Public Performance Metrics: Driving Physician Motivation and Performance.

INTRODUCTION: As providers transition from "fee-for-service" to "pay-for-performance" models, focus has shifted to improving performance. This trend extends to the emergency department (ED) where visits continue to increase across the United States. Our objective was to determine whether displaying public performance metrics of physician triage data could drive intangible motivators and improve triage performance in the ED. METHODS: This is a single institution, time-series performance study on a physician-in-triage system. Individual physician baseline metrics-number of patients triaged and dispositioned per shift-were obtained and prominently displayed with identifiable labels during each quarterly physician group meeting. Physicians were informed that metrics would be collected and displayed quarterly and that there would be no bonuses, punishments, or required training; physicians were essentially free to do as they wished. It was made explicit that the goal was to increase the number triaged, and while the number dispositioned would also be displayed, it would not be a focus, thereby acting as this study's control. At the end of one year, we analyzed metrics. RESULTS: The group's average number of patients triaged per shift were as follows: Q1-29.2; Q2-31.9; Q3-34.4; Q4-36.5 (Q1 vs Q4, p < 0.00001). The average numbers of patients dispositioned per shift were Q1-16.4; Q2-17.8; Q3-16.9; Q4-15.3 (Q1 vs Q4, p = 0.14). The top 25% of Q1 performers increased their average numbers triaged from Q1-36.5 to Q4-40.3 (ie, a statistically insignificant increase of 3.8 patients per shift [p = 0.07]). The bottom 25% of Q1 performers, on the other hand, increased their averages from Q1-22.4 to Q4-34.5 (ie, a statistically significant increase of 12.2 patients per shift [p = 0.0013]). CONCLUSION: Public performance metrics can drive intangible motivators (eg, purpose, mastery, and peer pressure), which can be an effective, low-cost strategy to improve individual performance, achieve institutional goals, and thrive in the pay-for-performance era.

Use of Physician-in-Triage Model in the Management of Abdominal Pain in an Emergency Department Observation Unit.

INTRODUCTION: Given the nationwide increase in emergency department (ED) visits it is of paramount importance for hospitals to find efficient ways to manage patient flow. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a significant difference in success rates, length of stay (LOS), and other demographic factors in two cohorts of patients admitted directly to an ED observation unit (EDOU) under an abdominal pain protocol by a physician in triage (bypassing the main ED) versus those admitted via the traditional pathway (evaluated and treated in the main ED prior to EDOU admission). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to a protocol-driven EDOU with a diagnosis of abdominal pain in a single university hospital center ED. We obtained compiled data for all patients admitted to the EDOU with a diagnosis of abdominal pain that met EDOU protocol admission criteria. We divided data for each cohort into age, gender, payer status, and LOS. The data were then analyzed to assess any significant differences between the cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 327 patients were eligible for this study (85 triage group, 242 main ED group). The total success rate was 90.8% (n=297) and failure rate was 9.2% (n=30). We observed no significant differences in success rates between those dispositioned to the EDOU by triage physicians (90.6%) and those via the traditional route (90.5 % p) = 0.98. However, we found a significant difference between the two groups regarding total LOS with significantly shorter main ED times and EDOU times among patients sent to the EDOU by the physician-in-triage group (p< .001). CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in EDOU disposition outcomes in patients admitted to an EDOU by a physician-in-triage or via the traditional route. However, there were statistically significant shorter LOSs in patients admitted to the EDOU by triage physicians. The data from this study support the implementation of a physician-in-triage model in combination with the EDOU in improving efficiency in the treatment of abdominal pain. This knowledge may spur action to cut healthcare costs and improve patient flow and timely decision-making in hospitals with EDOUs.

National evaluation of prescriber drug dispensing.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the legal, professional, and consumer status of prescribers dispensing legend and over-the-counter drugs in the United States. METHODS: Legal and academic databases were searched to identify those states that permit prescribers to dispense medications to patients and any limitations on such practice. In addition, prescribers and patients-consumers were surveyed to learn about the prevalence and perceptions of such practice. The use of drug samples was explicitly excluded from the study. MAIN RESULTS: Surveys were obtained from 556 physicians, 64 NPs, and 999 patient-consumers of drugs dispensed by prescribers. Forty-four states authorize prescriber dispensing. Midlevel practitioners (i.e., NPs and physician assistants) are authorized to dispense in 43 states. Thirty-two states do not require dispensing prescribers to compete additional registration to dispense medications, and 30 states require some level of compliance with pharmacy practice requirements. Prescriber dispensing is common, independent of patient age or insurance coverage. Prescriber dispensing appears driven by physician and patient perceptions of convenience and cost reductions. Future dispensing is likely to increase due to consumers' satisfaction with the practice. Consumer self-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were equivalent between pharmacist- and physician-dispensed drugs, but urgent and emergency clinic ADR consultations were slightly lower with physician dispensing. CONCLUSIONS: Prescriber dispensing is firmly entrenched in the U.S. health care system, is likely to increase, does not appear to increase ADRs, and may reduce urgent care and emergency department visits. The reduction in urgent care and emergency department visits requires further study to confirm these preliminary findings.

Deciphering the use and predictive value of "emergency medical services provider judgment" in out-of-hospital trauma triage: a multisite, mixed methods assessment.

BACKGROUND: "Emergency medical services (EMS) provider judgment" was recently added as a field triage criterion to the national guidelines, yet its predictive value and real world application remain unclear. We examine the use and independent predictive value of EMS provider judgment in identifying seriously injured persons. METHODS: We analyzed a population-based retrospective cohort, supplemented by qualitative analysis, of injured children and adults evaluated and transported by 47 EMS agencies to 94 hospitals in five regions across the Western United States from 2006 to 2008. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the independent predictive value of EMS provider judgment for Injury Severity Score ≥ 16. EMS narratives were analyzed using qualitative methods to assess and compare common themes for each step in the triage algorithm, plus EMS provider judgment. RESULTS: 213,869 injured patients were evaluated and transported by EMS over the 3-year period, of whom 41,191 (19.3%) met at least one of the field triage criteria. EMS provider judgment was the most commonly used triage criterion (40.0% of all triage-positive patients; sole criterion in 21.4%). After accounting for other triage criteria and confounders, the adjusted odds ratio of Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 for EMS provider judgment was 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.47), although there was variability in predictive value across sites. Patients meeting EMS provider judgment had concerning clinical presentations qualitatively similar to those meeting mechanistic and other special considerations criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Among this multisite cohort of trauma patients, EMS provider judgment was the most commonly used field trauma triage criterion, independently associated with serious injury, and useful in identifying high-risk patients missed by other criteria. However, there was variability in predictive value between sites.