Emergency department medication dispensing reduces return visits and admissions.

OBJECTIVES: Return visits to the emergency department (ED) and subsequent readmissions are common for patients who are unable to fill their prescriptions. We sought to determine if dispensing medications to patients in an ED was a cost-effective way to decrease return ED visits and hospital admissions for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). METHODS: A retrospective review of ED visits for SSTIs, during the 24 weeks before and after the implementation of a medication dispensing program, was conducted. Charts were analyzed for both ED return visits and hospital admissions within 7 days and 30 days of the initial ED visit. Return visits were further reviewed to determine if the clinical conditions on subsequent visits were related to the initial ED presentation. A cost analysis comparing the cost of treatment to cost savings for return visits was also performed. RESULTS: Before the implementation of the medication dispensing program, the return rate in 7 days for the same condition was 9.1% and the rate of admission was 2.8%. The return rate for the same condition in 8-30 days was 2.1% and the rate of admission was 1.0%. After the implementation of the medication dispensing program, the return rate for the same condition in 7 days was 8.0%, and the admission rate was 1.7%. The return rate for the same condition in 8-30 days was 0.8%, and the admission rate was 0%. The total cost of dispensed medications was $4050, while total cost savings were estimated to be $95,477. CONCLUSION: A medication dispensing program in the ED led to a reduction in return visits and admissions for SSTIs at both 7 days and 30 days. For a cost of only $4050, an estimated total of $95,477 was saved. A medication dispensing program is a cost-effective way to reduce return visits to the ED and subsequent admissions for certain conditions.

The financial implications of variability in decision to disposition times for patients placed in observation status.

INTRODUCTION: A host of variables beyond the control of the ED physician affect ED throughput. In-process time represents the period most directly affected by physician decision-making patterns. This study attempts to evaluate implications of variable decision-making for those patients placed in observation status for throughput and financial implications. METHODS: A retrospective review of all ED admissions to observation status over an 8-month period, for observation decision times (ODT) was performed. The average cost per patient bed hour in the ED, opportunity cost from patients not being seen during excessive ODTs, and the cost of an unfilled bed in an observation unit were estimated. RESULTS: Of 2693 observation cases reviewed, 114 (4.2%) had ODTs longer than two standard deviations above the median. These accumulated ODTs lead to an additional cost of $12,307, or $107 per admission. An additional 45 patients could have been treated during these excess ODTs, from which result an opportunity loss ranging from $32 to $1350 per hour. There is an additional cost of $8036 to maintain empty observation beds in the hospital. CONCLUSION: For those ODTs beyond two standard deviations above the median, there is a direct unreimbursed cost to the hospital, an opportunity cost for patients not seen in those occupied ED beds, and a cost of maintaining unfilled observation beds. Variability in the efficiency of decision-making suggests real consequences in terms of throughput and cost-to-treat.

Aligning House Staff Performance Improvement Projects With Hospital Priorities: An Innovative Approach.

BACKGROUND: As hospital leaders work to meet national performance improvement (PI) priorities and provide high-value healthcare, aligning house staff goals with those of the hospital organization becomes necessary. A hospital leadership goal is to achieve the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Triple Aim with the delivery and measurement of high-value care through various PI frameworks, including the domains of the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC), now Vizient. However, most house staff develop PI projects within their departments, and these projects do not always align with hospital priorities. We sought to determine the extent of alignment between the house staff and the hospital. METHODS: An inventory of house staff projects determined by survey responses from house staff and lists provided by program directors and chairs was compiled during a 2-year period. A team of quality experts mapped all house staff projects to the UHC domains of care and to the IHI Triple Aim and then performed a gap analysis. RESULTS: A total of 184 projects representing 24 departments were identified. Most projects (38%), representing 18 departments, were categorized in the UHC Safety domain. The remaining projects were categorized into the domains of Efficiency (23%), Patient Centeredness (12%), Effectiveness (12%), Equity (8%), and Mortality (7%). Many departments did not have projects in all domains. CONCLUSION: We created unique and concise graphic representations of individual house staff projects aligning with hospital initiatives. Our framework generated an action plan for a proactive approach for continually aligning future house staff PI projects with the hospital goals and national healthcare agendas.

The Economics of an Admissions Holding Unit.

INTRODUCTION: With increasing attention to the actual cost of delivering care, return-on-investment calculations take on new significance. Boarded patients in the emergency department (ED) are harmful to clinical care and have significant financial opportunity costs. We hypothesize that investment in an admissions holding unit for admitted ED patients not only captures opportunity cost but also significantly lowers direct cost of care. METHODS: This was a three-phase study at a busy urban teaching center with significant walkout rate. We first determined the true cost of maintaining a staffed ED bed for one patient-hour and compared it to alternative settings. The opportunity cost for patients leaving without being seen was then conservatively estimated. Lastly, a convenience sample of admitted patients boarding in the ED was observed continuously from one hour after decision-to-admit until physical departure from the ED to capture a record of every interaction with a nurse or physician. RESULTS: Personnel costs per patient bed-hour were $58.20 for the ED, $24.80 for an inpatient floor, $19.20 for the inpatient observation unit, and $10.40 for an admissions holding area. An eight-bed holding unit operating at practical capacity would free 57.4 hours of bed space in the ED and allow treatment of 20 additional patients. This could yield increased revenues of $27,796 per day and capture opportunity cost of $6.09 million over 219 days, in return for extra staffing costs of $218,650. Analysis of resources used for boarded patients was determined by continuous observation of a convenience sample of ED-boarded patients, which found near-zero interactions with both nursing and physicians during the boarding interval. CONCLUSION: Resource expense per ED bed-hour is more than twice that in non-critical care inpatient units. Despite the high cost of available resources, boarded non-critical patients receive virtually no nursing or physician attention. An admissions holding unit is remarkably effective in avoiding the mismatch of the low-needs patients in high-cost care venues. Return on investment is enormous, but this assumes existing clinical space for this unit.