Transfer Patient Imaging: Assessment of the Impact of Discrepancies Identified by Emergency Radiologists.

PURPOSE: Advanced imaging examinations of emergently transferred patients (ETPs) are overread to various degrees by receiving institutions. The practical clinical impact of these second opinions has not been studied in the past. The purpose of this study is to determine if emergency radiology overreads change emergency medicine decision making on ETPs in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: All CT and MRI examinations on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during calendar year 2018 were routinely overread by emergency radiologists and discrepancies with the outside report electronically flagged. All discrepant reports compared with the outside interpretations were reviewed by one of four emergency medicine physicians. Comparing the original and final reports, reviewers identified changes in patient management that could be attributed to the additional information contained in the final report. Changes in patient care were categorized as affecting ED management, disposition, follow-up, or consulting services. RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, 5,834 patients were accepted in transfer. Among 5,631 CT or MRI examinations with outside reports available, 669 examinations (12%) had at least one discrepancy in the corresponding outside report. In 219 examinations (33%), ED management was changed by discrepancies noted on the final report; patient disposition was affected in 84 (13%), outpatient follow-up in 54 (8%), and selection of consulting services in 411 (61%), and ED stay was extended in 544 (81%). Discrepant findings affected decision making in 613 of 669 of examinations (92%). CONCLUSION: Emergency radiology overreading of transferred patients' advanced imaging examinations provided actionable additional information to emergency medicine physicians in the care of 613 of 669 (92%) examinations with discrepant findings. This added value is worth the effort to design workflows to routinely overread CT and MRI examinations of ETPs.

Wound Care Follow-Up From the Emergency Department Using a Mobile Application: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Many patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) do not have primary care and risk being lost to follow-up. Technology has been used successfully in surgical populations for wound care follow-up yet this is not well studied in ED populations. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a pilot study demonstrating "smartphone" application-based follow-up after wound care in the ED. METHODS: We enrolled participants in 2 urban EDs using a smartphone application called Mobile Post-Operative Wound Evaluator (mPOWEr) and defined participation as photographic submission at any time during the study period. We collected demographic data, frequency of use of mPOWEr, number of photographs uploaded, and timing of uploads. RESULTS: We approached patients for study enrollment, and 67 patients (28%) were not enrolled because they had no access to a smartphone. Seventy-one patients (30%) declined to enroll, leaving 100 (42%) successfully enrolled. Smartphone ownership was more common among patients <40 years of age (81% vs. 64%, p = 0.004), more common among white patients than nonwhite patients (75% vs. 15%, p = 0.046), more common among patients approached at the university medical center than the trauma center (84% vs. 66%, p = 0.003), and among patients with commercial or other insurance than those with Medicare or Medicaid (92% vs. 54%, p < 0.001). Of those enrolled, 58% submitted a photograph. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting for wound care to the ED will participate in smartphone-based app communication for wound care follow-up and are satisfied with this option. Disparities in smartphone access must be considered when using this follow-up method.

Critical Review, Development, and Testing of a Taxonomy for Adverse Events and Near Misses in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: An adverse event (AE) is a physical harm experienced by a patient due to health care, requiring intervention. Describing and categorizing AEs is important for quality and safety assessment and identifying areas for improvement. Safety science suggests that improvement efforts should focus on preventing and mitigating harm rather than on error, which is commonplace but infrequently leads to AEs. Most taxonomies fail to describe harm experienced by patients (e.g., hypoxia, hemorrhage, anaphylaxis), focusing instead on errors, and use categorizations that are too broad to be useful (e.g., "communication error"). We set out to create a patient-centered, emergency department (ED)-specific framework for describing AEs and near misses to advance quality and safety in the acute care setting. METHODS: We performed a critical review of existing taxonomies of harm, evaluating their applicability to the ED. We identified and adopted a classification framework and developed a taxonomy using an iterative process categorizing approximately 600 previously identified AEs and near misses. We reviewed this taxonomy with collaborators at four medical centers, receiving feedback and providing clarification. We then disseminated a set of representative scenarios for these safety experts to categorize independently using the taxonomy. We calculated interrater reliability and performance compared to our criterion standard. RESULTS: Our search identified candidate taxonomies for detailed review. We selected the Adventist Health Systems AE taxonomy and modified this for use in the ED, adopting a framework of categories, subcategories, and up to three modifiers to further describe events. On testing, overall reviewer agreement with the criterion standard was 92% at the category level and 88% at the subcategory level. Three of the four raters concurred in 55 of 59 scenarios (93%) and all four concurred in 46 of 59 scenarios (78%). At the subcategory level, there was complete agreement in 40 of 59 (68%) scenarios and majority agreement in 55 of 59 instances (93%). Performance of individual raters ranged from very good (88%, 52/59) to near perfect (98%, 58/59) at the main category level. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a taxonomy of AEs and near misses for the ED, modified from an existing framework. Testing of the tool with minimal training yielded high performance and good inter-rater reliability. This taxonomy can be adapted and modified by EDs seeking to enhance their quality and safety reviews and characterize harm occurring in their EDs for quality improvement purposes.