Development of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure Tool for Ambulatory Patients With Acute Unexpected Needs: The APEX Questionnaire.

Background: The aim of this study was to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for comparing the experience of care received by ambulatory patients with acute unexpected needs presenting in emergency departments (EDs), walk-in clinics, and primary care practices. Methods: The Ambulatory Patient EXperience (APEX) questionnaire was developed using a 5-phase mixed-methods approach. The questionnaire was pretested by asking potential users to rate its clarity, usefulness, redundancy, content and face validities, and discrimination on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree). The pre-final version was then tested in a pilot study. Results: The final questionnaire is composed of 61 questions divided into 7 sections. In the pretest (n = 25), median responses were 8 and above for all dimensions assessed. In the pilot study, 63 participants were enrolled. Adjusted results show that access, cleanliness, and feeling treated with respect and dignity by nurses and physicians were significantly better in the clinics than in the ED. Conclusion: We developed a questionnaire to assess and compare experience of ambulatory care in different clinical settings.

Accuracy of Self-Reported COVID-19 Vaccination Status Compared With a Public Health Vaccination Registry in Québec: Observational Diagnostic Study.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of self-reported vaccination status is important to guide real-world vaccine effectiveness studies and policy making in jurisdictions where access to electronic vaccine registries is restricted. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the accuracy of self-reported vaccination status and reliability of the self-reported number of doses, brand, and time of vaccine administration. METHODS: This diagnostic accuracy study was completed by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network. We enrolled consecutive patients presenting to 4 emergency departments (EDs) in Québec between March 24, 2020, and December 25, 2021. We included adult patients who were able to consent, could speak English or French, and had a proven COVID-19 infection. We compared the self-reported vaccination status of the patients with their vaccination status in the electronic Québec Vaccination Registry. Our primary outcome was the accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status (index test) ascertained during telephone follow-up compared with the Québec Vaccination Registry (reference standard). The accuracy was calculated by dividing all correctly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants by the sum of all correctly and incorrectly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. We also reported interrater agreement with the reference standard as measured by unweighted Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at telephone follow-up and at the time of their index ED visit, number of vaccine doses, and brand. RESULTS: During the study period, we included 1361 participants. At the time of the follow-up interview, 932 participants reported at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status was 96% (95% CI 95%-97%). Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at phone follow-up was 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.93) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) at the time of their index ED visit. Cohen κ was 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.91) for the number of doses, 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) for the brand of the first dose, 0.76 (95% CI 0.70-0.83) for the brand of the second dose, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.34-0.83) for the brand of the third dose. CONCLUSIONS: We reported a high accuracy of self-reported vaccination status for adult patients without cognitive disorders who can express themselves in English or French. Researchers can use self-reported COVID-19 vaccination data on the number of doses received, vaccine brand name, and timing of vaccination to guide future research with patients who are capable of self-reporting their vaccination data. However, access to official electronic vaccine registries is still needed to determine the vaccination status in certain susceptible populations where self-reported vaccination data remain missing or impossible to obtain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04702945; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04702945.

Cross-cultural adaptation and its impact on research in emergency care.

The perspective of patients is increasingly recognised as important to care improvement and innovation. Patient questionnaires such as patient-reported outcome measures may often require cross-cultural adaptation (CCA) to gather their intended information most effectively when used in cultures and languages different to those in which they were developed. The use of CCA could be seen as a practical step in addressing the known problems of inclusion, diversity and access in medical research.An example of the recent adaptation of a patient-reported outcome measure for use with ED patients is used to explore some key features of CCA, introduce the importance of CCA to emergency care practitioners and highlight the limitations of CCA.

Web-Based Co-design in Health Care: Considerations for Renewed Participation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the work environment to a new reality of remote work and virtual collaboration. This shift has occurred in various work settings with an impact on spaces, approaches, applied techniques, and tools. This has resulted in the broad use of virtual tools in the health care sector to avoid physical encounters and in-person interactions that will likely outlast the COVID-19 pandemic. Developing effective virtual approaches requires the knowledge and skills of using digital technologies collaboratively combined with a deep understanding of the context or contexts in which these approaches may be used. The implementation of virtual health design methods, including web-based co-design, has increased to meet the realities of COVID-19 restrictions and is likely to outlast them. Adapting the use of co-design methodologies to a virtual configuration requires rethinking methods of collaboration and communication, adapting to virtual environments, and creating new methods of engagement and facilitation. With this viewpoint, we reviewed the current work on co-design (in person and web based) to propose techniques for the design, planning, and implementation of web-based co-design. We propose 7 considerations that may enable web-based co-design projects in the health care sector. The key considerations that affect the success of a web-based co-design approach should be considered in the process of planning, developing, and conducting web-based co-design sessions. These include facilitation, collaboration, accessibility and equity, communication, sensemaking, tangible tools and games, and web-based research ethics. We illustrate this work with a case study of co-design for an emergency department discharge tool developed during the pandemic.

Trends in the role of security services in the delivery of emergency department care.

BACKGROUND: Security services in most settings are an essential part of emergency department (ED) care, but their role remains poorly understood. We sought to:(1) identify the frequency of security services involvement in ED care;(2) characterise the events security services are called for; and (3) identify temporal trends in use. METHODS: We used a hospital-wide security database at a tertiary care ED in downtown Toronto, Ontario. Data from January 2017 to June 2021 related to the ED, patient or visitor related safety calls were included. We categorised calls by type of event (e.g.: Code White or Restraints). Call numbers were calculated as rates to adjust for visit volumes for each period. Univariate analyses were used to assess association between security services' calls and shift time, day of week, and month of the year. RESULTS: Over the 4.5-year study period, 20,033 ED-related calls were recorded. On average, we identified 61 calls per 1000 patient visits. On univariate analysis, no increase in security calls were found based on day of week or month, but a disproportionate number of security calls were recorded overnight. CONCLUSION: This study reveals high security services involvement in the delivery of care in one urban ED. Security databases can inform improvement work and could be augmented by better coding of violent events and linkage with electronic health records when involving patients.

RéSUMé : CONTEXTE: Dans la plupart des contextes, les services de sécurité constituent un élément essentiel des soins dispensés dans les services d'urgence, mais leur rôle reste mal compris. Nous avons cherché à: (1) identifier la fréquence de l'intervention des services de sécurité dans les soins aux urgences; (2) caractériser les événements pour lesquels les services de sécurité sont requis; et (3) identifier les tendances temporelles de l'utilisation. MéTHODES: Nous avons utilisé une base de données de sécurité à l'échelle de l'hôpital dans un service d'urgence de soins tertiaires du centre-ville de Toronto, en Ontario. Les données de janvier 2017 à juin 2021 relatives aux appels de sécurité liés aux urgences, aux patients ou aux visiteurs ont été incluses. Nous avons catégorisé les appels par type d'événement (par exemple : Code blanc ou Contraintes). Les nombres d'appels ont été calculés sous forme de taux afin d'ajuster les volumes de visites pour chaque période. Des analyses univariées ont été utilisées pour évaluer l'association entre les appels des services de sécurité et l'heure du quart de travail, le jour de la semaine et le mois de l'année. RéSULTATS: Au cours des 4,5 années de l'étude, 20 033 appels liés aux urgences ont été enregistrés. En moyenne, nous avons recensé 61 appels pour 1 000 visites de patients. L'analyse univariée n'a révélé aucune augmentation des appels de sécurité en fonction du jour de la semaine ou du mois, mais un nombre disproportionné d'appels de sécurité a été enregistré pendant la nuit. CONCLUSION: Cette étude révèle une forte implication des services de sécurité dans la prestation des soins dans un service d'urgence urbain. Les bases de données sur la sécurité peuvent servir de base aux travaux d'amélioration et pourraient être complétées par un meilleur codage des événements violents et une liaison avec les dossiers médicaux électroniques lorsqu'ils concernent des patients.

Sensitivity and Diagnostic Yield of the First SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Performed for Patients Presenting to the Hospital.

Importance: Early and accurate diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to initiate appropriate treatment and infection control and prevention measures among patients presenting to the hospital. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) performed within 24 hours of arrival to the emergency department among a nationally representative sample of patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study was conducted at 47 hospitals across 7 provinces in Canada participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Rapid Response Emergency Department Network among consecutive eligible patients presenting to a participating emergency department who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Patients not tested within 24 hours of arrival and those presenting with a positive result from a test performed in the community were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a positive result from the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT. Outcome measures were the diagnostic sensitivity and yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT. Results: Of 132 760 eligible patients (66 433 women [50.0%]; median age, 57 years [IQR, 37-74 years]), 17 174 (12.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of their first NAAT. The diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 96.2% (17 070 of 17 740 [95% CI, 95.9%-96.4%]) among all of the tests performed. Estimates ranged from a high of 97.7% (1710 of 1751 [95% CI, 96.8%-98.3%]) on day 2 of symptoms to a low of 90.4% (170 of 188 [95% CI, 85.3%-94.2%]) on day 11 of symptoms among patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms. Among patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 97.1% (11 870 of 12 225 [95% CI, 96.7%-97.3%]) compared with 87.6% (812 of 927 [95% CI, 85.2%-89.6%]) among patients without COVID-19 symptoms. The diagnostic yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 12.0% (18 985 of 158 004 [95% CI, 11.8%-12.2%]) and varied from a high of 20.0% (445 of 2229 [95% CI, 18.3%-21.6%]) among patients tested on day 10 after symptom onset to a low of 8.1% (1686 of 20 719 [95% CI, 7.7%-8.5%]) among patients presenting within the first 24 hours of symptom onset. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that the diagnostic sensitivity was high for the first SARS-CoV-2 NAAT performed in the hospital and did not vary significantly by symptom duration. Repeated testing of patients with negative test results should be avoided unless their pretest probability of disease is high.

Treatments, resource utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments across pandemic waves: an observational study by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN).

BACKGROUND: Treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evolved between pandemic waves. Our objective was to compare treatments, acute care utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) across pandemic waves. METHODS: This observational study enrolled consecutive eligible COVID-19 patients presenting to 46 EDs participating in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1 and December 31, 2020. We collected data by retrospective chart review. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatments, hospital and ICU admissions, ED revisits and readmissions. Logistic regression modeling assessed the impact of pandemic wave on outcomes. RESULTS: We enrolled 9,967 patients in 8 provinces, 3,336 from the first and 6,631 from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were younger, fewer met criteria for severe COVID-19, and more were discharged from the ED. Adjusted for patient characteristics and disease severity, steroid use increased (odds ratio [OR] 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-8.9), and invasive mechanical ventilation decreased (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.7) in the second wave compared to the first. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics and disease severity, the odds of hospitalization (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) and critical care admission (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.9) decreased, while mortality remained unchanged (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.1). INTERPRETATION: In patients presenting to cute care facilities, we observed rapid uptake of evidence-based therapies and less use of experimental therapies in the second wave. We observed increased rates of ED discharges and lower hospital and critical care resource use over time. Substantial reductions in mechanical ventilation were not associated with increasing mortality. Advances in treatment strategies created health system efficiencies without compromising patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le traitement de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) a évolué entre les vagues pandémiques. Notre objectif était de comparer les traitements, l'utilisation des soins aigus et les résultats des patients atteints de la maladie COVID-19 se présentant aux urgences à travers les vagues de pandémie. MéTHODES: Cette étude observationnelle a recruté des patients COVID-19 éligibles consécutifs se présentant à 46 services d'urgence participant au Réseau canadien de réponse rapide aux services d'urgence COVID-19 (CCEDRRN) entre le 1er mars et le 31 décembre 2020. Nous avons recueilli des données au moyen d'un examen rétrospectif des dossiers. Notre principal résultat a été la mortalité à l'hôpital. Les résultats secondaires incluaient les traitements, les admissions à l'hôpital et aux soins intensifs, les revisites aux urgences et les réadmissions. La modélisation par régression logistique a évalué l'impact de la vague de pandémie sur les résultats. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recruté 9 967 patients dans 8 provinces, 3 336 de la première vague et 6 631 de la deuxième vague. Les patients de la deuxième vague étaient plus jeunes, moins nombreux à répondre aux critères de gravité de la COVID-19 et plus nombreux à quitter les urgences. Après ajustement en fonction des caractéristiques des patients et de la gravité de la maladie, le recours aux stéroïdes a augmenté (rapport de cotes [RC] 7.4 ; intervalle de confiance à 95 % [IC] 6.2­8.9) et la ventilation mécanique invasive a diminué (RC 0.5 ; IC à 95 % 0.4­0.7) lors de la deuxième vague par rapport à la première. Après ajustement pour tenir compte des différences dans les caractéristiques des patients et la gravité de la maladie, les probabilités d'hospitalisation (RC 0.7 ; IC à 95 % 0.6­0.8) et d'admission en soins intensifs (RC 0.7 ; IC à 95 % 0.6­0.9) ont diminué, tandis que la mortalité est restée inchangée (RC 0.7 ; IC à 95 % 0.5­1.1). INTERPRéTATION: Chez les patients se présentant dans les établissements de soins de santé, nous avons observé une adoption rapide des thérapies fondées sur des données probantes et un moindre recours aux thérapies expérimentales lors de la deuxième vague. Nous avons observé une augmentation des taux de sortie des services d'urgence et une diminution de l'utilisation des ressources hospitalières et des soins intensifs au fil du temps. Les réductions substantielles de la ventilation mécanique n'étaient pas associées à une augmentation de la mortalité. Les progrès réalisés dans les stratégies de traitement ont permis d'améliorer l'efficacité des systèmes de santé sans compromettre les résultats pour les patients.

Development of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network population-based registry: a methodology study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians lack high-quality evidence for many diagnostic and treatment decisions made for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective is to describe the methods used to collect and ensure the data quality of a multicentre registry of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: This methodology study describes a population-based registry that has been enrolling consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since Mar. 1, 2020. Most data are collected from retrospective chart review. Phone follow-up with patients at 30 days captures the World Health Organization clinical improvement scale and contextual, social and cultural variables. Phone follow-up also captures patient-reported quality of life using the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey at 30 days, 60 days, 6 months and 12 months. Fifty participating emergency departments from 8 provinces in Canada currently enrol patients into the registry. INTERPRETATION: Data from the registry of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network will be used to derive and validate clinical decision rules to inform clinical decision-making, describe the natural history of the disease, evaluate COVID-19 diagnostic tests and establish the real-world effectiveness of treatments and vaccines, including in populations that are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials. This registry has the potential to generate scientific evidence to inform our pandemic response, and to serve as a model for the rapid implementation of population-based data collection protocols for future public health emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

Recommendations for enhancing collaboration between the Canadian emergency department quality improvement and research communities.

OBJECTIVES: While quality improvement (QI) and clinical research embody two distinct scientific approaches, they have the same ultimate goal-to improve health and patient care outcomes. By leveraging their respective strengths there is a higher likelihood of achieving and sustaining health improvements. Our objective was to create recommendations to enhance the collaboration of the Canadian emergency medicine QI and clinical research communities. METHODS: An expert panel of eight ED clinicians with diverse QI and clinical research expertise drafted a list of recommendations based on their professional expertise and a scoping review of the literature. These recommendations were refined through consultation with national stakeholders and reviewed at the 2020 CAEP Virtual Academic Symposium, where feedback was received through several virtual platforms. RESULTS: The final six recommendations include that all emergency medicine providers should: (1) understand the role and application of both clinical research and QI science; that academic emergency medicine physicians should: (2) contribute to both local adoption and broad dissemination of project findings, (3) leverage QI methodologies in research projects to improve knowledge translation, and (4) ensure that project outcomes prioritize patient care; and that academic leaders should: (5) enhance the infrastructure for oversight of research and QI projects, and (6) encourage collaboration between researchers and QI experts by ensuring that academic and operational infrastructures align and support both. CONCLUSION: Six recommendations are presented to help the Canadian emergency medicine community achieve greater collaboration between researchers and QI experts with the ultimate goal of improving patient care outcomes.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Bien que l'amélioration de la qualité (AQ) et la recherche clinique représentent deux approches scientifiques distinctes, elles ont le même but ultime: améliorer la santé et les résultats des soins aux patients. En tirant profit de leurs atouts respectifs, les chances d'obtenir et de soutenir des améliorations de santé sont plus élevées. Notre objectif était de créer des recommandations pour renforcer la collaboration entre les communautés d'AQ et de recherche clinique en médecine d'urgence canadienne. MéTHODES: Un groupe d'experts de huit cliniciens des services d'urgence dotés d'une expertise diversifiée en matière d'AQ et de recherche clinique a rédigé une liste de recommandations basées sur leur expertise professionnelle et un examen de la revue de littérature. Ces recommandations ont été affinées en consultation avec les parties prenantes nationales et examinées lors du Symposium académique virtuel de ACMU 2020, où des commentaires ont été reçus via plusieurs plateformes virtuelles. RéSULTATS: Les six recommandations finales incluent que tous les prestataires des services de médecine d'urgence devraient: (1) comprendre le rôle et l'application de la recherche clinique et de la science de l'AQ; que les médecins universitaires en médecine d'urgence devraient: (2) contribuer à la fois à l'adoption locale et à la diffusion large des résultats de projets, (3) tirer parti des méthodologies d'AQ dans les projets de recherche afin d'améliorer l'application des connaissances, et (4) veiller à ce que les résultats de projet donnent la priorité aux soins aux patients; et que les dirigeants universitaires devraient: (5) améliorer l'infrastructure de surveillance des projets de recherche et d'AQ, et (6) encourager la collaboration entre les chercheurs et les experts en AQ en assurant que les infrastructures universitaires et opérationnelles les alignent et les soutiennent. CONCLUSION: Six recommandations sont présentées pour aider la communauté de la médecine d'urgence canadienne à parvenir à une plus grande collaboration entre les chercheurs et les experts en AQ dans le but ultime d'améliorer les résultats des soins aux patients.

A Value-Based Comparison of the Management of Ambulatory Respiratory Diseases in Walk-in Clinics, Primary Care Practices, and Emergency Departments: Protocol for a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, 30%-60% of patients presenting to emergency departments are ambulatory. This category has been labeled as a source of emergency department overuse. Acting on the presumption that primary care practices and walk-in clinics offer equivalent care at a lower cost, governments have invested massively in improving access to these alternative settings in the hope that patients would present there instead when possible, thereby reducing the load on emergency departments. Data in support of this approach remain scarce and equivocal. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the value of care received in emergency departments, walk-in clinics, and primary care practices by ambulatory patients with upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, otitis media, tonsillitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, influenza-like illness, pneumonia, acute asthma, or acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort study will be performed in Ontario and Québec. In phase 1, a time-driven activity-based costing method will be applied at each of the 15 study sites. This method uses time as a cost driver to allocate direct costs (eg, medication), consumable expenditures (eg, needles), overhead costs (eg, building maintenance), and physician charges to patient care. Thus, the cost of a care episode will be proportional to the time spent receiving the care. At the end of this phase, a list of care process costs will be generated and used to calculate the cost of each consultation during phase 2, in which a prospective cohort of patients will be monitored to compare the care received in each setting. Patients aged 18 years and older, ambulatory throughout the care episode, and discharged to home with one of the aforementioned targeted diagnoses will be considered. The estimated sample size is 1485 patients. The 3 types of care settings will be compared on the basis of primary outcomes in terms of the proportion of return visits to any site 3 and 7 days after the initial visit and the mean cost of care. The secondary outcomes measured will include scores on patient-reported outcome and experience measures and mean costs borne wholly by patients. We will use multilevel generalized linear models to compare the care settings and an overlap weights approach to adjust for confounding factors related to age, sex, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities, registration with a family physician, socioeconomic status, and severity of illness. RESULTS: Phase 1 will begin in 2021 and phase 2, in 2023. The results will be available in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The end point of our program will be for deciders, patients, and care providers to be able to determine the most appropriate care setting for the management of ambulatory emergency respiratory conditions, based on the quality and cost of care associated with each alternative. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/25619.

Updated framework on quality and safety in emergency medicine.

OBJECTIVES: Quality and safety of emergency care is critical. Patients rely on emergency medicine (EM) for accessible, timely and high-quality care in addition to providing a 'safety-net' function. Demand is increasing, creating resource challenges in all settings. Where EM is well established, this is recognised through the implementation of quality standards and staff training for patient safety. In settings where EM is developing, immense system and patient pressures exist, thereby necessitating the availability of tiered standards appropriate to the local context. METHODS: The original quality framework arose from expert consensus at the International Federation of Emergency Medicine (IFEM) Symposium for Quality and Safety in Emergency Care (UK, 2011). The IFEM Quality and Safety Special Interest Group members have subsequently refined it to achieve a consensus in 2018. RESULTS: Patients should expect EDs to provide effective acute care. To do this, trained emergency personnel should make patient-centred, timely and expert decisions to provide care, supported by systems, processes, diagnostics, appropriate equipment and facilities. Enablers to high-quality care include appropriate staff, access to care (including financial), coordinated emergency care through the whole patient journey and monitoring of outcomes. Crowding directly impacts on patient quality of care, morbidity and mortality. Quality indicators should be pragmatic, measurable and prioritised as components of an improvement strategy which should be developed, tailored and implemented in each setting. CONCLUSION: EDs globally have a remit to deliver the best care possible. IFEM has defined and updated an international consensus framework for quality and safety.

PROM-ED: Development and Testing of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Emergency Department Patients Who Are Discharged Home.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Common outcomes of care valued by emergency department (ED) patients who are not hospitalized have been characterized, but no measurement instrument has been developed to date. We developed and validated a patient-reported outcome measure for use with adult ED patients who are discharged home (PROM-ED). METHODS: In previous research, 4 main outcomes of importance to ED patients were defined: symptom relief, understanding, reassurance, and having a plan. We developed a bank of potential questions (phase 1) that were first tested for suitability through cognitive debriefing with patients (phase 2). Revised questions were then tested quantitatively with a large panel of participants who had recently received ED care (phase 3). Informed by these results, a panel of experts used a modified Delphi process to make decisions on item reduction. The resulting instrument (PROM-ED 1.0) was then evaluated for its measurement properties (structural validity, hypothesis testing, and reliability). RESULTS: Sixty-seven questions divided among 4 scales (1 for each outcome domain) were assembled. In accordance with cognitive debriefing with 8 patients (phase 2), 15 questions were modified and 13 removed. Testing of these questions with 444 participants (phase 3) identified problematic floor or ceiling effects (n=10), excessive correlations between items (n=11), and low item-total correlations (n=7). The expert panel (22 participants, phase 4) made decisions using this information on the exclusion of items, resulting in 22 questions across 4 scales that together constitute the PROM-ED 1.0. Testing provided good evidence of validity and test-retest reliability (n=200). CONCLUSION: The PROM-ED enables the measurement of patient-centered outcomes of importance to patients receiving care in the ED who are not hospitalized. These data could have important applications in research and care improvement.

Characterizing the impact of snowfall on patient attendance at an urban emergency department in Toronto, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether addition of a snowfall variable improves emergency department (ED) patient volume forecasting. Our secondary objective was to characterize the magnitude of effect of snowfall on ED volume. METHODS: We used daily historical patient volume data and local snowfall records from April 1st, 2011 to March 31st, 2018 (2542 days) to fit a series of four generalized linear models: a baseline model which included calendar variables and three different snowfall models with an indicator variable for either any snowfall (>0 cm), moderate snowfall (≥1 cm), or large snowfall (≥5 cm). To evaluate model fit, we examined the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Incident rate ratios were calculated to determine the effect of snowfall in each model. RESULTS: All three snowfall models demonstrated improved model fit compared to the model without snowfall. The best fitting model included a binary variable for snowfall (<1 cm vs. ≥1 cm). This model showed a statistically significant decrease in daily ED volume of 2.65% (95% CI: 1.23%-4.00%) on snowfall days. DISCUSSION: The addition of a snowfall variable results in improved model performance in short-term ED volume forecasting. Snowfall is associated with a modest, but statistically significant reduction in ED volume.

Quality improvement primer part 3: Evaluating and sustaining a quality improvement project in the emergency department.

Quality improvement (QI) and patient safety are two areas that have grown into important operational and academic fields in recent years in health care, including in emergency medicine (EM). This is the third and final article in a series designed as a QI primer for EM clinicians. In the first two articles we used a fictional case study of a team trying to decrease the time to antibiotic therapy for patients with sepsis who were admitted through their emergency department. We introduced concepts of strategic planning, including stakeholder engagement and root cause analysis tools, and presented the Model for Improvement and Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles as the backbone of the execution of a QI project. This article will focus on the measurement and evaluation of QI projects, including run charts, as well as methods that can be used to ensure the sustainability of change management projects.

Perceived barriers and facilitators to goals of care discussions in the emergency department: A descriptive analysis of the views of emergency medicine physicians and residents.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have examined the challenges faced by emergency medicine (EM) physicians in conducting goals of care discussions. This study is the first to describe the perceived barriers and facilitators to these discussions as reported by Canadian EM physicians and residents. METHODS: A team of EM, palliative care, and internal medicine physicians developed a survey comprising multiple choice, Likert-scale and open-ended questions to explore four domains of goals-of-care discussions: training; communication; environment; and patient beliefs. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to 273 EM staff and residents in six sites, and 130 (48%) responded. Staff physicians conducted goals-of-care discussions several times per month or more, 74.1% (80/108) of the time versus 35% (8/23) of residents. Most agreed that goals-of-care discussions are within their scope of practice (92%), they felt comfortable having these discussions (96%), and they are adequately trained (73%). However, 66% reported difficulty initiating goals-of-care discussions, and 54% believed that admitting services should conduct them. Main barriers were time (46%), lack of a relationship with the patient (25%), patient expectations (23%), no prior discussions (21%), and the inability to reach substitute decision-makers (17%). Fifty-four percent of respondents indicated that the availability of 24-hour palliative care consults would facilitate discussions in the emergency department (ED). CONCLUSIONS: Important barriers to discussing goals of care in the ED were identified by respondents, including acuity and lack of prior relationship, highlighting the need for system and environmental interventions, including improved availability of palliative care services in the ED.

Quality improvement primer part 2: executing a quality improvement project in the emergency department.

The topics of quality improvement (QI) and patient safety have become important themes in health care in recent years, particularly in the emergency department setting, which is a frequent point of contact with the health care system for patients. In the first of three articles in this series meant as a QI primer for emergency medicine clinicians, we introduced the strategic planning required to develop an effective QI project using a fictional case study as an example. In this second article we continue with our example of improving time to antibiotics for patients with sepsis, and introduce the Model for Improvement. We will review what makes a good aim statement, the various categories of measures that can be tracked during a QI project, and the relative merits and challenges of potential change concepts and ideas. We will also present the Model for Improvement's rapid-cycle change methodology, the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle. The final article in this series will focus on the evaluation and sustainability of QI projects.

Quality improvement primer part 1: Preparing for a quality improvement project in the emergency department.

Emergency medicine (EM) providers work in a fast-paced and often hectic environment that has a high risk for patient safety incidents and gaps in the quality of care. These challenges have resulted in opportunities for frontline EM providers to play a role in quality improvement (QI) projects. QI has developed into a mature field with methodologies that can dramatically improve the odds of having a successful project with a sustainable impact. However, this expertise is not yet commonly taught during professional training. In this first of three articles meant as a QI primer for EM clinicians, we will introduce QI methodology and strategic planning using a fictional case study as an example. We will review how to identify a QI problem, define components of an effective problem statement, and identify stakeholders and core change team members. We will also describe three techniques used to perform root cause analyses-Ishikawa diagrams, Pareto charts and process mapping-and how they relate to preparing for a QI project. The next two papers in this series will focus on the execution of the QI project itself using rapid-cycle testing and on the evaluation and sustainability of QI projects.