Improving Follow-up Attendance for Discharged Emergency Care Patients Using Automated Phone System to Self-schedule: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Automated phone appointment reminders have improved adherence with follow-up appointments in a variety of hospital settings, but have mixed results in patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). Increasing adherence to follow-up care has been a priority in the ED to improve patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary future visits. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized open, blinded end-point (PROBE) trial of 278 adult patients discharged from the ED and referred to a provider for follow-up care. Participants in the intervention arm received a self-scheduling text or phone message that automatically connected them to their referral provider to schedule a follow-up appointment and sent them appointment reminders. Those in the control arm received standard-of-care written instructions to contact listed referral providers. The primary outcome was time to appointment. The secondary outcome was time to return visit to the ED. RESULTS: The automated reminders increased the cumulative incidence of keeping the referral appointment after ED discharge (p < 0.001, Gray's test). Of participants randomized to the automated phone intervention, 49.3% (n = 74) kept their follow-up appointment versus 23.4% (n = 30) in the control arm, with a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) over the duration of the study period of 2.4 (1.6 to 3.7; p < 0.001). In a sensitivity analysis using 30 days of follow-up data, 42.0% (n = 63) of participants randomized to the phone intervention kept their follow-up versus 21.1% (n = 27) in the control arm, with a HR (95% CI) of 2.2 (1.4 to 3.5; p < 0.001). There was no difference in ED revisits between the intervention and control group within 120 days postdischarge. CONCLUSIONS: An automated self-scheduling phone system significantly improved follow-up adherence after ED discharge, but did not decrease ED revisits.

Improving Emergency Department Care for Aging Missourians: Guidelines, Accreditation, and Collaboration.

Aging baby-boomers present significant challenges to accessible, affordable emergency care in America for patients of all ages. St. Louis physicians served as early innovators in the field of geriatric emergency medicine. This manuscript summarizes a multi-institutional November 2016 symposium reviewing the Missouri history of geriatric emergency care. In addition, this manuscript describes multispecialty organizations' guidelines, healthcare outcomes research, contemporary medical education paradigms, and evolving efforts to disseminate guideline-based geriatric emergency care using a "Boot Camp" approach and implementation science. This manuscript also reviews local adaptations to emergency medical services and palliative care, as well as the perspectives of emergency department leaders exploring the balance between infrastructure and personnel required to promote guideline-based geriatric emergency care with the anticipated benefits. This discussion is framed within the context of the American College of Emergency Physician's planned geriatric emergency department accreditation process scheduled to begin in 2018.

Before-after study of a standardized hospital order set for the management of septic shock.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a standardized hospital order set for the management of septic shock in the emergency department. DESIGN: Before-after study design with prospective consecutive data collection. SETTING: Emergency department of a 1,200-bed academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 120 patients with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation of a standardized hospital order set for the management of septic shock. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 120 consecutive patients with septic shock were identified. Sixty patients (50.0%) were managed before the implementation of the standardized order set, constituting the before group, and 60 (50.0%) were evaluated after the implementation of the standardized order set, making up the after group. Demographic variables and severity of illness measured by the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II were similar for both groups. Patients in the after group received statistically more intravenous fluids while in the emergency department (2825 +/- 1624 mL vs. 3789 +/- 1730 mL, p = .002), were more likely to receive intravenous fluids of >20 mL/kg body weight before vasopressor administration (58.3% vs. 88.3%, p < .001), and were more likely to be treated with an appropriate initial antimicrobial regimen (71.7% vs. 86.7%, p = .043) compared with patients in the before group. Patients in the after group were less likely to require vasopressor administration at the time of transfer to the intensive care unit (100.0% vs. 71.7%, p < .001), had a shorter hospital length of stay (12.1 +/- 9.2 days vs. 8.9 +/- 7.2 days, p = .038), and a lower risk for 28-day mortality (48.3% vs. 30.0%, p = .040). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that the implementation of a standardized order set for the management of septic shock in the emergency department was associated with statistically more rigorous fluid resuscitation of patients, greater administration of appropriate initial antibiotic treatment, and a lower 28-day mortality. These data suggest that the use of standardized order sets for the management of septic shock should be routinely employed.