Choosing wisely in emergency medicine: Early results and insights from the ACEP emergency quality network (E-QUAL).

PURPOSE: To characterize performance among ED sites participating in the Emergency Quality Network (E-QUAL) Avoidable Imaging Initiative for clinical targets on the American College of Emergency Physicians Choosing Wisely list. METHODS: This was an observational study of quality improvement (QI) data collected from hospital-based ED sites in 2017-2018. Participating EDs reported imaging utilization rates (UR) and common QI practices for three Choosing Wisely targets: Atraumatic Low Back Pain, Syncope, or Minor Head Injury. RESULTS: 305 ED sites participated in the initiative. Among all ED sites, the mean imaging UR for Atraumatic Low Back Pain was 34.7% (IQR 26.3%-42.6%) for XR, 19.1% (IQR 11.4%-24.9%) for CT, and 0.09% (IQR 0%-0.9%) for MRI. The mean CT UR for Syncope was 50.0% (IQR 38.0%-61.4%). The mean CT UR for Minor Head Injury was 72.6% (IQR 65.6%-81.7%). ED sites with sustained participation showed significant decreases in CT UR in 2017 compared to 2018 for Syncope (56.4% vs 48.0%; 95% CI: -12.7%, -4.1%) and Minor Head Injury (76.3% vs 72.1%; 95% CI: -7.3%, -1.1%). There was no significant change in imaging UR for Atraumatic Back Pain for XR (36.0% vs 33.3%; 95% CI: -5.9%, -0;5%), CT (20.1% vs 17.7%; 95% CI: -5.1%, -0.4%) or MRI (0.8% vs 0.7%, 95% CI: -0.4%, -0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Early data from the E-QUAL Avoidable Imaging Initiative suggests QI interventions could potentially improve imaging stewardship and reduce low-value care. Further efforts to translate the Choosing Wisely recommendations into practice should promote data-driven benchmarking and learning collaboratives to achieve sustained practice improvement.

Preliminary Performance on the New CMS Sepsis-1 National Quality Measure: Early Insights From the Emergency Quality Network (E-QUAL).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe current hospital-level performance for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) quality measure and qualitatively assess emergency department (ED) sepsis quality improvement best practice implementation. METHODS: Using a standardized Web-based submission portal, we surveyed quality improvement data from volunteer hospital-based EDs participating in the Emergency Quality Network Sepsis Initiative. Each hospital submitted preliminary SEP-1 local chart review data, using existing Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definitions. We report descriptive statistics of SEP-1 data availability and performance. The primary outcome for this study was SEP-1 bundle compliance, defined as the proportion of all severe sepsis and septic shock cases receiving all required bundle elements, and secondary outcomes included conditional compliance on reported SEP-1 numerator components and ED implementation of sepsis quality improvement best practices. RESULTS: A total of 50 EDs participated in the survey; 74% were nonteaching sites and 26% were affiliated with academic centers. Of all participating EDs, 80% were in regions with relatively high population density. The mean hospital SEP-1 bundle compliance was 54% (interquartile range 30% to 75%). Bundle compliance improved during fiscal year 2016 from 39% to 57%. Broad variation existed for each bundle component, with intravenous fluid resuscitation and repeated lactate bundle elements having the widest variation and largest gaps in quality. At least one consensus sepsis quality improvement best practice implementation occurred in 92% of participating sites. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data on SEP-1 performance suggest wide hospital-level variation in performance, with modest improvement during the first year of data collection.

Practice structure and quality improvement activities among emergency departments in the Emergency Quality (E-QUAL) Network.

OBJECTIVES: Little academic investigation has been done to describe emergency department (ED) practice structure and quality improvement activities. Our objective was to describe staffing, payment mechanisms, and quality improvement activities among EDs in a nationwide quality improvement network and also stratify results to descriptively compare (1) single- versus multi-site EDs and (2) small-group versus large-group EDs. METHODS: Observational study examining EDs that completed activities for the 2018 wave of the Emergency Quality Network (E-QUAL), a voluntary network of EDs nationwide that self-report quality improvement activities. EDs were defined as single-site or multi-site based on self-reported billing practices; additionally, EDs were defined as large-group if they and a majority of other sites with the same group name also identified as multi-site. All other sites were deemed small-group. RESULTS: Data from 377 EDs were included. For staffing, the median number of clinicians was 17 overall (16 single-site; 19 multi-site). For payment, 376 of 377 EDs (99.7%) participated in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System. Thirty-five EDs (9.2%) participated in a federal alternative payment model, and 19 (5.0%) participated in a commercial alternative payment model. For quality improvement, single- and multi-site EDs reported similar progress on quality improvement strategies; however, small-group EDs reported more advanced quality improvement strategies compared to large-group EDs for 8/10 quality improvement strategies included in a survey (eg, "achieved a formal plan to eliminate waste"). CONCLUSION: Among EDs in E-QUAL, staffing, payment, and quality improvement activities are similar between single- and multi-site EDs. Group-level analysis suggests that practice structure may influence adoption of quality improvement strategies. Future work is needed to further evaluate practice structure and its influence on quality improvement activities and quality.

Urban and Rural Emergency Department Performance on National Quality Metrics for Sepsis Care in the United States.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) developed national quality measures for emergency department (ED) sepsis care. Like care for many conditions, meeting sepsis quality metrics can vary between settings. We sought to examine and compare sepsis care quality in rural vs urban hospital-based EDs. METHODS: We analyzed data from EDs participating in the national Emergency Quality Network (E-QUAL). We collected preliminary performance data on both the CMS measure (SEP-1) and the ACEP measures via manual chart review. We analyzed SEP-1 data at the hospital level based on existing CMS definitions and analyzed ACEP measure data at the patient level. We report descriptive statistics of performance variation in rural and urban EDs. FINDINGS: Rural EDs comprised 58 of the EDs reporting SEP-1 results and 405 rural patient charts in the manual review. Of sites reporting SEP-1 results, 44% were rural and demonstrated better aggregate SEP-1 bundle adherence than urban EDs (79% vs 71%; P = .049). Both urban and rural hospitals reported high levels of compliance with the ACEP recommended initial actions of obtaining lactate and blood cultures, with urban EDs outperforming rural EDs on metrics of IV fluid administration and antibiotics (74% urban vs 60% rural; P ≤  .001; 91% urban vs 84% rural; P ≤  .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis care at both rural and urban EDs often achieves success with national metrics. However, performance on individual components of ED sepsis care demonstrates opportunities for improved processes of care at rural EDs.