Comparison of clinical note quality between an automated digital intake tool and the standard note in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Medical encounters require an efficient and focused history of present illness (HPI) to create differential diagnoses and guide diagnostic testing and treatment. Our aim was to compare the HPI of notes created by an automated digital intake tool versus standard medical notes created by clinicians. METHODS: Prospective trial in a quaternary academic Emergency Department (ED). Notes were compared using the 5-point Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) scale and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) level of complexity index. Reviewers were board certified emergency medicine physicians blinded to note origin. Reviewers received training and calibration prior to note assessments. A difference of 1 point was considered clinically significant. Analysis included McNemar's (binary), Wilcoxon-rank (Likert), and agreement with Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: A total of 148 ED medical encounters were charted by both digital note and standard clinical note. The ability to capture patient information was assessed through comparison of note content across paired charts (digital-standard note on the same patient), as well as scores given by the reviewers. Reviewer agreement was kappa 0.56 (CI 0.49-0.64), indicating moderate level of agreement between reviewers scoring the same patient chart. Considering all 18 questions across PDQI-9 and CMS scales, the average agreement between standard clinical note and digital note was 54.3% (IQR 44.4-66.7%). There was a moderate level of agreement between content of standard and digital notes (kappa 0.54, 95%CI 0.49-0.60). The quality of the digital note was within the 1 point clinically significant difference for all of the attributes, except for conciseness. Digital notes had a higher frequency of CMS severity elements identified. CONCLUSION: Digitally generated clinical notes had moderate agreement compared to standard clinical notes and within the one point clinically significant difference except for the conciseness attribute. Digital notes more reliably documented billing components of severity. The use of automated notes should be further explored to evaluate its utility in facilitating documentation of patient encounters.

Epidemiology of paediatric pain-related visits to emergency departments in the USA: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of paediatric pain-related visits to emergency departments (EDs) across the USA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A representative sample of US ED visits using data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). PARTICIPANTS: Paediatric (age ≤18 years) ED visits in the 2017 NHAMCS data set. DATA ANALYSIS: Each visit was coded as pain-related or non-pain-related using the 'reason for visit' variable. Weighted proportions were calculated with 95% CIs. Logistic regression was used to compare odds of pain-related visits. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of pain-related visits among paediatric ED visits. RESULTS: There were an estimated 35 million paediatric ED visits in the USA in 2017, 55.6% (CI 53.3% to 57.8%) were pain related, which equates to 19.7 million annual visits. The prevalence of pain-related visits reached more than 50% of visits at age 6-7 and plateaued at relatively high proportions. Children of races other than white or black had lower odds of having a pain-related visit (OR 0.48, CI 0.29 to 0.81) than white children, as did children who were black, though the difference was not statistically significant (OR 0.88, CI 0.73 to 1.06). Relative to children covered by private insurance, children with Medicaid or CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) coverage had lower odds of a pain-related visit (OR 0.75, CI 0.60 to 0.93). Injuries represented 46.5% (CI 42.0% to 51.0%) of pain-related visits. Pain scores were reported in less than 50% of pain-related visits. CONCLUSION: Pain is the reason for visit in 55.6% of paediatric ED visits across the USA. The prevalence of pain-related visits peak before adolescence and it continues relatively high until the age 18. Injury, racial disparities in pain and poor pain score reporting should remain major topics of study in the paediatric population.

Cost Conversations About Anticoagulation Between Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Their Clinicians: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: How patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their clinicians consider cost in forming care plans remains unknown. Objective: To identify factors that inform conversations regarding costs of anticoagulants for treatment of AF between patients and clinicians and outcomes associated with these conversations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of recorded encounters and participant surveys at 5 US medical centers (including academic, community, and safety-net centers) from the SDM4AFib randomized trial compared standard AF care with and without use of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Included patients were considering anticoagulation treatment and were recruited by their clinicians between January 30, 2017, and June 27, 2019. Data were analyzed between August and November 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of and factors associated with cost conversations, and the association of cost conversations with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden and their choice of anticoagulation. Results: A total of 830 encounters (out of 922 enrolled participants) were recorded. Patients' mean (SD) age was 71.0 (10.4) years; 511 patients (61.6%) were men, 704 (86.0%) were White, 303 (40.9%) earned between $40 000 and $99 999 in annual income, and 657 (79.2%) were receiving anticoagulants. Clinicians' mean (SD) age was 44.8 (13.2) years; 75 clinicians (53.2%) were men, and 111 (76%) practiced as physicians, with approximately half (69 [48.9%]) specializing in either internal medicine or cardiology. Cost conversations occurred in 639 encounters (77.0%) and were more likely in the SDM arm (378 [90%] vs 261 [64%]; OR, 9.69; 95% CI, 5.77-16.29). In multivariable analysis, cost conversations were more likely to occur with female clinicians (66 [47%]; OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.21-6.71); consultants vs in-training clinicians (113 [75%]; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4-11.1); clinicians practicing family medicine (24 [16%]; OR, 12.12; 95% CI, 2.75-53.38]), internal medicine (35 [23%]; OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.25-11.70), or other clinicians (21 [14%]; OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.32-18.16) when compared with cardiologists; and for patients with an annual household income between $40 000 and $99 999 (249 [82.2%]; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29) compared with income below $40 000 or above $99 999. More patients who had cost conversations reported cost as a factor in their decision (244 [89.1%] vs 327 [69.0%]; OR 3.66; 95% CI, 2.43-5.50), but cost conversations were not associated with the choice of anticoagulation agent. Conclusions and Relevance: Cost conversations were common, particularly for middle-income patients and with female and consultant-level primary care clinicians, as well as in encounters using an SDM tool; they were associated with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden but not final treatment choice. With increasing costs of care passed on to patients, these findings can inform efforts to promote cost conversations in practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Association of outpatient ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers and outcomes of acute respiratory illness: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate associations between ACE inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and clinical outcomes in acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of claims data. SETTING: The USA; 2018-2019 influenza season. PARTICIPANTS: Main cohort: people with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI. Falsification cohort: parallel cohort receiving elective knee or hip replacement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main cohort: hospital admission, intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome and all-cause mortality. Falsification cohort: complications after surgery and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The main cohort included 236 843 episodes of AVRI contributed by 202 629 unique individuals. Most episodes were in women (58.9%), 81.4% in people with Medicare Advantage and 40.3% in people aged 75+ years. Odds of mortality were lower in the ACEi (0.78 (0.74 to 0.83)) and ARB (0.64 (0.61 to 0.68)) cohorts compared with other HTN medications. On all other outcomes, people taking ARBs (but not ACEis) had a >10% reduction in odds of inpatient stays compared with other HTN medications.In the falsification analysis (N=103 353), both ACEis (0.89 (0.80 to 0.98)) and ARBs (0.82 (0.74 to 0.91)) were associated with decreased odds of complications compared with other HTN medications; ARBs (0.64 (0.47 to 0.87)) but not ACEis (0.79 (0.60 to 1.05)) were associated with lower odds of death compared with other HTN medications. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient use of ARBs was associated with better outcomes with AVRI compared with other medications for HTN. ACEis were associated with reduced risk of death, but with minimal or no reduction in risk of other complications. A falsification analysis conducted to provide context on the possible causal implications of these findings did not provide a clear answer. Further analysis using observational data will benefit from additional approaches to assess causal relationships between these drugs and outcomes in AVRI.

Assessment of ED triage of anaphylaxis patients based on the Emergency Severity Index.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the emergency department (ED) triage of anaphylaxis patients based on the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), assess the association between ESI triage level and ED epinephrine administration, and determine characteristics associated with lower acuity triage ESI assignment (levels 3 and 4). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of adult and pediatric anaphylaxis patients between September 2010 and September 2018 at an academic ED. Patient characteristics and management were compared between Emergency Severity Index (ESI) triage level 1 or 2 versus levels 3 or 4 using logistic regression analysis. We adhered to STROBE reporting guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 1090 patient visits were included. There were 26 (2%), 515 (47%), 489 (45%), and 60 (6%) visits that were assigned an ESI triage level of 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Epinephrine was administered in the ED to 53% of patients triaged ESI level 1 or 2 and to 40% of patients triaged ESI level 3 or 4. Patients who were assigned a lower acuity ESI level of 3 or 4 had a longer median time from ED arrival to epinephrine administration compared to those with a higher acuity ESI level of 1 or 2 (28 min compared to 13 min, p < .001). A lower acuity ESI level was more likely to be assigned to visits with a chief concern of hives, rash, or pruritus (OR 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.53]) and less likely to be assigned to visits among adults (OR, 0.43 [0.31-0.60]), patients who received epinephrine from emergency medical services (OR 0.56 [0.38-0.82]), presented with posterior pharyngeal or uvular angioedema (OR, 0.56 [0.38-0.82]), hypoxemia (OR, 0.34 [0.18-0.64]), or increased heart (OR 0.83 [0.73-0.95]) or respiratory (OR 0.70 [0.60-0.82]) rates. CONCLUSION: Patients triaged to lower acuity ESI levels experienced delays in ED epinephrine administration. Adult and pediatric patients with skin-related chief concerns were more likely to be to be assigned lower acuity ESI levels. Further studies are needed to identify interventions that will improve ED anaphylaxis triage.

Palliative care in the emergency department: A survey assessment of patient and provider perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care has been identified as an area of low outpatient referral from our emergency department, yet palliative care has been shown to improve the quality of patient's lives. AIM: This study investigates both provider and patient perspectives on palliative care for the purpose of identifying barriers to increased palliative care utilization within our healthcare system. DESIGN: Two surveys were developed, one for patients/caregivers and one for healthcare providers. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: This was a single-center study completed at a quaternary academic emergency department. A survey was sent to emergency medicine providers with 47% response rate. Research staff approached Emergency Department patients who had been identified to be high risk to fill out paper surveys with 76% response rate. RESULTS: Only 28% of patients had already undergone palliative care, with an additional 25% interested in palliative care. Nearly half of the patients felt that they needed more resources to prevent hospital visits. Patients identified low understanding of palliative care and difficulty accessing appointments as barriers to consultation. Among providers, 98% indicated that they had patients who would benefit from palliative care. A majority of providers highlighted patient understanding of palliative care and access to appointments as barriers to palliative care. Notably, 52% of providers reported that emergency medicine provider knowledge was a barrier to palliative care consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite emergency department patients' self-identified need for resources and emergency medicine providers' recognition of patients who would benefit from palliative care, few patients receive palliative care consultation.

Patient Length of Stay Under the Two-Midnight Rule: Assessing the Accuracy of Providers' Predictions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: We sought to determine emergency medicine physicians' accuracy in designating patients' disposition status as "inpatient" or "observation" at the time of hospital admission in the context of Medicare's Two-Midnight rule and to identify characteristics that may improve the providers' predictions. We conducted a 90-day observational study of emergency department (ED) admissions involving adults aged 65 years and older and assessed the accuracy of physicians' disposition decisions. Logistic regression models were fit to explore associations and predictors of disposition. A total of 2,257 patients 65 and older were admitted through the ED. The overall error rate in physician designation of observation or inpatient was 36%. Diagnoses most strongly associated with stays lasting less than two midnights included diverticulitis, syncope, and nonspecific chest pain. Diagnoses most strongly associated with stays lasting two or more midnights included orthopedic fractures, biliary tract disease, and back pain. ED physicians inaccurately predicted patient length of stay in more than one third of all patients. Under the Two-Midnight rule, these inaccurate predictions place hospitals at risk of underpayment and patients at risk of significant financial liability. Further work is needed to increase providers' awareness of the financial repercussions of their admission designations and to identify interventions that can improve prediction accuracy.

Validation of the Elderly Risk Assessment Index in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: The Elderly Risk Assessment (ERA) score is a validated index for primary care patients that predict hospitalizations, mortality, and Emergency Department (ED) visits. The score incorporates age, prior hospital days, marital status, and comorbidities. Our aim was to validate the ERA score in ED patients. METHODS: Observational cohort study of patients age ≥ 60 presenting to an academic ED over a 1-year period. Regression analyses were performed for associations with outcomes (hospitalization, return visits and death). Medians, interquartile range (IQR), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort included 27,397 visits among 18,607 patients. Median age 74 years (66-82), 48% were female and 59% were married. Patients from 54% of visits were admitted to the hospital, 16% returned to the ED within 30 days, and 18% died within one year. Higher ERA scores were associated with: hospital admission (score 10 [4-16] vs 5 [1-11], p < 0.0001), return visits (11 [5-17] vs 7 [2-13], p < 0.0001); and death within one year (14 [7-20] vs 6 [2-13], p < 0.0001). Patients with ERA score ≥ 16 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, OR 2.14 (2.02-2.28, p < 0.0001), return within 30 days OR 1.99 (1.85-2.14), and to die within a year, OR 2.69 (2.54-2.85). CONCLUSION: The ERA score can be automatically calculated within the electronic health record and helps identify patients at increased risk of death, hospitalization and return ED visits. The ERA score can be applied to ED patients, and may help prognosticate the need for advanced care planning.