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.

Coupled laboratory and field investigations resolve microbial interactions that underpin persistence in hydraulically fractured shales.

Hydraulic fracturing is one of the industrial processes behind the surging natural gas output in the United States. This technology inadvertently creates an engineered microbial ecosystem thousands of meters below Earth's surface. Here, we used laboratory reactors to perform manipulations of persisting shale microbial communities that are currently not feasible in field scenarios. Metaproteomic and metabolite findings from the laboratory were then corroborated using regression-based modeling performed on metagenomic and metabolite data from more than 40 produced fluids from five hydraulically fractured shale wells. Collectively, our findings show that Halanaerobium, Geotoga, and Methanohalophilus strain abundances predict a significant fraction of nitrogen and carbon metabolites in the field. Our laboratory findings also exposed cryptic predatory, cooperative, and competitive interactions that impact microorganisms across fractured shales. Scaling these results from the laboratory to the field identified mechanisms underpinning biogeochemical reactions, yielding knowledge that can be harnessed to potentially increase energy yields and inform management practices in hydraulically fractured shales.

The Influence of Medicare for All on Reimbursement for Emergency Care Treat-and-Release Visits.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Single-payer health care is supported by most Americans, but the effect of single payer on any particular sector of the health care market has not been well explored. We examine the effect of 2 potential single-payer designs, Medicare for All and an alternative including Medicare and Medicaid, on total payments and out-of-pocket spending for treat-and-release emergency care (patients discharged after an emergency department [ED] visit). METHODS: We used the 2013 to 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to determine estimates of payments made for ED visits by insurance type, and the 2015 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to estimate the proportion of ED visits covered by each insurance type. RESULTS: We found that total payments were predicted to increase from $85.5 billion to $89.0 billion (range $81.3 to $99.8 billion) in the Medicare-only scenario and decrease to $79.4 billion (range $71.6 to $87.2 billion) under Medicare/Medicaid, whereas out-of-pocket costs were predicted to decrease from $116 per visit to $45 with Medicare and to $36 with Medicare/Medicaid. CONCLUSION: In this study of ED treat-and-release patients, a transition to a Medicare for All system may increase ED reimbursement and reduce consumer out-of-pocket costs, whereas a system that maintains Medicaid in addition to Medicare could reduce total payments for emergency care.

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.

Comparative genomics and physiology of the genus Methanohalophilus, a prevalent methanogen in hydraulically fractured shale.

About 60% of natural gas production in the United States comes from hydraulic fracturing of unconventional reservoirs, such as shales or organic-rich micrites. This process inoculates and enriches for halotolerant microorganisms in these reservoirs over time, resulting in a saline ecosystem that includes methane producing archaea. Here, we survey the biogeography of methanogens across unconventional reservoirs, and report that members of genus Methanohalophilus are recovered from every hydraulically fractured unconventional reservoir sampled by metagenomics. We provide the first genomic sequencing of three isolate genomes, as well as two metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs). Utilizing six other previously sequenced isolate genomes and MAGs, we perform comparative analysis of the 11 genomes representing this genus. This genomic investigation revealed distinctions between surface and subsurface derived genomes that are consistent with constraints encountered in each environment. Genotypic differences were also uncovered between isolate genomes recovered from the same well, suggesting niche partitioning among closely related strains. These genomic substrate utilization predictions were then confirmed by physiological investigation. Fine-scale microdiversity was observed in CRISPR-Cas systems of Methanohalophilus, with genomes from geographically distinct unconventional reservoirs sharing spacers targeting the same viral population. These findings have implications for augmentation strategies resulting in enhanced biogenic methane production in hydraulically fractured unconventional reservoirs.

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.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Thiamine as a Metabolic Resuscitator in Septic Shock: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if intravenous thiamine would reduce lactate in patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Two US hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult patients with septic shock and elevated (> 3 mmol/L) lactate between 2010 and 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Thiamine 200 mg or matching placebo twice daily for 7 days or until hospital discharge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was lactate levels 24 hours after the first study dose. Of 715 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 88 patients were enrolled and received study drug. There was no difference in the primary outcome of lactate levels at 24 hours after study start between the thiamine and placebo groups (median: 2.5 mmol/L [1.5, 3.4] vs. 2.6 mmol/L [1.6, 5.1], p = 0.40). There was no difference in secondary outcomes including time to shock reversal, severity of illness and mortality. 35% of the patients were thiamine deficient at baseline. In this predefined subgroup, those in the thiamine treatment group had statistically significantly lower lactate levels at 24 hours (median 2.1 mmol/L [1.4, 2.5] vs. 3.1 [1.9, 8.3], p = 0.03). There was a statistically significant decrease in mortality over time in those receiving thiamine in this subgroup (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Administration of thiamine did not improve lactate levels or other outcomes in the overall group of patients with septic shock and elevated lactate. In those with baseline thiamine deficiency, patients in the thiamine group had significantly lower lactate levels at 24 hours and a possible decrease in mortality over time.

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.

The effect of visitation restrictions on ED error.

EDs restricted visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic on the assumption that the risks of disease spread outweighed the psychological benefits of liberal visitation. But data suggest that beyond providing emotional support, family and caregivers can clarify history, improve patient monitoring, and advocate for patients-actions that can improve quality of care. Our objective was to assess whether removing visitors from the bedside contributed to errors in emergency care. We reviewed a database of medical errors covering visits from 11/15/17 to 7/30/22 at an urban, tertiary-care, academic ED for five types of error amenable to visitor intervention: inadequate history gathering, inadequate monitoring, falls, giving a medication to which a patient is allergic, and inappropriate medication dosing. These records were reviewed by two investigators to determine the likelihood visitor presence could have prevented the error. For those errors judged susceptible to visitor intercession, the number in each category was compared for the period before and after strict restrictions took effect. Our review found 27/781 (3.5%) errors in the pre-pandemic period and 27/568 (4.8%) errors in the pandemic period fell into one of these five categories (p = 0.29). Visitors prevented harm from reaching the patient in three of 27 pre-pandemic errors (11.1%), compared to 0 out of 27 peri-pandemic errors (p = 0.23). On review by two attendings, 17/24 (70.8%) errors that reached the patient in the pre-pandemic period were judged amenable to visitor intervention, compared to 25/27 (92.6%) in the pandemic period (p = 0.09). There were no statistically significant differences in the categories of error between the two groups; monitoring errors came the closest: 1/17 (5.9%) pre-COVID errors amenable to visitor intervention in these categories were monitoring related, whereas 7/25 (28.0%) post-COVID errors were (p = 0.16). While this study did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in error between lenient and restrictive visitation eras, we did find multiple cases in the pre-COVID era in which family presence prevented error, and qualitative review of post-COVID errors suggested many could have been prevented by family presence. Larger trials are needed to determine how frequent and consequential such errors are and how to balance the public health imperative of curbing disease spread with the harm caused by restricting visitation.

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.