cases, such as those involving endoscopy or other longer-duration procedures, may be more useful. Future studies focusing quality review on projected high-risk sedation cases may establish more valuable markers for QA review.

Assessing the rates of error and adverse events in the ED.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of errors and adverse events in emergency medicine is poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to systematically determine the rates and types of errors and adverse events in an academic, tertiary care emergency department (ED). METHODS: Prospective data were collected on all patients presenting to a tertiary-care academic medical center ED with an annual census of 55,000 patients between January 2009 and November 2012. Cases of patients meeting predetermined criteria were systematically identified by an electronic medical record system. Criteria for review included patients who (1) returned to the ED within 72 hours and were admitted on their second visit, (2) were admitted from the ED to the floor and then transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 hours, (3) expired within 24 hours of ED arrival, (4) required airway management, or (5) were referred to the QA committee as the result of complaints. Cases were randomly assigned to individual physicians not involved with the care. All cases were reviewed using a structured electronic tool that assessed the occurrence of error and adverse events. Institutional review board jurisdiction was waived by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center IRB. RESULTS: During the study period, 152,214 cases were screened and 2131 cases (1.4%) met prespecified criteria for review. The incidence of error in these cases was 9.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.3%-10.8%), representing an overall incidence of 0.13% among all ED patients. In cases that involved error, 50.5% occurred among patients who returned to the ED within 72 hours; 17.3% occurred among floor-to-ICU transfers; 5.4% occurred among mortality cases; 2.0% occurred among airway cases; and 24.8% occurred among cases referred as the result of complaints. The incidence of adverse events in the reviewed cohort was 8.3% (CI, 7.2%-9.6%), representing an overall incidence of 0.11% among all ED patients. In cases that involved adverse events, 48.6% occurred among patients who returned to the ED within 72 hours; 16.4% occurred among floor-to-ICU transfers; 9.0% occurred among mortality cases; 1.1% occurred among airway cases; and 24.9% occurred among cases referred as the result of complaints. CONCLUSION: Although the overall incidence of error and adverse events in EDs is low, the likelihood of such events is markedly increased among patients who return to the ED within 72 hours, among patients who require floor-to-ICU transfer within 24 hours, and among those whose cases come to attention as the result of complaints.

Observation vs admission in syncope: can we predict short length of stays?

BACKGROUND: Rising health care costs demands justifying prolonged hospitalization for syncope, yet predictors of shorter length of stay (LOS) have not been identified. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to identify independent predictors of LOS for syncope patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We performed an analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of ED syncope patients. We examined risk factors from the patient's ED presentation and workup and used Spearman rank correlation to evaluate the relationship between these risk factors and LOS in a logistic regression model for prediction of hospitalization less than 1 day. RESULTS: Of 568 total syncope patients, 350 (61.6%) were admitted and comprise the study cohort. Mean age was 57 years (SD, ±25 years); 39.6% were male. Length of hospitalization was less than or equal to 1 in 179 patients (51.1%). The number of risk factors was associated with LOS (P < .001). Most hospitalized patients with less than 1 predictor were hospitalized for less than 1 day (152/272; 55.9%). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, clear vasovagal etiology was positively correlated with LOS less than 1 day (odds ratio [OR], 1.92), whereas dysrhythmia (OR, 0.3), coronary artery disease (OR, 0.33), abnormal vital signs (OR, 0.35), implantable defibrillator/pacemaker (OR, 0.29), anemia/gastrointestinal bleeding (OR, 0.34), and central nervous system abnormalities (OR, 0.09; P < .05 for all) were negatively correlated with LOS less than 1 day. Area under the curve for model accuracy was moderate: 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.76). CONCLUSION: Patients with less than 1 predictor of prolonged stay, who present to the ED with syncope, are unlikely to require hospitalization of more than 1 day. A set of predictors may help define which patients are appropriate for 24-hour observation rather than full hospitalization.

Prospective evaluation of daily performance metrics to reduce emergency department length of stay for surgical consults.

BACKGROUND: As part of a quality improvement initiative to reduce Emergency Department (ED) length of stay (LOS) for surgical consult patients, we e-mailed performance metrics to key stakeholders on a daily basis. ED and Surgery leadership used these daily metrics to identify and remedy contributing factors for increased ED LOS in patients who received surgical consults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a quality improvement process driven by a daily performance metric e-mail would be associated with a change in ED LOS for surgical consult patients. METHODS: Prospective before-after study looking at ED LOS for surgical consult patients after an e-mail intervention at a tertiary academic teaching hospital. All consecutive adult ED patients between July 1, 2010 and October 1, 2010 who received a general surgical consult were enrolled. The primary outcome measure was ED LOS, and secondary outcome measure was time to consultation. RESULTS: There were 916 patients who had surgical consults placed during the study period; 459 patients presented before the intervention and 457 patients presented after the intervention. The median LOS decreased 54 min, from 463 min (interquartile range [IQR] 326-617) before the intervention to 409 min (IQR 294.5-528.5) after the intervention (p < 0.001). Time to consultation decreased 25 min, from a median of 160 min (IQR 87-265) to 135 min (IQR 70-239.5) (p = 0.002). There was no difference in age, severity, number of consults, or disposition. There was also no difference in median LOS for other consultation services or in previous years during the same time period. CONCLUSIONS: ED LOS and time to consultation were decreased for surgical consult patients after initiation of daily performance metric e-mails.

Emergency department observation implementation guide.

Emergency department (ED) crowding poses significant operational challenges to hospitals. One strategy to address these issues is the implementation of an ED observation (EDO) unit. EDO involves placing patients in observation status after their initial evaluation, allowing for continued assessment, treatment, and the determination of a safe disposition. This paper provides a comprehensive guide for ED leaders on the implementation of ED observation in their departments. It includes a checklist summarizing key implementation points, operational and financial considerations, staffing and location planning, patient selection, clinical care protocols, documentation and communication processes, securing buy-in from stakeholders, and outcome measurement. The guide also highlights the updated billing codes based on the 2023 updated Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) guidelines. Successful implementation of an EDO program has shown benefits such as improved patient flow, enhanced revenue generation, reduced costs, and comparable clinical outcomes. This guide aims to equip ED leaders with the necessary knowledge and tools to implement and manage an effective ED observation program in their departments, ultimately improving the overall efficiency of emergency care delivery.

Predictors of bacteremia in emergency department patients with suspected infection.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study is to identify clinical variables associated with bacteremia. Such data could provide a rational basis for blood culture testing in emergency department (ED) patients with suspected infection. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of ED patients with suspected infection. Data collected included demographics, vital signs, medical history, suspected source of infection, laboratory and blood culture results and outcomes. Bacteremia was defined as a positive blood culture by Centers for Disease Control criteria. Clinical variables associated with bacteremia on univariate logistic regression were entered into a multivariable model. RESULTS: There were 5630 patients enrolled with an average age of 59.9 ± 19.9 years, and 54% were female. Blood cultures were obtained on 3310 (58.8%). There were 409 (12.4%) positive blood cultures, of which 68 (16.6%) were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and 161 (39.4%) were Gram negatives. Ten covariates (respiratory failure, vasopressor use, neutrophilia, bandemia, thrombocytopenia, indwelling venous catheter, abnormal temperature, suspected line or urinary infection, or endocarditis) were associated with all-cause bacteremia in the final model (c-statistic area under the curve [AUC], 0.71). Additional factors associated with MRSA bacteremia included end-stage renal disease (odds ratio [OR], 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-7.8) and diabetes (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.6) (AUC, 0.73). Factors strongly associated with Gram-negative bacteremia included vasopressor use in the ED (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.6), bandemia (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.3-5.3), and suspected urinary infection (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.8-5.8) (AUC, 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several clinical factors associated with bacteremia as well as MRSA and Gram-negative subtypes, but the magnitude of their associations is limited. Combining these covariates into a multivariable model moderately increases their predictive value.

The feasibility and accuracy of point-of-care lactate measurement in emergency department patients with suspected infection.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies show that lactate is a useful prognostic marker in sepsis. OBJECTIVE: To study the feasibility and accuracy of a point-of-care (POC) analyzer capable of performing bedside serum lactate measurements; and to determine if other measurements (pH, base excess) are predictive of mortality. DESIGN: prospective cohort study of adult (age 18 years or older) Emergency Department (ED) patients with suspected infection during the study period of May 2006 through March 2007. SETTING: A 55,000-annual-visit urban tertiary care ED. INTERVENTION: A point-of-care device (i-STAT, Abbott Point of Care Inc., Princeton, NJ) was deployed using a standardized training and quality assurance process. Using POC testing, we measured serum lactate, pH, and base excess, as well as concomitant lactate measurement via a central laboratory. STATISTICS: Area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operator characteristic curve, Bland-Altman statistics along with a correlation coefficient, and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals reported. RESULTS: There were 699 patients enrolled, of whom 34 (4.9%) died. The AUCs for mortality prediction were: POC lactate 0.72, laboratory lactate 0.70, pH measurement 0.60, and base excess 0.60. Bland-Altman showed that POC lactate was, on average, 0.32 (95% confidence interval -0.35-0.98) lower than laboratory lactate, with agreement kappa = 0.97. CONCLUSIONS: A point-of-care testing device provides a reliable and feasible way to measure serum lactate at the bedside. The pH and base excess were less helpful.

Physician Well-Being.

Burnout is a work-related condition. Although stress may be a part of emergency medicine, excessive levels of chronic stress can lead to maladaptive behaviors and burnout. Burnout can lead to decreased physician longevity and performance and poorer patient outcomes. The first step is recognizing burnout in providers. Efforts can then be made to identify modifiable or unnecessary sources of stress to help reduce chronic stress and burnout. Solutions should be found to eliminate or ameliorate individual-level and system-level sources of stress.

The Ethics of Error in Medicine.

The practice of medicine forces medical practitioners to make difficult and challenging choices on a daily basis. On the one hand we are obligated to cure with every resource available, while on the other hand we put the patient at risk because our treatments are flawed. To understand the ethics of error in medicine, its moral value, and the effects, error must first be defined. However, definition of error remains elusive, and its incidence has been extraordinarily difficult to quantify. Yet, a health care system that acknowledges error as a consequence of normative ethical practice must create systems to minimize error. Error reduction, in turn, should attempt to decrease patient harm and improve the entire health care system. We discuss a number of ethical and moral considerations that arise from practicing medicine despite anticipated error.

Using a rule-based system to define error in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of peer-reviewed cases for error is key to quality assurance (QA) in emergency medicine, but defining error to ensure reviewer agreement and reproducibility remains elusive. The objective of this study was to create a consensus-based set of rules to systematically identify medical errors. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study of all cases presented for peer review at an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center emergency department (ED) quality assurance (QA) committee between October 13, 2015, and September 14, 2016. Our hospital uses an electronic system enabling staff to self-identify QA issues for subsequent review. In addition, physician or patient complaints, 72-hour returns with admission, death within 24 hours, floor transfers to ICU < 24 hours, and morbidity and mortality conference cases are automatic triggers for review. Trained reviewers not involved in the patient's care use a structured 8-point Likert scale to assess for error and preventable or non-preventable adverse events. Cases where reviewers perceived a need for additional treatment, or that caused patient harm, are referred to a 20-member committee of emergency department leadership, attendings, residents, and nurses for consensus review. For this study, "rules" were proposed by the reviewers identifying the error and validated by consensus during each meeting. The committee then decided if a rule had been broken (error) or not broken (judgment call). If an error could not be phrased in terms of a rule broken, then it would not be considered an error. The rules were then evaluated by 2 reviewers and organized by theme into categories to determine common errors in emergency medicine. RESULTS: We identified 108 episodes of rules broken in 103 cases within a database of 920 QA reviewed cases. In cases where a rule was broken and therefore an error was scored, the following 5 major themes emerged: (1) not acquiring necessary information (eg, not completing a relevant physical exam), N = 33 (31%); (2) not acting on data that were acquired (eg, abnormal vital signs or labs), N = 25 (23%); (3) knowledge gaps by clinicians (eg, not knowing to reduce a hernia), N = 16 (15%); (4) communication gaps (eg, discharge instructions), N = 17 (16%); and (5) systems issues (eg, improper patient registration), N = 17 (16%). CONCLUSION: The development of consensus-based rules may result in a more standardized and practical definition of error in emergency medicine to be used as a QA tool and a basis for research. The most common type of rule broken was not acquiring necessary information. A rule-based definition of medical error in emergency medicine may identify key areas for risk reduction strategies, help standardize medical QA, and improve patient care and physician education.