Patient satisfaction in the emergency department and the use of business cards by physicians.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) across the country become increasingly crowded. Methods to improve patient satisfaction are becoming increasingly important. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the use of business cards by emergency physicians improves patient satisfaction. METHODS: A prospective, convenience sample of ED patients were surveyed in a tertiary care, suburban teaching hospital. Inclusion criteria were limited to an understanding of written and spoken English. Excluded patients included those with altered mental status or too ill to complete a survey. Patients were assigned to receive a business card on alternate days in the ED from the treating physician(s) during their patient introductions. The business cards listed the physician's name and position (resident or attending physician) and the institution name and phone number. Before hospital admission or discharge, a research assistant asked patients to complete a questionnaire regarding their ED visit to determine patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Three hundred-twenty patients were approached to complete the questionnaire and 259 patients (81%) completed it. Patient demographics were similar in both the business card and non-business-card groups. There were no statistically significant differences for patient responses to any of the study questions whether or not they received a business card during the physician introduction. CONCLUSION: The use of business cards during physician introduction in the ED does not improve patient satisfaction.

Emergency department design and patient perceptions of privacy and confidentiality.

The study objective was to determine if Emergency Department (ED) patients experience fewer breaches of privacy and confidentiality in a larger, renovated ED compared to a similar patient population before renovation. We surveyed a convenience sample of patients regarding their privacy and confidentiality at the conclusion of their ED stay. In the post-renovation ED, 14% of patients overheard conversations about themselves or other patients, compared to 36% of patients in the ED before renovation. This was likely a result of both an increase in the department size (564 square feet per treatment space post-renovation vs. 375 square feet per treatment space pre-renovation) and the elimination of rooms separated only by curtains. Issues of privacy and confidentiality should be taken into consideration in the design of new departments and those to be renovated.

Impact of a Chronic Pain Protocol on Emergency Department Utilization.

OBJECTIVES: Patients suffering from chronic painful conditions frequently present to the emergency department (ED) for pain control. In an effort to better manage these patients we implemented and measured the effect of enrollment in a chronic pain protocol in a single ED. METHODS: A retrospective (pre) and prospective (post) study design was utilized. We identified 46 frequent ED users suffering from chronic painful conditions. We then retrospectively documented their ED use and prescription controlled substance use for 6 months prior to enrollment in a chronic pain protocol and then 6 months postenrollment. RESULTS: Preenrollment participating patients visited the ED on average 6.2 times in a 6-month period. Postenrollment their mean number of visits in the following 6 months decreased significantly to 2.2 times, or a 65% decrease (p < 0.001). Similarly, preenrollment, the patients were prescribed a median of 664 controlled substance pills in the entire state compared to 471 pills in the 6-month period postenrollment, or a 29% decrease (p < 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Through instituting a chronic pain protocol, we found significant reductions in the number of return visits to a single ED and the number of controlled substance medications prescribed by all providers. Additional studies using similar protocols could help establish their impact on the care of patients suffering from chronic pain and the potential to reduce healthcare costs, ED overcrowding, and prescription drug abuse.

Emergency Department patient perceptions of privacy and confidentiality.

The study objective was to determine if Emergency Department (ED) patients experience breaches of privacy and confidentiality during their ED stay and to determine if the type of room in which the patient is placed affects privacy. We surveyed a convenience sample of ED patients at the conclusion of their ED stay regarding their privacy and confidentiality. Overall, 36% of patients overheard conversations with similar frequencies in walled and curtained rooms. The location of conversations overheard varied depending on the type of patient room, as curtained rooms allowed conversations from adjacent rooms to be overheard and walled rooms allowed more conversations from the hallway or nursing station to be overheard. Patients felt more comfortable giving their history and having physical examinations performed in walled vs. curtained rooms. Inappropriate or unprofessional comments by staff were heard by 1.6% of patients. Health care providers in the ED need to be aware of breaches in confidentiality and privacy, as our patients deserve respect of their privacy and confidentiality during their ED visit.

A double-blind randomized clinical trial evaluating the analgesic efficacy of ketorolac versus butorphanol for patients with suspected biliary colic in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected biliary colic often require intravenous (IV) analgesia. The choice of IV analgesia typically includes opioids and ketorolac. Although ultrasound (US) is the initial diagnostic study in these patients, nondiagnostic scans and a high clinical suspicion may require the patient to undergo hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HIDA). Opioids such as morphine interfere with the HIDA scan and thus may limit its value as an analgesic in the ED for these patients. Analgesics that do not interfere with HIDA scanning include ketorolac and butorphanol, an opioid agonist-antagonist. This study evaluates the efficacy of IV ketorolac compared to butorphanol for the treatment of biliary colic pain in the ED. METHODS: Between June 2005 and February 2007, a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain suspected to be biliary colic were randomized to receive either 30 mg of IV ketorolac or 1 mg of IV butorphanol. Pain level was assessed using a 1 to 10 "faces" visual analog pain scale initially, as well as 15 and 30 minutes after medication infusion. Side effect profiles and the need for rescue analgesia were also assessed. Patients and clinicians were blinded to the study drug given. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Both groups had similar demographics and baseline pain scores. The mean (+/-standard deviation [SD]) pain score in the butorphanol group decreased from 7.1 (+/-1.7) to 2.1 (+/-2.2) after 30 minutes. The mean (+/-SD) pain score in the ketorolac group decreased from 7.4 (+/-2.0) to 3.1 (+/-3.3) after 30 minutes. Both groups had similar needs for rescue analgesia. Side effects included dizziness and sedation with butorphanol and nausea with ketorolac. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by small sample size and convenience sample, this study demonstrates that both ketorolac and butorphanol provide pain relief in biliary colic. Both agents should be considered reasonable options in the ED treatment of biliary colic, especially in patients that may undergo HIDA.