The Impact of "Emergency-only" Hemodialysis on Hospital Cost and Resource Utilization.

INTRODUCTION: Undocumented immigrants are excluded from benefits that help compensate for scheduled outpatient hemodialysis (HD), compelling them to use emergency departments (ED) for HD. Consequently, these patients can receive "emergency-only" HD after presenting to the ED with critical illness due to untimely dialysis. Our objective was to describe the impact of emergency-only HD on hospital cost and resource utilization in a large academic health system that includes public and private hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective observational study of health and accounting records took place at five teaching hospitals (one public, four private) over 24 consecutive months from January 2019 to December 2020. All patients had emergency and/or observation visits, renal failure codes (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Rev, Clinical Modification), emergency HD procedure codes, and an insurance status of "self-pay." Primary outcomes included frequency of visits, total cost, and length of stay (LOS) in the observation unit. Secondary objectives included evaluating the variation in resource use between persons and comparing these metrics between the private and public hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 15,682 emergency-only HD visits were made by 214 unique persons, for an average of 36.6 visits per person per year. The average cost per visit was $1,363, for an annual total cost of $10.7 million. The average LOS was 11.4 hours. This resulted in 89,027 observation-hours annually, or 3,709 observation-days. The public hospital dialyzed more patients compared to the private hospitals, especially due to repeat visits by the same persons. CONCLUSION: Health policies that limit hemodialysis of uninsured patients to the ED are associated with high healthcare costs and a misuse of limited ED and hospital resources.

The Impact of Virtual Care in an Emergency Department Observation Unit.

STUDY OBJECTIVE(S): We report the impact of telemedicine virtual rounding in emergency department observation units (EDOU) on the effectiveness, safety, and cost relative to traditional observation care. METHODS: In this retrospective diff-in-diff study, we compared observation visit outcomes from 2 EDOUs before (pre) and after (post) full adoption of telemedicine rounding tele-observation (tele-obs) with usual care in control EDOU and care in a hospital bed in an integrated health system without tele-obs. Tele-obs physicians did not work at the control hospital. Outcomes were the length of stay, total direct costs, admission status, and adverse events (ICU and death). Difference-in-differences modeling evaluated outcomes with covariates including age, sex, payer type, and clinical classification software diagnostic category. Data from a system data warehouse and a cost accounting database were used. RESULTS: Of the 20,861 EDOU visits, 15,630 (74.9%) were seen in the preperiod and 6,657 (31.9%) in control EDOU. Of 23,055 non-EDOU inpatient visits assigned to observation status (nonobservation unit), 76% were seen in the preperiod. Adjusted length of stay was not significantly different for tele-obs and control EDOUs (26.4 hours versus 23.5 hours), which remained lower than in hospital settings (37.9 hours). The pre-post diff-in-diff was not significant (P=.78). Inpatient admission status was similar for tele-obs and control EDOUs (20.9% versus 22.4.%) and lower than in hospital settings (30.3%). Prepost odds ratios for inpatient admission and adverse outcomes did not change significantly for all study groups. Adjusted costs increased over time for all settings; however, the prepost median cost change was not significantly different between tele-obs EDOUs and control EDOUs ($162.5 versus $235) and was lower than the change for control hospital settings ($783). Median tele-obs EDOU cost over both periods ($1,541) remained significantly lower than hospital costs ($2,413). CONCLUSION: Using tele-obs to manage observation patients in an ED observation unit was not associated with significant differences in length of stay, admission status, measured adverse events, or total direct cost.

The impact of emergency department observation units on a health system.

IMPORTANCE: Protocol driven ED observation units (EDOU) have been shown to improve outcomes for patients and payers, however their impact on an entire health system is unknown. Two thirds of US hospitals do not have such units. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a protocol-driven EDOU on health system length of stay, cost, and resource utilization. METHODS: A retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study of observation patients managed over 25 consecutive months in a four-hospital academic health system. Patients were identified using the "admit to observation" order and limited to adult, emergent / urgent, non-obstetric patients. Data was retrieved from a cost accounting database. The primary study exposure was the setting for observation care which was broken into three discrete groups: EDOUs (n = 3), hospital medicine observation units (HMSOU, n = 2), and a non-observation unit (NOU) bed located anywhere in the hospital. Outcomes included observation-to-inpatient admission rate, length of stay (LoS), total direct cost, and inpatient bed days saved. Unadjusted outcomes were compared, and outcomes were adjusted using multiple study variables. LoS and cost were compared using quantile regressions. Inpatient admit rate was compared using logistic regressions. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 48,145 patients who were 57.4% female, 48% Black, 46% White, median age of 58, with some variation in most common diagnoses and payer groups. The median unadjusted outcomes favored EDOU over NOU settings for admission rate (13.1% vs 37.1%), LoS [17.9 vs 35.6 h), and cost ($1279 vs $2022). The adjusted outcomes favored EDOU over NOU settings for admission rates [12.3% (95% CI 9.7-15.3) vs 26.4% (CI 21.3-32.3)], LoS differences [11.1 h (CI 10.6-11.5 h)] and cost differences [$127.5 (CI $105.4 - $149.5)]. Adjusted differences were similar and favored EDOU over HMSOU settings. For the health system, the total adjusted annualized savings of the EDOUs was 10,399 bed days and $1,329,443 in total direct cost per year. CONCLUSION: Within an academic medical center, EDOUs were associated with improved resource utilization and reduced cost. This represents a significant opportunity for hospitals to improve efficiency and contain costs.

Fast track dialysis: Improving emergency department and hospital throughput for patients requiring hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of a novel communication and triage pathway called fast track dialysis (FTD) on the length of stay (LOS), resource utilization, and charges for unscheduled hemodialysis for end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Prospective and retrospective cohorts of ESRD patients meeting requirements of routine or urgent hemodialysis at a tertiary academic hospital from September 25th, 2016 to September 25th, 2018 in 1 year cohorts. Two sample t-tests were used to compare most outcomes of the cohorts with a Mann-Whitney U test used for skewed data. Nephrology group outcomes were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. RESULTS: There were 98 encounters in the historical cohort and 143 encounters in the fast track dialysis cohort. FTD had significantly lowered median ED LOS (4.05 h, vs 5.3 h, p < 0.001), median hospital LOS (12.8 h vs 27 h, p < 0.001), time to hemodialysis (4.78 h vs 7.29 h, p < 0.001), and median hospital charges ($26,040 vs $30,747, p < 0.016). The FTD cohort had increased 30 day ED return for each encounter compared to the historical cohort (1.85 visits vs 0.73 visits, p < 0.001), however no significant increase in 1 year ED visits (6.52 visits vs 5.80, p = 0.4589) or 1 year readmissions (5.89 readmissions vs 4.81 readmissions, p = 0.3584). Most nephrology groups had significantly lower time to hemodialysis order placement and time to start hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary approach with key stakeholders using a standard pathway can lead to improved efficiency in throughput, reduced charges, and hospital resource utilization for patients needing urgent or routine hemodialysis. A study with a dedicated geographic observation unit for protocolized short stay patients including conditions ranging from low risk chest pain to transient ischemic events that incorporates FTD patients under this protocol should be considered.

Financial Viability of Emergency Department Observation Unit Billing Models.

BACKGROUND: Outpatients receive observation services to determine the need for inpatient admission. These services are usually provided without the use of condition-specific protocols and in an unstructured manner, scattered throughout a hospital in areas typically designated for inpatient care. Emergency department observation units (EDOUs) use protocolized care to offer an efficient alternative with shorter lengths of stay, lower costs, and higher patient satisfaction. EDOU growth is limited by existing policy barriers that prevent a "two-service" model of separate professional billing for both emergency and observation services. The majority of EDOUs use the "one-service" model, where a single composite professional fee is billed for both emergency and observation services. The financial implications of these models are not well understood. METHODS: We created a Monte Carlo simulation by building a model that reflects current clinical practice in the United States and uses inputs gathered from the most recently available peer-reviewed literature, national survey, and payer data. Using this simulation, we modeled annual staffing costs and payments for professional services under two common models of care in an EDOU. We also modeled cash flows over a continuous range of daily EDOU patient encounters to illustrate the dynamic relationship between costs and revenue over various staffing levels. RESULTS: We estimate the mean (±SD) annual net cash flow to be a net loss of $315,382 (±$89,635) in the one-service model and a net profit of $37,569 (±$359,583) in the two-service model. The two-service model is financially sustainable at daily billable encounters above 20, while in the one-service model, costs exceed revenue regardless of encounter count. Physician cost per hour and daily patient encounters had the most significant impact on model estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In the one-service model, EDOU staffing costs exceed payments at all levels of patient encounters, making a hospital subsidy necessary to create a financially sustainable practice. Professional groups seeking to staff and bill for both emergency and observation services are seldom able to do so due to EDOU size limitations and the regulatory hurdles that require setting up a separate professional group for each service. Policymakers and health care leaders should encourage universal adoption of EDOUs by removing restrictions and allowing the two-service model to be the standard billing option. These findings may inform planning and policy regarding observation services.

History, Principles, and Policies of Observation Medicine.

The history of observation medicine has paralleled the rise of emergency medicine over the past 50 years to meet the needs of patients, emergency departments, hospitals, and the US health care system. Just as emergency departments are the safety net of the health system, observation units are the safety net of emergency departments. The growth of observation medicine has been driven by innovations in health care, an ongoing shift of patients from inpatient to outpatient settings, and changes in health policy. These units have been shown to provide better outcomes than traditional care for selected patients.

Factors associated with prolonged observation services stays and the impact of long stays on patient cost.

BACKGROUND: Patients are treated using observation services (OS) when their care needs exceed standard outpatient care (i.e., clinic or emergency department) but do not qualify for admission. Medicare and other private payers seek to limit this care setting to 48 hours. DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data from 10 states and data collected from two additional states for 2009. STUDY DESIGN: Bivariate analyses and hierarchical linear modeling were used to examine patient- and hospital-level predictors of OS stays exceeding 48 (and 72) hours (prolonged OS). Hierarchical models were used to examine the additional cost associated with longer OS stays. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 696,732 patient OS stays, 8.8 percent were for visits exceeding 48 hours. Having Medicaid or no insurance, a condition associated with no OS treatment protocol, and being discharged to skilled nursing were associated with having a prolonged OS stay. Among Medicare patients, the mean charge for OS stays was $10,373. OS visits of 48-72 hours were associated with a 42 percent increase in costs; visits exceeding 72 hours were associated with a 61 percent increase in costs. CONCLUSION: Patient cost sharing for most OS stays of less than 24 hours is lower than the Medicare inpatient deductible. However, prolonged OS stays potentially increase this cost sharing.

Protocol-driven emergency department observation units offer savings, shorter stays, and reduced admissions.

Many patients who seek emergency department (ED) treatment are not well enough for immediate discharge but are not clearly sick enough to warrant full inpatient admission. These patients are increasingly treated as outpatients using observation services. Hospitals employ four basic approaches to observation services, which can be categorized by the presence or absence of a dedicated observation unit and of defined protocols. To understand which approach might have the greatest impact, we compared 2010 data from three sources: a case study of observation units in Atlanta, Georgia; statewide discharge data for Georgia; and national survey and discharge data. Compared to patients receiving observation services elsewhere in the hospital, patients cared for in "type 1" observation units-dedicated units with defined protocols-have a 23-38 percent shorter length-of-stay, a 17-44 percent lower probability of subsequent inpatient admission, and $950 million in potential national cost savings each year. Furthermore, we estimate that 11.7 percent of short-stay inpatients nationwide could be treated in a type 1 unit, with possible savings of $5.5-$8.5 billion annually. Policy makers should have hospitals report the setting in which observation services are provided and consider payment incentives for care in a type 1 unit.

State of the art: emergency department observation units.

Hospitals and emergency departments face the challenges of escalating healthcare costs, mismatched resource utilization, concern over avoidable admissions, and hospital and emergency department overcrowding. One approach that has been used by hospitals to address these issues is the use of emergency department observation units. Research in this setting has increased in recent years, leading to a better understanding of the role of these units and their unique benefits. These benefits have been proven for health systems as a whole and for several acute conditions including chest pain, asthma, syncope, transient ischemic attack, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, abdominal pain, and more. Benefits include a decrease in diagnostic uncertainty, lower cost and resource utilization, improved patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes that are comparable to admitted patients. As more hospitals begin to use observation units, there is a need for further education and research in how to optimize the use of emergency department observation units. The purpose of this article is to provide a general overview of observation units, including advancements and research in this field.

Chest pain center accreditation is associated with better performance of centers for Medicare and Medicaid services core measures for acute myocardial infarction.

The aim of this study was determine whether hospitals accredited by the Society of Chest Pain Centers hospitals (accredited chest pain centers [ACPCs]) are associated with better performance regarding Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services core measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) than nonaccredited hospitals. The study was a retrospective, observational cohort study of hospitals reporting Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services core measures for AMI from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2005, on the basis of the presence or absence of Society of Chest Pain Centers accreditation. Data were obtained from the Web sites of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Hospital Compare), Society of Chest Pain Centers listings, and the American Hospital Directory. Groups were compared in terms of demographics and mean percentage compliance with all 8 AMI core measures. Student's t test, chi-square analysis, and logistic regression were used to analyze bivariate relations. Multivariate logistic regression models used a propensity-score adjustment factor. Of the 4,197 hospitals that reported core measures for AMI, 178 (4%) were accredited and 4,019 (96%) were not. ACPCs had been accredited for an average of 12 months and were larger (378 vs 204 beds), more often teaching hospitals (52% vs 30%), and more often urban (95% vs 69%) (all p <0.0001). There were 395,250 patients with AMIs, of whom 55,418 (14%) presented to ACPCs and 339,832 (86%) presented to nonaccredited hospitals. There was significantly greater compliance with all 8 AMI core measures at ACPCs (p <0.0001), except for lytic therapy <30 minutes after arrival (p = 0.04), for which unadjusted performance was the same. In conclusion, ACPCs were associated with better compliance with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services core measures and saw a greater proportion of patients with AMIs.

An emergency department diagnostic protocol for patients with transient ischemic attack: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether transient ischemic attack patients treated with an accelerated diagnostic protocol in an emergency department (ED) observation unit will experience shorter lengths of stay, lower costs, and comparable clinical outcomes relative to patients with traditional inpatient admission. METHODS: A prospective randomized study of ED transient ischemic attack patients with a normal head computed tomography scan, ECG, and laboratory test results and no known embolic source. Patients were randomized to an inpatient bed or to accelerated diagnostic protocol care. Both groups had orders for serial clinical examinations, a neurology consultation, carotid Doppler tests, echocardiography, and cardiac monitoring. Accelerated diagnostic protocol patients with positive testing results were admitted. Study outcomes were length of stay, 90-day total direct cost, recidivism, and clinical outcome. RESULTS: One hundred forty-nine transient ischemic attack patients were randomized to the accelerated diagnostic protocol (75) or admission (74), with both groups similar in age, percentage of male patients, and stroke risk factors. Accelerated diagnostic protocol patient median length of stay was lower (25.6 hours [interquartile range 21.9 to 28.7 hours] versus 61.2 hours [interquartile range 41.6 to 92.2 hours]), and their 90-day costs were less ($890 [interquartile range $768 to 1,510] versus $1,547 [interquartile range $1,091 to 2,473]). Fifteen percent of accelerated diagnostic protocol patients were admitted, with all positive clinical outcomes occurring while patients were in the observation unit. More accelerated diagnostic protocol patients received carotid imaging (97% versus 91%) and in less time (median 13.0 hours versus 25.2 hours), and more received echocardiography (97% versus 73%) in less time (median 19.1 versus 43.0 hours). Both groups had comparable rates of related return visits (12% each), subsequent strokes (3 versus 2), and major clinical event (4 each). CONCLUSION: A diagnostic protocol for transient ischemic attack using an accelerated diagnostic protocol is more efficient and less costly than traditional inpatient admission and demonstrated clinical outcomes comparable to those of traditional inpatient admission.

A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the safety, diagnostic efficacy, and efficiency of multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) with standard diagnostic evaluation of low-risk acute chest pain patients. BACKGROUND: Over 1 million patients have emergency center evaluations for acute chest pain annually, at an estimated diagnostic cost of over $10 billion. Multi-slice computed tomography has a high negative predictive value for exclusion of coronary artery stenoses. METHODS: We randomized patients to MSCT (n = 99) versus SOC (n = 98) protocols. The MSCT patients with minimal disease were discharged; those with stenosis >70% underwent catheterization, whereas cases with intermediate lesions or non-diagnostic scans underwent stress testing. Outcomes included: safety (freedom from major adverse events over 6 months), diagnostic efficacy (clinically correct and definitive diagnosis), as well as time and cost of care. RESULTS: Both approaches were completely (100%) safe. The MSCT alone immediately excluded or identified coronary disease as the source of chest pain in 75% of patients, including 67 with normal coronary arteries and 8 with severe disease referred for invasive evaluation. The remaining 25% of patients required stress testing, owing to intermediate severity lesions or non-diagnostic scans. During the index visit, MSCT evaluation reduced diagnostic time compared with SOC (3.4 h vs. 15.0 h, p < 0.001) and lowered costs (1,586 dollars vs. 1,872 dollars, p < 0.001). Importantly, MSCT patients required fewer repeat evaluations for recurrent chest pain (MSCT, 2 of 99 (2.0%) patients vs. SOC, 7 of 99 (7%) patients; p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-slice computed tomographic coronary angiography can definitively establish or exclude coronary disease as the cause of chest pain. However, inability to determine the physiological significance of intermediate severity coronary lesions and cases with inadequate image quality are present limitations. (Study of Coronary Artery Computed Tomography to Diagnose Emergency Chest Pain CR; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00273832?order=1; NCT00273832).

The use and effectiveness of an emergency department observation unit for elderly patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency department observation units are cost-effective alternatives to hospital admission for selected patients. However, the use and effectiveness of these units in the elderly population is unclear. We sought to describe the use of an ED observation unit by elderly patients (>or=65 years), to determine whether the ED observation unit is effective for them in terms of ED observation unit length of stay and hospital admission rates, and to compare efficacy and return visit rates between younger and older patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational cohort study of consecutive adult patients sent to an ED observation unit from 1996 to 2000 at a high-volume tertiary care suburban teaching hospital. ED observation unit length of stay of less than 18 hours and admittance rates of less than 30% were used as indicators of efficacy. Diagnosis, length of stay, hospital admission rates, and 30-day return visit rates were compared between younger and older patients. RESULTS: Twenty-two thousand five hundred and thirty adult patients were observed, with 37.2% older than 65 years of age. The most common diagnoses in elderly patients were chest pain (24.0%), dehydration (11.7%), syncope (6.5%), back pain (4.6%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (3.8%). Length of stay in the ED observation unit was longer for the elderly than younger patients but still averaged less than 18 hours (15.8 hours [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.7 to 16.0] versus 14.4 hours [95% CI 14.3 to 14.5], respectively). Elderly patients were more likely to be admitted from the ED observation unit than younger patients (26.1% versus 18.5%); however, their overall admission rate remained less than 30%. Compared with younger patients, the odds ratios for inpatient admission of elderly patients was highest for back pain (2.10; 95% CI 1.62 to 2.73), pyelonephritis (1.78; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.71), and chest pain (1.65; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.89). Thirty-day related return visit rates between age groups were similar (9.4% versus 7.6%). CONCLUSION: Elderly ED observation unit patients had ED observation unit lengths of stay and hospital admission rates that were effective for an ED observation unit setting and ED return visits rates that were comparable with those of younger patients.