Measurement of Cost of Boarding in the Emergency Department Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Boarding admitted patients in emergency departments (EDs) is a national crisis that is worsening despite potential financial disadvantages. The objective of this study was to assess costs associated with boarding. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational investigation of patients admitted through an ED for management of acute stroke at a large, urban, academic, comprehensive stroke center hospital. We employed time-driven activity-based costing methodology to estimate cost for patient care activities during admission and aggregated results to estimate the total cost of boarding versus inpatient care. Primary outcomes were total daily costs per patient for medical-surgical (med/surg) boarding, med/surg inpatient care, ICU boarding, and ICU inpatient care. RESULTS: The total daily cost per patient with acute stroke was US$1856, for med/surg boarding versus US$993 for med/surg inpatient care and US$2267, for ICU boarding versus US$2165, for ICU inpatient care. These differences were even greater when accounting for costs associated with traveler nurses. ED nurses spent 293 min/d (mean) caring for each med/surg boarder; inpatient nurses spent 313 min/d for each med/surg inpatient. ED nurses spent 419 min/d caring for each ICU boarder; inpatient nurses spent 787 min/d for each ICU inpatient. Neurology attendings and residents spent 25 and 52 min/d caring for each med/surg boarder versus 62 minutes and 90 minutes for each med/surg inpatient, respectively. CONCLUSION: Using advanced cost-accounting methods, our investigation provides novel evidence that boarding of admitted patients is financially costly, adding greater urgency for elimination of this practice.

A Granular View of Emergency Department Length of Stay: Improving Predictive Power and Extracting Real-Time, Actionable Insights.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Improved understanding of factors affecting prolonged emergency department (ED) length of stay is crucial to improving patient outcomes. Our investigation builds on prior work by considering ED length of stay in operationally distinct time periods and using benchmark and novel machine learning techniques applied only to data that would be available to ED operators in real time. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of patient visits over 1 year at 2 urban EDs, including 1 academic and 1 academically affiliated ED, and 2 suburban, community EDs. ED length of stay was partitioned into 3 components: arrival-to-room, room-to-disposition, and admit disposition to departure. Prolonged length of stay for each component was considered beyond 1, 3, and 2 hours, respectively. Classification models (logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost) were applied, and important features were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 135,044 unique patient encounters were evaluated for the arrival-to-room, room-to-disposition, and admit disposition-to-departure models, which had accuracy ranges of 84% to 96%, 66% to 77%, and 62% to 72%, respectively. Waiting room and ED volumes were important features in all arrival-to-room models. Room-to-disposition results identified patient characteristics and ED volume as the most important features for prediction. Boarder volume was an important feature of the admit disposition-to-departure models for all sites. Academic site models noted nurse staffing ratios as important, whereas community site models noted hospital capacity and surgical volume as important for admit disposition-to-departure prediction. CONCLUSION: This study identified granular capacity, flow, and nurse staffing predictors of ED length of stay not previously reported in the literature. Our novel methodology allowed for more accurate and operationally meaningful findings compared to prior modeling methods.

2017 AAAEM Benchmarking Survey: Comparing Pediatric and Adult Academic Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: The Academy of Administrators in Academic Emergency Medicine Benchmark Survey of academic emergency departments (EDs) was conducted in 2017. We compared operational measures between pediatric and adult (defined as fewer than 5% pediatric visits) EDs based on survey data. Emergency departments in dedicated pediatric hospitals were not represented. METHODS: Measures included: (1) patient volumes, length of stay, and acuity; and 2) faculty staffing, productivity, and percent effort in academics. t Tests were used to compare continuous measures and inferences for categorical variables were made using Pearson χ2 test. RESULTS: The analysis included 17 pediatric and 52 adult EDs. We found a difference in the number of annual visits between adult (median, 66,275; interquartile range [IQR], 56,184-77,702) and pediatric EDs (median, 25,416; IQR, 19,840-29,349) (P < 0.0001). Mean "arrivals per faculty clinical hour" and "total arrivals per treatment space" showed no differences. The proportion of visits (1) arriving by emergency medical services and (2) for behavioral health were significantly higher in adult EDs (both P < 0.0001). The mean length of stay in hours for "all" patients was significantly longer in adult (5.4; IQR, 5.0-6.6) than in pediatric EDs (3.5; IQR, 2.9-4.3; P = 0.017). A similar difference was found for "discharged" patients (P = 0.004). Emergency severity indices, professional evaluation and management codes, and hospitalization rates all suggest higher acuity in adult EDs (all P < 0.0001). There were no differences in mean work relative value units per patient or in the distribution of full time equivalent effort dedicated to academics. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, significant differences in operational measures exist between academic adult and pediatric EDs. No differences were found when considering per unit measures, such as arrivals per faculty clinical hour or per treatment space.

Clinical operations of academic versus non-academic emergency departments: a descriptive comparison of two large emergency department operations surveys.

BACKGROUND: Academic and non-academic emergency departments (EDs) are regularly compared in clinical operations benchmarking despite suggestion that the two groups may differ in their clinical operations characteristics. and outcomes. We sought to describe and compare clinical operations characteristics of academic versus non-academic EDs. METHODS: We performed a descriptive, comparative analysis of academic and non-academic adult and general EDs with 40,000+ annual encounters, using the Academy of Academic Administrators of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM)/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) and Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA) survey results. We defined academic EDs as primary teaching sites for emergency medicine (EM) residencies and non-academic EDs as sites with minimal resident involvement. We constructed the academic and non-academic cohorts from the AAAEM/AACEM and EDBA surveys, respectively, and analyzed metrics common to both surveys. RESULTS: Eighty and 454 EDs met inclusion criteria for academic and non-academic EDs, respectively. Academic EDs had more median annual patient encounters (73,001 vs 54,393), lower median proportion of pediatric patients (6.3% vs 14.5%), higher median proportion of EMS patients (27% vs 19%), and were more commonly designated as Level I or II Trauma Centers (94% vs 24%). Median patient arrival-to-provider times did not differ (26 vs 25 min). Median length-of-stay was longer (277 vs 190 min) for academic EDs, and left-before-treatment-complete was higher (5.7% vs 2.9%). MRI utilization was higher for academic EDs (2.2% patients with at least one MRI vs 1.0 MRIs performed per 100 patients). Patients-per-hour of provider coverage was lower for academic EDs with and without consideration for advanced practice providers and residents. CONCLUSIONS: Demographic and operational performance measures differ between academic and non-academic EDs, suggesting that the two groups may be inappropriate operational performance comparators. Causes for the differences remain unclear but the differences appear not to be attributed solely to the academic mission.

Mortality Associated With Emergency Department Boarding Exposure: Are There Differences Between Patients Admitted to ICU and Non-ICU Settings?

BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) boarding threatens patient safety. It is unclear whether boarding differentially affects patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) versus non-ICU settings. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We performed a 2-hospital, 18-month, cross-sectional, observational, descriptive study of adult patients admitted from the ED. We used Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox Proportional Hazards regression to describe differences in boarding time among patients who died during hospitalization versus those who survived, controlling for covariates that could affect mortality risk or boarding exposure, and separately evaluating patients admitted to ICUs versus non-ICU settings. MEASURES: We extracted age, race, sex, time variables, admission unit, hospital disposition, and Elixhauser comorbidity measures and calculated boarding time for each admitted patient. RESULTS: Among 39,781 admissions from the EDs (21.3% to ICUs), non-ICU patients who died in-hospital had a 1.2-fold risk (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.36; P=0.016) of having experienced longer boarding times than survivors, accounting for covariates. We did not observe a difference among patients admitted to ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Among non-ICU patients, those who died during hospitalization were more likely to have had incrementally longer boarding exposure than those who survived. This difference was not observed for ICU patients. Boarding risk mitigation strategies focused on ICU patients may have accounted for this difference, but we caution against interpreting that boarding can be safe. Segmentation by patients admitted to ICU versus non-ICU settings in boarding research may be valuable in ensuring that the safety of both groups is considered in hospital flow and boarding care improvements.

Door-to-Imaging Time for Acute Stroke Patients Is Adversely Affected by Emergency Department Crowding.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: National guidelines call for door-to-imaging time (DIT) within 25 minutes for suspected acute stroke patients. Studies examining factors that affect DIT have focused primarily on stroke-specific care processes and patient-specific factors. We hypothesized that emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with longer DIT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective investigation of 1 year of consecutive patients in our prospective Code Stroke registry, which included all ED stroke team activations. The registry and electronic health records were abstracted for 27 potential predictors of DIT, including patient, stroke care process, and ED operational factors. We fit a multivariate logistic regression model and calculated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Second, we constructed a random forest recursive partitioning model to cross-validate our findings and explore the proportional importance of each category of predictor. Our primary outcome was the binary variable of DIT within the 25-minute goal. RESULTS: A total of 463 patients met inclusion criteria. In the regression model, ED occupancy rate emerged as a predictor of DIT, with odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.91) of DIT within 25 minutes per 10% absolute increase in ED occupancy rate. The secondary analysis estimated that ED operational factors accounted for nearly 14% of the algorithm's prediction of DIT. CONCLUSIONS: ED crowding is associated with reduced odds of meeting DIT goals for acute stroke. In addition to improving stroke-specific processes of care, efforts to reduce ED overcrowding should be considered central to optimizing the timeliness of acute stroke care.

Patient safety incident capture resulting from incident reports: a comparative observational analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety incident (PSI) discovery is an essential component of quality improvement. When submitted, incident reports may provide valuable opportunities for PSI discovery. However, little objective information is available to date to quantify or demonstrate this value. The objective of this investigation was to assess how often Emergency Department (ED) incident reports submitted by different sources led to the discovery of PSIs. METHODS: A standardized peer review process was implemented to evaluate all incident reports submitted to the ED. Findings of the peer review analysis were recorded prospectively in a quality improvement database. A retrospective analysis of the quality improvement database was performed to calculate the PSI capture rates for incident reports submitted by different source groups. RESULTS: 363 incident reports were analyzed over a period of 18 months; 211 were submitted by healthcare providers (HCPs) and 126 by non-HCPs. PSIs were identified in 108 resulting in an overall capture rate of 31%. HCP-generated reports resulted in a 44% capture rate compared to 10% for non-HCPs (p < 0.001). There was no difference in PSI capture between sub-groups of HCPs and non-HCPs. CONCLUSION: HCP-generated ED incident reports were much more likely to capture PSIs than reports submitted by non-HCPs. However, HCP reports still led to PSI discovery less than half the time. Further research is warranted to develop effective strategies to improve the utility of incident reports from both HCPs and non-HCPs.

Improved incident reporting following the implementation of a standardized emergency department peer review process.

OBJECTIVE: Incident reporting is an important component of health care quality improvement. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of an emergency department (ED) peer review process in promoting incident reporting. DESIGN: An observational, interrupted time-series analysis of health care provider (HCP) incident reporting to the ED during a 30-month study period prior to and following the peer review process implementation and a survey-based assessment of physician perceptions of the peer review process' educational value and its effectiveness in identifying errors. SETTING: Large, urban, academic ED. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: HCPs were invited to participate in a standardized, non-punitive, non-anonymous peer review process that involved analysis and structured discussion of incident reports submitted to ED physician leadership. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly frequency of incident reporting by HCPs and physician perceptions of the peer review process. RESULTS: HCPs submitted 314 incident reports to the ED over the study period. Following the intervention, frequency of reporting by HCPs within the hospital increased over time. The frequencies of self-reporting, reporting by other ED practitioners and reporting by non-ED practitioners within the hospital increased compared with a control group of outside HCPs (P = 0.0019, P = 0.0025 and P < 0.0001). Physicians perceived the peer review process to be educational and highly effective in identifying errors. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a non-punitive peer review process that provides timely feedback and is perceived as being valuable for error identification and education can lead to increased incident reporting by HCPs.

Emergency department patient safety incident characterization: an observational analysis of the findings of a standardized peer review process.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) care has been reported to be prone to patient safety incidents (PSIs). Improving our understanding of PSIs is essential to prevent them. A standardized, peer review process was implemented to identify and analyze ED PSIs. The primary objective of this investigation was to characterize ED PSIs identified by the peer review process. A secondary objective was to characterize PSIs that led to patient harm. In addition, we sought to provide a detailed description of the peer review process for others to consider as they conduct their own quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: An observational study was conducted in a large, urban, tertiary-care ED. Over a two-year period, all ED incident reports were investigated via a standardized, peer review process. PSIs were identified and analyzed for contributing factors including systems failures and practitioner-based errors. The classification system for factors contributing to PSIs was developed based on systems previously reported in the emergency medicine literature as well as the investigators' experience in quality improvement and peer review. All cases in which a PSI was discovered were further adjudicated to determine if patient harm resulted. RESULTS: In 24 months, 469 cases were investigated, identifying 152 PSIs. In total, 188 systems failures and 96 practitioner-based errors were found to have contributed to the PSIs. In twelve cases, patient harm was determined to have resulted from PSIs. Systems failures were identified in eleven of the twelve cases in which a PSI resulted in patient harm. CONCLUSION: Systems failures were almost twice as likely as practitioner-based errors to contribute to PSIs, and systems failures were present in the majority of cases resulting in patient harm. To effectively reduce PSIs, ED quality improvement initiatives should focus on systems failure reduction.

Improving Accessibility in the Emergency Department for Patients with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: The emergency department (ED) is a critical service area for patients living with disabilities in the United States. Despite this, there is limited research on best practices from the patient experience regarding accommodation and accessibility for those with disabilities. In this study we investigate the ED experience from the perspective of patients living with physical and cognitive disability, as well as visual impairment and blindness, to better understand the barriers to accessibility in the ED for these populations. METHODS: Twelve individuals with either physical or cognitive disabilities, visual impairments or blindness were interviewed regarding their ED experiences, particularly related to accessibility. Interviews were transcribed and coded for qualitative analysis with generation of significant themes relating to accessibility in the ED. RESULTS: Major themes from coded analysis were as follows: 1) inadequate communication between staff and patients with visual impairments and physical disabilities; 2) the need for electronic delivery for after-visit summaries for individuals with cognitive and visual disabilities; 3) the importance of mindful listening and patience by healthcare staff; 4) the role of increased hospital support including greeters and volunteers; and 5) comprehensive training with both prehospital and hospital staff around assistive devices and services. CONCLUSION: This study serves as an important first step toward improving the ED environment to ensure accessibility and inclusivity for patients presenting with various types of disabilities. Implementing specific training, policies, and infrastructure changes may improve the experiences and healthcare of this population.

Factors Associated with Overutilization of Computed Tomography of the Cervical Spine.

Introduction: Despite the wide availability of clinical decision rules for imaging of the cervical spine after a traumatic injury (eg, NEXUS C-spine rule and Canadian C-spine rule), there is significant overutilization of computed tomography (CT) imaging in patients who are deemed to be at low risk for a clinically significant cervical spine injury by these clinical decision rules. The purpose of this study was to identify the major factors associated with the overuse of CT cervical spine imaging using a logistic regression model. Methods: This was a retrospective review of all adult patients who underwent CT cervical spine imaging for evaluation of a traumatic injury at a tertiary academic emergency department (ED) and three affiliate community EDs in January and February 2019. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with obtaining CT cervical spine imaging despite low-risk classification by the NEXUS C-spine Rule. Results: A total of 1,051 patients underwent CT cervical spine imaging for traumatic indications during the study period, and 889 patients were included in the analysis. Of these patients, 376 (42.3%) were negative by the NEXUS C-spine rule. Variables that were associated with increased likelihood of unnecessary imaging included age over 65, Emergency Severity Index (ESI) score 2 and 3, arrival as a walk-in, and anticoagulation status. Patients who presented to the tertiary academic ED had a significantly lower likelihood of unnecessary imaging. Twenty-one patients (2.4%) were found to have cervical spine fractures on imaging, two of whom were negative by the NEXUS C-spine rule, but neither had a clinically significant fracture. Conclusion: Cervical spine imaging is vastly overused in patients presenting to the ED with traumatic injuries, as adjudicated using the NEXUS C-spine rule as a reference standard. Older age, ESI level, arrival as a walk-in, and taking anticoagulation drugs were associated with overutilization of CT imaging. Conversely, presenting to the tertiary academic ED was associated with a lower likelihood of undergoing unnecessary imaging. This model can guide future interventions to optimize ED CT utilization and minimize unnecessary testing.

Accuracy of physician self-estimation of time spent during patient care in the emergency department.

Objective: Accurate measurement of physicians' time spent during patient care stands to inform emergency department (ED) improvement efforts. Direct observation is time consuming and cost prohibitive, so we sought to determine if physician self-estimation of time spent during patient care was accurate. Methods: We performed a prospective, convenience-sample study in which research assistants measured time spent by ED physicians in patient care. At the conclusion of each observed encounter, physicians estimated their time spent. Using Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman's rho, we compared physician estimates to actual time spent and assessed for associations of encounter characteristics and physician estimation. Results: Among 214 encounters across 10 physicians, we observed a medium-sized correlation between actual and estimated time (Spearman's rho = 0.63, p < 0.001), and in aggregate, physicians underestimated time spent by a median of 0.1 min. An equal number of encounters were overestimated and underestimated. Underestimated encounters were underestimated by a median of 5.1 min (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5-9.8) and overestimated encounters were overestimated by a median of 4.3 min (IQR 2.5-11.6)-26.3% and 27.9% discrepancy, respectively. In terms of actual time spent, underestimated encounters (median 19.3 min, IQR 13.5-28.3) were significantly longer than overestimated encounters (median 15.3 min, IQR 11.3-20.5) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Physician self-estimation of time spent was accurate in aggregate, providing evidence that it is a valid surrogate marker for larger-scale process improvement and research activities, but likely not at the encounter level. Investigations exploring mechanisms to augment physician self-estimation, including modeling and technological support, may yield pathways to make self-estimation valid also at the encounter level.

Effect of resident complement on timeliness of stroke team activation in an academic emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Investigations of the impact of residents on emergency department (ED) timeliness of care typically focus only on global ED flow metrics. We sought to describe the association between resident complement/supervisory ratios and timeliness of ED care of a specific time-sensitive condition, acute stroke. METHODS: We matched ED stroke patient arrivals at 1 academic stroke center against resident and attending staffing and constructed a Cox proportional hazards model of door-to-activation (DTA) time (ie, ED arrival ["door"] to stroke team activation). We considered multiple predictors, including calculated ratios of residents supervised by each attending physician. RESULTS: Among 462 stroke activation patients in 2014-2015, DTA ranged from 1 to 217 minutes, 72% within 15 minutes. The median number of emergency and off-service residents supervised per attending were 1.7 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.3-2.3) and 0.7 (IQR, 0-1), respectively. A 1-resident increase in off-service residents was associated with a 24% decrease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.90) in the probability of stroke team activation at any given time. An independent 1-resident increase in the number of emergency residents was associated with a 13% increase (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.25) in timely activation. CONCLUSION: Timeliness of care for acute stroke may be impacted by how academic EDs configure the complement and supervisory structures of residents. Higher supervisory demands imposed by increasing the proportion of rotating off-service residents may be associated with slower stroke recognition and DTA times, but this effect may be offset when more emergency residents are present.

From intern to "accepted": A guide to preparing for fellowship in emergency medicine.

Introduction: The number of fellowship options for emergency medicine (EM) physicians continues to expand. While guides exist to help residents explore individual fellowship pathways, we aimed to create a comprehensive guide for all residents considering fellowship. Methods: At the direction of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Board, 9 members of the Fellowship Guide Workgroup, including members of the Fellowship Approval Committee, and 2 members of SAEM Residents and Medical Students (RAMS) group collaboratively developed the guide using available evidence and expert opinion when high-quality evidence was unavailable. The guide was reviewed and approved by all members. Results: The guide offers advice to EM residents on how to conceptualize key aspects of their training with respect to preparation for fellowship, including scholarship, teaching, leadership, and electives. Additionally, it offers perspective on selecting a fellowship that matches the resident's interests and goals and successfully applying. Conclusion: This fellowship guide for EM residents considering fellowship summarizes the best currently available advice for residents considering fellowship training after residency.

From the ground up: Creating and leading fellowship programs in emergency medicine.

Background: A methodical and evidence-based approach to the creation and implementation of fellowship programs is not well described in the graduate medical education literature. The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) convened an expert panel to promote standardization and excellence in fellowship training. The purpose of the expert panel was to develop a fellowship guide to give prospective fellowship directors the necessary skills to successfully implement and maintain a fellowship program. Methods: Under direction of the SAEM Board of Directors, SAEM Education Committee, and SAEM Fellowship Approval Committee, a panel of content experts convened to develop a fellowship guide using an evidence-based approach and best practices content method. The resource guide was iteratively reviewed by all panel members. Results: Utilizing Kern's six-step model as a conceptual framework, the fellowship guide summarizes the construction, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of a novel fellowship curriculum to meet the needs of trainees, educators, and sponsoring institutions. Other key areas addressed include Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and nonaccredited fellowships, programmatic assessment, finances, and recruitment. Conclusions: The fellowship guide summarizes the conceptual framework, best practices, and strategies to create and implement a new fellowship program.

Accuracy of emergency physicians' self-estimates of CT scan utilization and its potential effect on an audit and feedback intervention: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) has been used as a strategy to modify clinician behavior with moderate success. Although A&F is theorized to work by improving the accuracy of clinicians' estimates of their own behavior, few interventions have included assessment of clinicians' estimates at baseline to examine whether they account for intervention success or failure. We tested an A&F intervention to reduce computed tomography (CT) ordering by emergency physicians, while also examining the physicians' baseline estimates of their own behavior compared to peers. METHODS: Our study was a prospective, multi-site, 20-month, randomized trial to examine the effect of an A&F intervention on CT ordering rates, overall and by test subtype. From the electronic health record, we obtained 12 months of baseline CT ordering per 100 patients treated for every physician from four emergency departments. Those who were randomized to receive A&F were shown a de-identified graph of the group's baseline CT utilization, asked to estimate wherein the distribution of their own CT order practices fell, and then shown their actual performance. All participants also received a brief educational intervention. CT ordering rates were collected for all physicians for 6 months after the intervention. Pre-post ordering rates were compared using independent and repeated measures t tests. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 52 eligible physicians participated. The mean CT ordering rate increased significantly in both experimental conditions after the intervention (intervention pre = 35.7, post = 40.3, t = 4.13, p < 0.001; control pre = 33.9, post = 38.9, t = 3.94, p = 0.001), with no significant between-group difference observed at follow-up (t = 0.43, p = 0.67). Within the intervention group, physicians had poor accuracy in estimating their own ordering behavior at baseline: most overestimated and all guessed that they were in the upper half of the distribution of their peers. CT ordering increased regardless of self-estimate accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Our A&F intervention failed to reduce physician CT ordering: our feedback to the physicians showed most of them that they had overestimated their CT ordering behavior, and they were therefore unlikely to reduce it as a result. After "audit," it may be prudent to assess baseline clinician awareness of behavior before moving toward a feedback intervention.

Operational factors associated with emergency department patient satisfaction: Analysis of the Academy of Administrators of Emergency Medicine/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine national survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is a focus for emergency department (ED) and hospital administrators. ED patient satisfaction studies have tended to be single site and focused on patient and clinician factors. Inclusion of satisfaction scores in a large, national operations database provided an opportunity to conduct an investigation that included diverse operational factors. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2019 Academy of Administrators in Academic Emergency Medicine/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM/AACEM) benchmarking survey to identify associations between operational factors and patient satisfaction. We identified 59 database variables as potential predictors of Press Ganey likelihood-to-recommend and physician overall scores. Using random forest modeling, we identified the top eight predictors in the models and described their associations. RESULTS: Forty-three (57.3%) academic departments responding to the AAAEM/AACEM survey reported patient satisfaction scores for 78 EDs. Likelihood to recommend ranged from 30.0 to 93.0 (median = 74.8) and was associated with ED length of stay, boarding, use of hallway spaces, hospital annual admissions, faculty base clinical hours, proportion of patients leaving before treatment complete (LBTC), and provider in triage hours per day. Physician overall score ranged from 53.3 to 93.4 (median = 81.9) and was associated with faculty base clinical hours, x-ray utilization, annual ED arrivals, LBTC, use of hallway spaces, arrivals per attending hour, and CT utilization. CONCLUSIONS: ED patient satisfaction was associated with intrinsic and extrinsic factors, some being potentially manageable within the ED but others being relatively fixed or outside the control of ED operations. For likelihood to recommend, patient flow was dominant, with erosion of satisfaction observed with increased boarding and longer LOS. Factors associated with physician overall score were more varied. The use of hallway spaces and base clinical hours greater than 1,500 per year were associated with both lower likelihood-to-recommend and lower physician overall scores.

Delayed Recognition of Acute Stroke by Emergency Department Staff Following Failure to Activate Stroke by Emergency Medical Services.

INTRODUCTION: Early recognition and pre-notification by emergency medical services (EMS) improves the timeliness of emergency department (ED) stroke care; however, little is known regarding the effects on care should EMS providers fail to pre-notify. We sought to determine if potential stroke patients transported by EMS, but for whom EMS did not provide pre-notification, suffer delays in ED door-to-stroke-team activation (DTA) as compared to the other available cohort of patients for whom the ED is not pre-notified-those arriving by private vehicle. METHODS: We queried our prospective stroke registry to identify consecutive stroke team activation patients over 12 months and retrospectively reviewed the electronic health record for each patient to validate registry data and abstract other clinical and operational data. We compared patients arriving by private vehicle to those arriving by EMS without pre-notification, and we employed a multivariable, penalized regression model to assess the probability of meeting the national DTA goal of ≤15 minutes, controlling for a variety of clinical factors. RESULTS: Our inclusion criteria were met by 200 patients. Overall performance of the regression model was excellent (area under the curve 0.929). Arrival via EMS without pre-notification, compared to arrival by private vehicle, was associated with an adjusted risk ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.96) for achieving DTA ≤ 15 minutes. CONCLUSION: Our single-center data demonstrate that potential stroke patients arriving via EMS without pre-notification are less likely to meet the national DTA goal than patients arriving via other means. These data suggest a negative, unintended consequence of otherwise highly successful EMS efforts to improve stroke care, the root of which may be ED staff over-reliance on EMS for stroke recognition.

Effect of a Data-driven Intervention on Opioid Prescribing Intensity Among Emergency Department Providers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about accuracy of provider self-perception of opioid prescribing. We hypothesized that an intervention asking emergency department (ED) providers to self-identify their opioid prescribing practices compared to group norms-and subsequently providing them with their actual prescribing data-would alter future prescribing compared to controls. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter randomized trial in which all attending physicians, residents, and advanced practice providers at four EDs were randomly assigned either to no intervention or to a brief data-driven intervention during which providers were: 1) asked to self-identify and explicitly report to research staff their perceived opioid prescribing in comparison to their peers and 2) then given their actual data with peer group norms for comparison. Our primary outcome was the change in each provider's proportion of patients discharged with an opioid prescription at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were opioid prescriptions per hundred total prescriptions and normalized morphine milligram equivalents prescribed. Our primary comparison stratified intervention providers by those who underestimated their prescribing and those who did not underestimate their prescribing, both compared to controls. RESULTS: Among 109 total participants, 51 were randomized to the intervention, 65% of whom underestimated their opioid prescribing. Intervention participants who underestimated their baseline prescribing had larger-magnitude decreases than controls (Hodges-Lehmann difference = -2.1 prescriptions per hundred patients at 6 months [95% confidence interval {CI} = -3.9 to -0.5] and -2.2 per hundred at 12 months [95% CI = -4.8 to -0.01]). Intervention participants who did not underestimate their prescribing had similar changes to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Self-perception of prescribing was frequently inaccurate. Providing clinicians with their actual opioid prescribing data after querying their self-perception reduced future prescribing among providers who underestimated their baseline prescribing. Our findings suggest that guideline and policy interventions should directly address the potential barrier of inaccurate provider self-awareness.

Contributions of Academic Emergency Medicine Programs to U.S. Health Care: Summary of the AAAEM-AACEM Benchmarking Data.

OBJECTIVES: The societal contribution of emergency care in the United States has been described. The role and impact of academic emergency departments (EDs) has been less clear. Our report summarizes the results of a benchmarking effort specifically focused on academic emergency medicine (EM) practices. METHODS: From October through December 2016, the Academy of Academic Administrators of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM) and the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) jointly administered a benchmarking survey to allopathic, academic departments and divisions of emergency medicine. Participation was voluntary and nonanonymous. The survey queried various aspects of the three components of the tripartite academic mission: clinical care, education and research, and faculty effort and compensation. Responses reflected a calendar year from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. RESULTS: Of 107 eligible U.S. allopathic, academic departments and divisions of emergency medicine, 79 (74%) responded to the survey overall, although individual questions were not always answered by all responding programs. The 79 responding programs reported 6,876,189 patient visits at 97 primary and affiliated academic clinical sites. A number of clinical operations metrics related to the care of these patients at these sites are reported in this study. All responding programs had active educational programs for EM residents, with a median of 37 residents per program. Nearly half of the overall respondents reported responsibility for teaching medical students in mandatory EM clerkships. Fifty-two programs reported research and publication activity, with a total of $129,494,676 of grant funding and 3,059 publications. Median faculty effort distribution was clinical effort, 66.9%; education effort, 12.7%; administrative effort, 12.0%; and research effort, 6.9%. Median faculty salary was $277,045. CONCLUSIONS: Academic EM programs are characterized by significant productivity in clinical operations, education, and research. The survey results reported in this investigation provide appropriate benchmarking for academic EM programs because they allow for comparison of academic programs to each other, rather than nonacademic programs that do not necessarily share the additional missions of research and education and may have dissimilar working environments.