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.

Comparison of emergency department throughput and process times between male and female patients: A retrospective cohort investigation by the Reducing Disparities Increasing Equity in Emergency Medicine Study Group.

Introduction: Health equity for all patients is an important characteristic of an effective healthcare system. Bias has the potential to create inequities. In this study, we examine emergency department (ED) throughput and care measures for sex-based differences, including metrics such as door-to-room (DTR) and door-to-healthcare practitioner (DTP) times to look for potential signs of systemic bias. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of all adult patients presenting to the ED between July 2015 and June 2017. We collected ED operational, throughput, clinical, and demographic data. Differences in the findings for male and female patients were assessed using Poisson regression and generalized estimating equations (GEEs). A priori, a clinically significant time difference was defined as 10 min. Results: A total of 106,011 adult visits to the ED were investigated. Female patients had 8-min longer median length-of-stay (LOS) than males (P < 0.01). Females had longer DTR (2-min median difference, P < 0.01), and longer DTP (5-min median difference, P < 0.01). Females had longer median door-to-over-the-counter analgesia time (84 vs. 80, P = 0.58), door-to-advanced analgesia (95 vs. 84, P < 0.01), door-to-PO (by mouth) ondansetron (70 vs. 62, P = 0.02), and door-to-intramuscular/intravenous antiemetic (76 vs. 69, P = 0.02) times compared with males. Conclusion: Numerous statistically significant differences were identified in throughput and care measures-mostly these differences favored male patients. Few of these comparisons met our criteria for clinical significance.

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.

The organization of Danish emergency departments.

INTRODUCTION: Twenty-one new Danish emergency departments (EDs) were established following a 2007 policy reform that included ED autonomy to self-organize. The aim of this study was to describe the organization of the 21 departments and their organizational challenges. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We used a qualitative design based on COREQ guidelines. All 21 EDs participated, and 123 semi-structured interviews with hospital and ED leaders, physicians, nurses, and secretaries were performed between 2013 and 2015. We used the framework matrix method to investigate the ED goals, setting, structure, staff, task coordination, and incentive structure. RESULTS: We identified three generic models (virtual, hybrid, and independent). All had goals of high quality of care and high efficiency. The virtual model was staffed by junior physicians and tasks were coordinated by other departments. The hybrid model was staffed by junior physicians and senior physicians according to other departments and the ED. The ED coordinated all activities. The independent model was staffed by junior physicians and senior physicians, and activities were coordinated by the ED. Of the EDs, 19 utilized different organizational models at different times during a 24-h period and on weekdays and weekends. The main challenge of the virtual and hybrid models was high dependency on other departments. The main challenge of the independent model was establishing a high level of quality of emergency medicine. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We identified three organizational ED models (virtual, hybrid, and independent). Nineteen EDs used more than one organizational model depending on the time of day or day of the week.

Conflicting results in SNP genotype assessment.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are highly abundant in the genome and especially useful in the search for disease susceptibility genes via population-based association or linkage studies. Therefore, there is a strong need for high throughput and reliable methodologies to assess the SNP genotypes. Despite an unambiguous result of an SNP analysis, with the use of a commercial kit based on primer extension, subsequent sequencing analysis revealed that a proportion of the genotypes was not correctly assessed. The problem we have encountered may originate from specific structures in the genomic DNA sequence, rather than being a methodological problem.