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.

Association between patients' body mass index and emergency department wait times: A multicenter observational cohort investigation by the reducing disparities increasing equity in emergency medicine (REDEEM) study group.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous studies have demonstrated evidence of obesity bias in healthcare settings, however, little is known about obesity bias in the Emergency Department (ED). The objective of this study was to investigate obesity bias in an ED setting by assessing the association between body mass index (BMI) and door-to-room (DTR) or door-to-provider (DTP) times among ED patients. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of all adult patient (age ≥ 18 years of age) visits to 21 Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic Health System EDs between November 1, 2018 and March 31, 2020. We compared DTR and DTP times based on BMI category. RESULTS: We found that median DTR and DTP times for adults with class 3 obesity are significantly shorter than patients in the normal weight category. For men with class 3 obesity, median DTR and DTP times were 7.5% and 5.4% shorter than men in the normal weight category. Relative to women in the normal weight category, the median DTR and DTP times were 4.6% and 3.8% faster for women in obesity class 1, 4.9% and 5.1% faster for women in obesity class 2, and DTR was 4.4% faster for women in obesity class 3. These percentage differences translated to slightly shorter wait times of 0.4-1.2 min compared to median wait times for patients with normal BMI. CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence of longer wait times experienced by people with obesity. Rather, patients with obesity often experienced wait times that were shorter than patients of normal weight.

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.

A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis of Emergency Department Scribes.

OBJECTIVE: To apply time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology to determine emergency medicine physician documentation costs with and without scribes. METHODS: This was a prospective observation cohort study in a large academic emergency department. Two research assistants with experience in physician-scribe interactions and ED workflow shadowed attending physicians for a total of 64 hours in the adult emergency department. A tablet-based time recorded was used to obtain estimates for physician documentation time on both control (no scribe) and intervention (scribe) shifts. RESULTS: Control shifts yielded approximately 3 hours of documentation time per 8 hours of clinical time (2 hours during the shift, 1 hour following the shift). When paired with a scribe, attending physician documentation decreased to 1 hour and 45 minutes during a shift and 15 minutes of postshift documentation. The physician cost estimate for documentation without and with a scribe is 644 and 488 dollars, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When one looks at the time saved by the provider, scribes appear to be a financially sound decision. TDABC methodology demonstrated that scribes afford a cost-effective solution to ED clinical documentation and serves as a tool to develop an accurate costing system, based on actual resources and processes, and allowed for understanding of resource use at a more granular level.

Impact of Scribes on Billed Relative Value Units in an Academic Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Scribe use throughout health care is becoming more common. There is limited peer-reviewed literature supporting this emerging role in health care despite rapid uptake of the role. OBJECTIVES: Our study assesses impact of scribes on relative value units (RVUs) in adult and pediatric emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: A prospective cohort study was developed in a tertiary academic ED. Charts were coded by an external billing and coding company, then returned and mapped by International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision diagnostic codes. After training by a staff member with significant experience in implementing scribe programs, scribes provided 1-to-1 support to a provider as staffing allowed. Comparisons were made between scribed and nonscribed visits. RESULTS: There were 49,389 patient visits during the study period (39,926 adult [80.84%] and 9463 pediatric [19.16%] visits), of which 7865 (15.9%) were scribed. For adults, scribed visits produced 0.20 additional RVUs per patient (p < 0.001). Scribes generated additional RVUs in Emergency Severity Index (ESI) 2 (p < 0.001) and 3 (p < 0.001) patients. There were variable effects of scribes on RVUs by diagnostic codes. For pediatric patients, scribed encounters generated 0.08 fewer RVUs per patient (p = 0.007). ESI score had no effect on RVUs. The impact of scribes on pediatric diagnostic groupings was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Scribes had a positive impact on RVUs in adult but not pediatric patients. Among adults, scribes led to higher RVUs in ESI 2 and 3 but not 4 and 5 patients, perhaps suggesting a limitation to improve revenue capture on lower-acuity patients.

Simulation-based emergency medicine resident self-assessment.

BACKGROUND: Videotaped recordings of simulation-based performance may allow learners the opportunity to review, evaluate, and reflect upon their own performance. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of resident performance self-assessment after a simulation-based encounter; compare low- and high-scoring residents' abilities to evaluate their performance; and determine if video-assisted performance review improves self-assessment accuracy. METHODS: Emergency Medicine residents participated in a videotaped simulation-based assessment. Residents evaluated their performance immediately after completing simulated cases, and after reviewing the session's video. Self-ratings were compared to the faculty observers, and scores were divided based on the median. RESULTS: Seventeen residents participated, providing 270 self-ratings before, and 269 after, video review. Before video review, residents accurately graded their performance in 73.7% of the items. High- and low-scoring residents accurately self-assessed 83.9% and 62.2% of items, respectively. The odds of a high scorer accurately rating their own performance were 3.2 times that of a low scorer (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-5.2, p<0.001). After video review, resident self-assessments were accurate for 73.6% of the items. High scorers were accurate in their post-video self-assessment in 83.3% of the items, vs. 62.4% for low scorers. After video review, the odds of a high scorer accurately self-rating their performance were 3.0 times that of a low scorer (95% CI 2.1-4.1, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Residents' abilities to self-assess vary, and performance quality may influence self-assessment. Video review did not significantly increase self-assessment accuracy. Improving self-assessment skills may assist residents in identifying practice gaps, thereby allowing them to focus their energy toward filling that gap.

The Chest Pain Choice trial: a pilot randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with chest pain in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department (ED). Despite the frequency with which clinicians evaluate patients with chest pain, accurately determining the risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and sharing risk information with patients is challenging. The aims of this study are (1) to develop a decision aid (CHEST PAIN CHOICE) that communicates the short-term risk of ACS and (2) to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on patient participation in decision-making and resource use. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving CHEST PAIN CHOICE to a control group receiving usual ED care. Adults presenting to the Saint Mary's Hospital ED in Rochester, MN USA with a primary complaint of chest pain who are being considered for admission for prolonged ED observation in a specialized unit and urgent cardiac stress testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CHEST PAIN CHOICE on six outcomes: (1) patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS and the risks of radiation exposure; (2) quality of the decision making process; (3) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (4) the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and urgent cardiac stress testing; (5) economic costs and healthcare utilization; and (6) the rate of delayed or missed ACS. To capture these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys after each visit, obtain video recordings of the clinical encounters, and conduct 30-day phone follow-up. DISCUSSION: This pilot randomized trial will develop and evaluate a decision aid for use in ED chest pain patients at low risk for ACS and provide a preliminary estimate of its effect on patient participation in decision-making and resource use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01077037.