Inequities among patient placement in emergency department hallway treatment spaces.

BACKGROUND: Limited capacity in the emergency department (ED) secondary to boarding and crowding has resulted in patients receiving care in hallways to provide access to timely evaluation and treatment. However, there are concerns raised by physicians and patients regarding a decrease in patient centered care and quality resulting from hallway care. We sought to explore social risk factors associated with hallway placement and operational outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Observational study between July 2017 and February 2020. Primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of patient placement in a hallway treatment space adjusting for patient demographics and ED operational factors. Secondary outcomes included left without being seen (LWBS), discharge against medical advice (AMA), elopement, 72-h ED revisit, 10-day ED revisit and escalation of care during boarding. RESULTS: Among 361,377 ED visits, 100,079 (27.7%) visits were assigned to hallway beds. Patient insurance coverage (Medicaid (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01,1.06) and Self-pay/Other (1.08, (1.03, 1.13))) with comparison to private insurance, and patient sex (Male (1.08, (1.06, 1.10))) with comparison to female sex are associated with higher odds of hallway placement but patient age, race, and language were not. These associations are adjusted for ED census, triage assigned severity, ED staffing, boarding level, and time effect, with social factors mutually adjusted. Additionally adjusting for patients' social factors, patients placed in hallways had higher odds of elopement (1.23 (1.07,1.41)), 72-h ED revisit (1.33 (1.08, 1.64)) and 10-day ED revisit (1.23 (1.11, 1.36)) comparing with patients placed in regular ED rooms. We did not find statistically significant associations between hallway placement and LWBS, discharge AMA, or escalation of care. CONCLUSION: While hallway usage is ad hoc, we find consistent differences in care delivery with those insured by Medicaid and self-pay or male sex being placed in hallway beds. Further work should examine how new front-end processes such as provider in triage or split flow may be associated with inequities in patient access to emergency and hospital care.

Imaging for appendicitis: should radiation-induced cancer risks affect modality selection?

PURPOSE: To compare life expectancy (LE) losses attributable to three imaging strategies for appendicitis in adults-computed tomography (CT), ultrasonography (US) followed by CT for negative or indeterminate US results, and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-by using a decision-analytic model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this model, for each imaging strategy, LE losses for 20-, 40-, and 65-year-old men and women were computed as a function of five key variables: baseline cohort LE, test performance, surgical mortality, risk of death from delayed diagnosis (missed appendicitis), and LE loss attributable to radiation-induced cancer death. Appendicitis prevalence, test performance, mortality rates from surgery and missed appendicitis, and radiation doses from CT were elicited from the published literature and institutional data. LE loss attributable to radiation exposure was projected by using a separate organ-specific model that accounted for anatomic coverage during a typical abdominopelvic CT examination. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate effects of model input variability on results. RESULTS: Outcomes across imaging strategies differed minimally-for example, for 20-year-old men, corresponding LE losses were 5.8 days (MR imaging), 6.8 days (combined US and CT), and 8.2 days (CT). This order was sensitive to differences in test performance but was insensitive to variation in radiation-induced cancer deaths. For example, in the same cohort, MR imaging sensitivity had to be 91% at minimum (if specificity were 100%), and MR imaging specificity had to be 62% at minimum (if sensitivity were 100%) to incur the least LE loss. Conversely, LE loss attributable to radiation exposure would need to decrease by 74-fold for combined US and CT, instead of MR imaging, to incur the least LE loss. CONCLUSION: The specific imaging strategy used to diagnose appendicitis minimally affects outcomes. Paradigm shifts to MR imaging owing to concerns over radiation should be considered only if MR imaging test performance is very high.

MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery for uterine fibroid treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a treatment strategy for symptomatic uterine fibroids that uses MRI-guided focused ultrasound as a first-line therapy relative to uterine artery embolization (UAE) or hysterectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We developed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost effectiveness of three first-line treatment strategies: MRI-guided focused ultrasound, UAE, and hysterectomy. Treatment-specific short- and long-term utilities, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were incorporated, allowing us to conduct an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, using a societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY to designate a strategy as cost effective. Sensitivity analyses were subsequently performed on all key parameters. RESULTS. In the base-case analysis, UAE as a first-line treatment of symptomatic fibroids was the most effective and expensive strategy (22.75 QALYs; $22,968), followed by MRI-guided focused ultrasound (22.73 QALYs; $20,252) and hysterectomy (22.54 QALYs; $11,253). MRI-guided focused ultrasound was cost effective relative to hysterectomy, with an associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $47,891/QALY. The ICER of UAE relative to MRI-guided focused ultrasound was $234,565/QALY, exceeding the WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, therefore rendering MRI-guided focused ultrasound also cost effective relative to UAE. In sensitivity analyses, results were robust to changes in most parameters but were sensitive to changes in probabilities of recurrence, symptom relief, and quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSION. First-line treatment of eligible women with MRI-guided focused ultra-sound is a cost-effective noninvasive strategy. For those not eligible for MRI-guided focused ultra-sound, UAE remains a cost-effective option. These recommendations integrate both the short- and long-term decrements in quality of life associated with the specific treatment modalities.

Sociodemographic Disparities in Queue Jumping for Emergency Department Care.

Importance: Emergency department (ED) triage models are intended to queue patients for treatment. In the absence of higher acuity, patients of the same acuity should room in order of arrival. Objective: To characterize disparities in ED care access as unexplained queue jumps (UQJ), or instances in which acuity and first come, first served principles are violated. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, cross-sectional study between July 2017 and February 2020. Participants were all ED patient arrivals at 2 EDs within a large Northeast health system. Data were analyzed from July to September 2022. Exposure: UQJ was defined as a patient being placed in a treatment space ahead of a patient of higher acuity or of a same acuity patient who arrived earlier. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were odds of a UQJ and association with ED outcomes of hallway placement, leaving before treatment complete, escalation to higher level of care while awaiting inpatient bed placement, and 72-hour ED revisitation. Secondary analysis examined UQJs among high acuity ED arrivals. Regression models (zero-inflated Poisson and logistic regression) adjusted for patient demographics and ED operational variables at time of triage. Results: Of 314 763 included study visits, 170 391 (54.1%) were female, the mean (SD) age was 50.46 (20.5) years, 132 813 (42.2%) patients were non-Hispanic White, 106 401 (33.8%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 66 465 (21.1%) were Hispanic or Latino. Overall, 90 698 (28.8%) patients experienced a queue jump, and 78 127 (24.8%) and 44 551 (14.2%) patients were passed over by a patient of the same acuity or lower acuity, respectively. A total of 52 959 (16.8%) and 23 897 (7.6%) patients received care ahead of a patient of the same acuity or higher acuity, respectively. Patient demographics including Medicaid insurance (incident rate ratio [IRR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.14), Black non-Hispanic race (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08), and Spanish as primary language (IRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) were independent social factors associated with being passed over. The odds of a patient receiving care ahead of others were lower for ED visits by Medicare insured (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), Medicaid insured (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85), Black non-Hispanic (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97), and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.91). Patients who were passed over by someone of the same triage severity level had higher odds of hallway bed placement (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) and leaving before disposition (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of ED patients in triage, there were consistent disparities among marginalized populations being more likely to experience a UQJ, hallway placement, and leaving without receiving treatment despite being assigned the same triage acuity as others. EDs should seek to standardize triage processes to mitigate conscious and unconscious biases that may be associated with timely access to emergency care.

The Impact of Delayed Symptomatic Treatment Implementation in the Intensive Care Unit.

We estimated the harm related to medication delivery delays across 12,474 medication administration instances in an intensive care unit using retrospective data in a large urban academic medical center between 2012 and 2015. We leveraged an instrumental variables (IV) approach that addresses unobserved confounds in this setting. We focused on nurse shift changes as disruptors of timely medication (vasodilators, antipyretics, and bronchodilators) delivery to estimate the impact of delay. The average delay around a nurse shift change was 60.8 min (p < 0.001) for antipyretics, 39.5 min (p < 0.001) for bronchodilators, and 57.1 min (p < 0.001) for vasodilators. This delay can increase the odds of developing a fever by 32.94%, tachypnea by 79.5%, and hypertension by 134%, respectively. Compared to estimates generated by a naïve regression approach, our IV estimates tend to be higher, suggesting the existence of a bias from providers prioritizing more critical patients.

Reducing ambulance diversion at hospital and regional levels: systemic review of insights from simulation models.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal solutions for reducing diversion without worsening emergency department (ED) crowding are unclear. We performed a systematic review of published simulation studies to identify: 1) the tradeoff between ambulance diversion and ED wait times; 2) the predicted impact of patient flow interventions on reducing diversion; and 3) the optimal regional strategy for reducing diversion. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review of articles using MEDLINE, Inspec, Scopus. Additional studies identified through bibliography review, Google Scholar, and scientific conference proceedings. STUDY SELECTION: Only simulations modeling ambulance diversion as a result of ED crowding or inpatient capacity problems were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent extraction by two authors using predefined data fields. RESULTS: We identified 5,116 potentially relevant records; 10 studies met inclusion criteria. In models that quantified the relationship between ED throughput times and diversion, diversion was found to only minimally improve ED waiting room times. Adding holding units for inpatient boarders and ED-based fast tracks, improving lab turnaround times, and smoothing elective surgery caseloads were found to reduce diversion considerably. While two models found a cooperative agreement between hospitals is necessary to prevent defensive diversion behavior by a hospital when a nearby hospital goes on diversion, one model found there may be more optimal solutions for reducing region wide wait times than a regional ban on diversion. CONCLUSION: Smoothing elective surgery caseloads, adding ED fast tracks as well as holding units for inpatient boarders, improving ED lab turnaround times, and implementing regional cooperative agreements among hospitals are promising avenues for reducing diversion.