National Assessment of Quality Programs in Emergency Medical Services.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the adoption of clinical quality measurement throughout the United States on an EMS agency level, the features of agencies that do participate in quality measurement, and the level of physician involvement. It also aims to barriers to implementing quality improvement initiatives in EMS. METHODS: A 46-question survey was developed to gather agency level data on current quality improvement practices and measurement. The survey was distributed nationally via State EMS Offices to EMS agencies nation-wide using Surveymonkey©. A convenience sample of respondents was enrolled between August and November, 2015. Univariate, bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to describe demographics and relationships between outcomes of interest and their covariates using SAS 9.3©. RESULTS: A total of 1,733 surveys were initiated and 1,060 surveys had complete or near-complete responses. This includes agencies from 45 states representing over 6.23 million 9-1-1 responses annually. Totals of 70.5% (747) agencies reported dedicated QI personnel, 62.5% (663) follow clinical metrics and 33.3% (353) participate in outside quality or research program. Medical director hours varied, notably, 61.5% (649) of EMS agencies had <5 hours of medical director time per month. Presence of medical director time was correlated with tracking of QI measures. Air medical [OR 9.64 (1.13, 82.16)] and hospital-based EMS agencies [OR 2.49 (1.36, 4.59)] were more likely to track quality measures compared to fire-based agencies. Agencies in rural only environments were less likely to follow clinical quality metrics. (OR 0.47 CI 0.31 -0.72 p < 0.0004). For those that track QI measures, the most common are; Response Time (Emergency) (68.3%), On-Scene Time (66.4%), prehospital stroke screen (64.6%), aspirin administration (64.5%), and 12 lead ECG in chest pain patients (63.0%). CONCLUSIONS: EMS agencies in the United States have significant practice variability with regard to quality improvement resources, medical direction and specific clinical quality measures. More research is needed to understand the impact of this variation on patient care outcomes.

Appropriate and safe utilization of helicopter emergency medical services: a joint position statement with resource document.

This position statement with accompanying resource document is the result of a collaborative effort of a writing group comprised of members of the Air Medical Physician Association (AMPA), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP), and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM). This document has been jointly approved by the boards of all four organizations. Patients benefit from the appropriate utilization of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). EMS and regional health care systems must have and follow guidelines for HEMS utilization to facilitate proper patient selection and ensure clinical benefit. Clinical benefit can be provided by Meaningfully shortening the time to delivery of definitive care to patients with time-sensitive medical conditions Providing necessary specialized medical expertise or equipment to patients before and/or during transport Providing transport to patients inaccessible by other means of transport The decision to use HEMS is a medical decision, separate from the aviation determination whether a transport can be completed safely. Physicians with specialized training and experience in EMS and air medical transport must be integral to HEMS utilization decisions, including guideline development and quality improvement activities. Safety management systems must be developed, adopted, and adhered to by air medical operators when making decisions to accept and continue every HEMS transport. HEMS must be fully integrated within the local, regional, and state emergency health care systems. HEMS programs cannot operate independently of the surrounding health care environment. The EMS and health care systems must be involved in the determination of the number of HEMS assets necessary to provide appropriate coverage for their region. Excessive resources may lead to competitive practices that can affect utilization and negatively impact safety. Inadequate resources will delay receipt of definitive care. National guidelines for appropriate utilization of HEMS must be developed. These guidelines should be national in scope yet allow local, regional, and state implementation. A National HEMS Agenda for the Future should be developed to address HEMS utilization and availability and to identify and support a research strategy for ongoing, evidence-based refinement of utilization guidelines.

The effect of performance incentives on resident documentation in an emergency medicine residency program.

We sought to improve resident chart documentation in an academic emergency department using an incentive. A stipend for educational expenses was offered to residents for documenting charts above specific threshold Evaluation & Management (E&M) levels. Comparisons were made with historical levels. Twenty-two residents participated over 4 months (70% received the stipend). Documentation levels increased significantly from 2.86 and 3.04 during historical controls to 3.31 during the study period (p < 0.05). Fifty-six percent of charts were documented at 99284 or 99285 during the study period compared to 39% and 23% in the control periods (p < 0.05). Three months after the plan (with no incentives), documentation continued to improve, with 59% documented at 99284 or 99285. Mean collection per patient was $48.05 for the study period and $42.36 and $35.86 for the historical periods (p < 0.05). Implementation of a resident incentive program to enhance chart documentation may considerably improve documentation and resident education in proper chart documentation.

Enhancing systems to improve the management of acute, unscheduled care.

For acutely ill patients, health care services are available in many different settings, including hospital-based emergency departments (EDs), retail clinics, federally qualified health centers, and outpatient clinics. Certain conditions are the sole domain of particular settings: stabilization of critically ill patients can typically only be provided in EDs. By contrast, many conditions that do not require hospital resources, such as advanced radiography, admission, and same-day consultation can often be managed in clinic settings. Because clinics are generally not open nights, and often not on weekends or holidays, the ED remains the only option for face-to-face medical care during these times. For patients who can be managed in either setting, there are many open research questions about which is the best setting, because these venues differ in terms of access, costs of care, and potentially, quality. Consideration of these patients must be risk-adjusted, as patients may self-select a venue for care based upon perceived acuity. We present a research agenda for acute, unscheduled care in the United States developed in conjunction with an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded conference hosted by the American College of Emergency Physicians in October 2009, titled "Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Emergency Care Across the Continuum: A Systems Approach." Given the possible increase in ED utilization over the next several years as more people become insured, understanding differences in cost, quality, and access for conditions that may be treated in EDs or clinic settings will be vital in guiding national health policy.