Use of a computerized forcing function improves performance in ordering restraints.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the effect of a computerized order entry system forcing function on improving timely renewal of restraint orders. METHODS: In this prospective study of 2 successive interventions, physicians received computerized reminders to renew or discontinue restraint orders before their expiration. The initial intervention allowed acknowledgement of this reminder without further consequence, changing at 6 months to deny computer access until addressed. We performed chart review on emergency department visits with restraint orders in 3 consecutive 6-month periods (A, B, C) separated by these 2 interventions, determining time to order renewal, number of restraint orders, renewal orders per hour in restraints, and time in restraints and evaluating variability in these values across study intervals. Statistical analysis for our primary outcome used the Mann-Whitney and variance ratio tests. RESULTS: Median time to order renewal decreased in periods B and C versus A by 64 and 56 minutes, respectively, with variability in this measure decreasing across all periods. Mean number of restraint orders in periods B and C significantly increased versus those in A (1.46 to 1.89 to 2.34), with corresponding increases in variability. Mean renewal orders per hour in restraint significantly increased in period C versus A and B, from 0.08 to 0.23 to 0.89, with increasing variability across all periods. Decreases in median time spent in restraints observed in periods B and C versus A of 45 and 105 minutes, respectively, trended toward but did not achieve significance, with significantly decreasing variability compared with baseline. CONCLUSION: The forcing function improved restraint reordering and variability in practice and may have contributed to nonsignificant reductions observed in time in restraint.

The emergency severity index triage algorithm version 2 is reliable and valid.

OBJECTIVES: Initial studies have shown improved reliability and validity of a new triage tool, the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), over conventional three-level scales at two university medical centers. After pilot implementation and validation, the ESI was revised to include pediatric and updated vital signs criteria. The goal of this study was to assess ESI version (v.) 2 reliability and validity at seven emergency departments (EDs) in three states. METHODS: In part 1, interrater reliability was assessed using weighted kappa analysis of written training cases and postimplementation by a random sampling of actual patient triages. In part 2, validity was analyzed using a prospective cohort with stratified random sampling at each site. The ESI was compared with outcomes including resource consumption, inpatient admission, ED length of stay, and 60-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Weighted kappa analysis of interrater reliability ranged from 0.70 to 0.80 for the written scenarios (n = 3289) and 0.69 to 0.87 for patient triages (n = 386). Outcomes for the validity cohort (n = 1042) included hospitalization rates by ESI triage level: level 1, 83%; 2, 67%; 3, 42%; 4, 8%; level 5, 4%. Sixty-day all-cause mortality by triage level was as follows: level 1, 25%; 2, 4%; 3, 2%; 4, 1%; and 5, 0%. CONCLUSIONS: ESI v. 2 triage produced reliable, valid stratification of patients across seven sites. ESI triage should be evaluated as an ED casemix identification system for uniform data collection in the United States and compared with other major ED triage methods.

Assessment of inter-observer reliability of two five-level triage and acuity scales: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) is an initial measure of patient assessment in the emergency department (ED). It rates patients based on acuity and predicted resource intensity from Level 1 (most ill) to Level 5 (least resource intensive). Already implemented and evaluated in several US hospitals, ESI has yet to be evaluated in a Canadian setting or compared with the five-level Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). OBJECTIVE: To compare the inter-observer reliability of 2 five-level triage and acuity scales. METHODS: Ten triage nurses, who had all been trained in the use of CTAS, from 4 urban, academic Canadian EDs were randomly assigned either to training in ESI version 3 (ESI v.3) or to refresher training in CTAS. They independently assigned triage scores to 200 emergency cases, unaware of the rating by the other nurses. RESULTS: Number of years of nursing practice was the only significant demographic difference found between the 2 groups (p = 0.014). A quadratically weighted kappa to measure the inter-observer reliability of the CTAS group was 0.91 (0.90, 0.99) and not significantly different from that of the ESI group 0.89 (0.88, 0.99). An inter-test generalizability (G) study performed on the variance components derived from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed G(5) = 0.90 (0.82, 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: After 3 hours of training, experienced triage nurses were able to perform triage assessments using ESI v.3 with the same inter-observer reliability as those with experience and refresher training in using the CTAS.

Implementation of a guideline for the treatment of pain, sedation, agitation and neuromuscular blockade in the mechanically ventilated adult patient in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: When emergency department (ED) overcrowding includes admitted mechanically ventilated (MV) critically-ill patients without an open intensive care unit (ICU) bed, emergency providers must deliver ICU level care in the ED. Implementing standardized hospital based clinical guidelines may help providers achieve uniform care standards for assessing and managing pain and sedation for the MV patient. OBJECTIVE: This paper is a description of a hospital performance improvement project that was implemented in the ED. The objective of this study was to measure the degree of adoption of a hospital-wide clinical guideline for the management of pain, sedation and neuromuscular blockade in MV patients into clinical practice in the ED. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for all mechanically ventilated patients who were admitted from ED to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Patient charts were reviewed before (December 2005) and after the implementation of the guideline (June, August, and December 2006). Data was collected and analyzed for the ED visit only and no ICU data was used. The primary outcome was the degree of adoption of the guideline by emergency providers into their daily clinical practice. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 170 adult MV patients who were admitted to the ICU during the preselected time period was analyzed. There were no demographic differences between groups of patients observed during each month interval, age (P = 0.34), gender (P = 0.40), race (P = 0.14), and Hispanic ethnicity (P = 0.84). Overall, there was an increase in the provider use of propofol (P < 0.01), RASS sedation scale (P < 0.01), and a decrease in the use of a paralytic agent (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: There was partial adoption of a guideline into their clinical practice by emergency providers in a busy urban emergency department. Across the 12-month implementation period, there was improvement in the assessment of and use of analgesia and sedation for MV patients.

Comprehension of discharge instructions.

The Research to Practice column attempts to serve two purposes: (1) fine-tune the research critique skills of advanced practice nurses and (2) suggest strategies to translate findings from a research study into bedside practice. For each column, a topic and a particular research study are selected. The stage is set by introducing the importance of the topic. The research paper is then reviewed and critiqued, and finally, the implications for translation into practice are discussed. This particular column reviews the article: Engel, K., Heisler, M., Smith, D., Robinson, C., Forman, J., & Ubel, P. (in press). Patient comprehension of emergency department care and instructions: Are patients aware of when they do not understand? Annals of Emergency Medicine.

Workplace violence.

The purpose of this study is to investigate emergency department (ED) workplace violence and assess staff perceptions of safety. Healthcare workers, in particular emergency care professionals, are often the recipients of workplace violence. The majority of staff (73%) reported that they felt safe most of the time or always, and 8% responded that they never or rarely felt physically safe in the ED. Most of the sites (94%) reported the presence and availability of in-hospital security 24 hr per day. In total, more than 3,461 attacks were reported by the respondents over 5 years, with a median of 11 incidences of physical violence per site for the 5-year period.

Refining Emergency Severity Index triage criteria.

OBJECTIVES: The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) version 3 is a five-level triage acuity scale with demonstrated reliability and validity. Patients are rated from ESI level 1 (highest acuity) to ESI level 5 (lowest acuity). Clinical experience has demonstrated two levels of ESI level 2 patients: those who require immediate intervention and those who are stable to wait for at least ten minutes. Studies have found that few patients are rated ESI level 1, and it has been suggested that revisions to the ESI might result in appropriate reclassification of some sickest level 2 patients as level 1. The purpose of this study was to identify level 2 patients who might be reclassified as level 1 patients. METHODS: This was a multisite, prospective study. The authors identified ESI level 2 patients who required immediate, lifesaving intervention and calculated chi-square statistics and odds ratios for variables that predicted which ESI level 2 patients actually received immediate intervention. RESULTS: Immediate lifesaving interventions were provided for 117 (20.2%) of the 589 patients included in the study. Seventeen predictors of the need for immediate intervention were identified. The strongest predictor was the triage nurse's judgment of the need for immediate intervention, especially airway and medications. CONCLUSIONS: Specific clinical findings at triage for a subset of ESI level 2 patients were associated with immediate delivery of lifesaving interventions. Revisions to the ESI level 1 criteria may be beneficial.