Does Practice Match Protocol? A Comparison of Triage-to-Provider Time Among More vs. Less Acute Emergency Department Patients.

Introduction The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) stratifies emergency department (ED) patients for triage, from "most acute" (level 1) to "least acute" (level 5). Many EDs have a split flow model where less acute (ESI 4 and 5) are seen in a fast track, while more acute (ESI 1, 2, and 3) are seen in the acute care area. A core principle of emergency medicine (EM) is to attend to more acute patients first. Deliberately designating an area for less acute patients to be initially assessed quickly by a first provider might result in them being seen before more acute patients. This study aims to determine the percentage of less acute patients seen by a provider sooner after triage than more acute patients who arrived within 10 minutes of one another. Additionally, this study compares the fast track and acute care areas to see if location affects triage-to-provider time. Methods A random convenience sample of 252 ED patients aged ≥18 was taken. Patients were included if their ESI was available for the provider during sign-up. Patients were excluded if they were directly sent to the ED psychiatric area or attended to by the author. We collected data on the ESI level, time stamps for triage and first provider sign-up, and the location to which the patient was triaged (fast track vs. acute care). Paired patients' ESI levels, locations, and triage and first provider sign-up times were compared. Results  The study included 126 pairs of patients. There was a statistically significant difference in triage-to-provider times for paired ESI 2 vs. 3 patients (60.5 vs. 35.5 minutes, p = 0.0007) and overall paired high- vs. low-acuity patients (55 vs. 39.5 minutes, p = 0.004). However, in 34.8% of paired ESI 2 vs. 3 patients, the ESI 3 patient was seen prior to the paired ESI 2 patient, and in 39.4% of overall paired high vs. low acuity patients, the less acute patient was seen before the more acute patient. Additionally, patients in the acute care area had significantly shorter median triage-to-provider times (~40 minutes) compared to those in the fast track area for ESI 2 (acute care) vs. ESI 3 (fast track) and overall high acuity (acute care) vs. low acuity (fast track). Nonetheless, approximately one-third of ESI 3 patients triaged to fast track were seen before ESI 2 patients triaged to the acute care area. Conclusion The split flow model reduces overall ED length of stay, improving flow volume, revenue, and patient satisfaction. However, it comes at the expense of the fundamental ethos of EM and potentially subverts the intended triage process. Although most more acute patients are seen by a provider sooner after triage than less acute patients, a substantial number are seen later, which could delay urgent medical needs and negatively impact patients' outcomes. Furthermore, patients triaged to acute care are, in general, seen sooner post-triage than identical-ESI-level fast track patients, suggesting fast track might not function as intended (for low-acuity patients to be quickly assessed and initiate diagnostic and treatment plans). We intend to follow this exploratory study with a more comprehensive, multivariate analysis that will consider confounding variables such as initial vital signs, how busy a provider was that day, etc. The future study will also examine patient outcomes to determine the impact on more acute patients of the split flow model and, in particular, on less acute patients being seen sooner by a first provider.

Integrating Pre-test Probability and Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in the Emergency Department (ED) Diagnosis of Small Bowel Obstruction (SBO).

Introduction A computed tomography (CT) scan and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) are commonly employed for diagnosing small bowel obstructions (SBOs). Prior studies demonstrated that POCUS has 90-95% sensitivity and specificity compared with CT scanning, which is the gold standard. Unlike other imaging modalities (in which the ordering and performing clinician are not the same), POCUS-performing/interpreting sonologists must recognize the risk of confirmation bias in the POCUS application. Per Bayesian analysis, the likelihood of a diagnosis being true following a diagnostic test is based on the ordering clinician's pre-test probability and the test characteristics (sensitivity and specificity, from which positive and negative likelihood ratios can be calculated). Consequently, establishing pre-test probability is important in informing downstream diagnostic or therapeutic interventions, as pre-test probability influences post-test odds. Little research has been done on the role of POCUS sonologist's pre-test probability and actual POCUS results regarding SBO. This study assessed the role of POCUS, integrating pre-test probability and POCUS results to determine post-test odds. Methods One hundred six patients were recruited on a convenience basis and underwent POCUS and CT between April 2017 and December 2022. All sonographers were credentialed in POCUS. POCUS sonologists' pre-test probabilities and POCUS and CT results were captured, which were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- were calculated, and correlations were made between pre-test probability and POCUS and CT results.  Results POCUS exhibited a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 90%, with a corresponding positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 9.3 and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.09 for diagnosing SBO. Among patients with a high pre-test probability of SBO, a negative ultrasound yielded post-test odds of 0.4%, whereas a positive POCUS yielded post-test odds of 39.6%. Among patients with a low pre-test probability, a negative POCUS resulted in post-test odds of 0%, while a positive POCUS led to post-test odds of 2.1%, yielding a number needed to scan (NNS) of ~50 to identify a patient with an SBO on CT. Conclusion This study confirmed POCUS's sensitivity and specificity of ~90-95% and a corresponding LR+ of 9.2 and LR- of 0.9. Pre-test probability substantially affected post-test odds. Patients with a high pre-test probability and a positive POCUS had post-test odds of 39.6 and should have a confirmatory CT, while those with a negative POCUS have very low post-test odds and very likely will not benefit from CT. Patients with low pre-test probability and a positive POCUS have post-test odds of 2.1%, similar to the Wells Score and HEART score; such patients may not benefit from a CT, though clinicians should use their judgment/discretion. Patients with a low pre-test probability and a negative POCUS have post-test odds of 0% and should not have a CT. Among low pre-test probability patients, the NNS was ~50 to identify patients with an SBO on CT.

Sex disparities in outcomes after carotid artery interventions: A systematic review.

This systematic review aimed to identify sex-specific outcomes in men and women after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), including transfemoral and transcarotid. A search of literature published from January 2000 through December 2022 was conducted using key terms attributed to carotid interventions on PubMed. Studies comparing outcome metrics post intervention (ie, myocardial infarction [MI], cerebral vascular accident [CVA] or stroke, and long-term mortality) among male and female patients were reviewed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Overall, all studies reported low rates of perioperative complications. Among the studies that did not stratify outcomes by the preoperative symptom status, there were no significant sex differences in rates of perioperative strokes or MIs. Two studies, however, noted a higher rate of 30-day mortality in male patients undergoing CEA than in female patients. Analysis of asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA revealed no difference in perioperative MIs (female: 0% to 1.8% v male: 0.4% to 4.3%), similar rates of CVAs (female: 0.8% to 5% v male: 0.8% to 4.9%), and no significant differences in the long-term mortality outcomes. Alternatively, symptomatic patients undergoing CEA reported a higher rate of CVAs in female patients vs. male patients (7.7% v 6.2%) and showed a higher rate of death in female patients (1% v 0.7%). Among studies that did not stratify outcome by symptomatology, there was no difference in the 30-day outcomes between sexes for patients undergoing CAS. Asymptomatic patients undergoing CAS demonstrated similar incident rates across perioperative MIs (female: 0% to 5.9% v male: 0.28% to 3.3%), CVAs (female: 0.5% to 4.1% v male: 0.4% to 6.2%), and long-term mortality outcomes (female: 0% to 1.75% v male: 0.2% to 1.5%). Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS similarly reported higher incidences of perioperative MIs (female: 0.3% to 7.1% v male: 0% to 5.5%), CVAs (female: 0% to 9.9% v male: 0% to 7.6%), and long-term mortality outcomes (female: 0.6% to 7.1% v male: 0.5% to 8.2%). Sex-specific differences in outcomes after major vascular procedures are well recognized. Our review suggests that symptomatic female patients have a higher incidence of neurologic and cardiac events after carotid interventions, but that asymptomatic patients do not.

Meaningless Use: Assessing Compliance With a Clinically Meaningless Emergency Department Documentation Requirement.

Introduction A New York State initiative requests that Emergency Department (ED) providers document in the electronic health record (EHR) each admitted patient's employment status and, if applicable, their mode of commute. This initiative diverts them from their primary duties and increases the likelihood they will either disregard the request or input incorrect information to complete the data fields as fast as possible. This study intends to understand how well providers adhere to this regulation, which, while important for society as a whole, has little clinical relevance, especially in the ED, where the focus is to identify and treat emergent conditions. We hypothesized that clinician-collected employment data would contain many more "N/A" responses than registration-collected employment data (the "gold standard").  Methods We took a randomly selected convenience sample of 100 patients admitted from the ED and compared each patient's provider-entered response to the employment data field to the registration-recorded response. The EHR operates such that the "Employment" field must be completed in order to complete the admission electronically. Data fields collected were: last name, first name, date of birth, medical record number, date and time of arrival, date and time of admission, attending physician, resident physician (if there was one), mid-level provider (if there was one), provider-entered employment status, registration-entered employment status, admitting service (eg, Medicine, Surgery, OB/Gyn), and disposition level (eg, ICU). We assessed the percent of employment data that was concordant between the provider's entry and the registration clerk's entry. We also assessed for the potential confounding variable of how busy the ED was at time of admission, as providers may not take ask about employment or enter such data during particularly busy times. Finally, we interviewed providers to elicit reasons they did not enter accurate data. Statistical significance was set a priori at p <0.05. Results One hundred six patients were screened; six were excluded because one of the authors (MR) was their attending physician. For 92 of the remaining 100 patients, providers recorded employment as "N/A," and for eight patients they recorded "retired." For seven of these eight patients, provider entry matched registration entry (87.5% concordance). To adjust for whether how busy the ED was may have impacted the accuracy of data entry, admissions were categorized according to what time of day the patient was admitted. There was no statistically significant correlation between how busy the ED was and accuracy of data entry. The majority of providers stated they responded "NA" because the employment information was unrelated to the ED visit.  Conclusion In New York, for each patient admitted from the ED, the ED provider is requested to enter the patient's job information and, if they commute to work, the method they use. However, this takes providers' attention away from what they should be doing most: diagnosing and treating patients. This study highlights the unintended consequence of requesting data fields that are not clinically relevant and, from the patient and provider perspective, are not good investments of time and energy and distract from the clinical visit. Persons interpreting such clinically irrelevant data should do so with caution, as the results are unlikely to reflect the truth of what the questions intend to determine.

Novel Discharge Center for Transition of Care in Vulnerable Emergency Department Treat and Release Patients.

Introduction The majority of emergency department (ED) patients are discharged following evaluation and treatment. Most patients are recommended to follow up with a primary care provider (PCP) or specialist. However, there is considerable variation between providers and EDs in discharge process practices that might facilitate such follow-up (e.g., simply discharging patients with follow-up physician names/contact information vs. making appointments for patients). Patients who do not follow up with their PCPs or specialists are more likely to be readmitted within 30 days than those who do. Furthermore, vulnerable patients have difficulty arranging transitional care appointments due to poor health literacy, inadequate insurance, appointment availability, and self-efficacy. Our innovative ED discharge process utilizes an Emergency Department Discharge Center (EDDC) staffed by ED Care Coordinators and assists patients with scheduling post-discharge appointments to improve rates of follow-up with outpatient providers. This study describes the structure and activities of the EDDC, characterizes the EDDC patient population, and demonstrates the volume and specialties of appointments scheduled by EDDC Care Coordinators. The impact of the EDDC on operational metrics (72-hour returns, 30-day admissions, and length-of-stay [LOS]) and the impact of the EDDC on patient satisfaction are evaluated. Methods The Long Island Jewish Medical Center (LIJMC) EDDC is an intervention developed in July 2020 within a 583-bed urban hospital serving a racially, ethnically, and socio-economically diverse population, with many patients having limited access to healthcare. Data from the Emergency Medicine Service Line (EMSL), an ED Care Coordinator database, and manual chart review were collected from July 2020 to July 2021 to examine the impact of the EDDC on 72-hour returns, 30-day admissions, and Press Ganey's® "likelihood to recommend ED" score (a widely used patient satisfaction survey question). The EDDC pilot cohort was compared to non-EDDC discharged patients during the same period. Results In unadjusted analysis, EDDC patients were moderately less likely to return to the ED within 72 hours (5.3% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.0044) or be admitted within 30 days (3.4% vs. 4.2%). The program was particularly beneficial for uninsured and elderly patients. For both EDDC and non-EDDC patients, most revisits and 30-day admissions were for the same chief complaint as the index visit. The length-of-stay increased by ~10 minutes with no impact on satisfaction with ED visits. Musculoskeletal conditions (~20%) and specialties (~15%) were the most commonly represented. Approximately 10% of referrals were to obtain a PCP. Nearly 90% were to new providers or specialties. Most scheduled appointments occurred within a week.  Conclusion This novel EDDC program, developed to facilitate outpatient follow-up for discharged ED patients, produced a modest but statistically significant difference in 72-hour returns and 30-day admissions for patients with EDDC-scheduled appointments vs. those referred to outpatient providers using the standard discharge process. ED LOS increased by ~10 minutes for EDDC vs. non-EDDC patients, with no difference in satisfaction. Future analyses will investigate impacts on 72-hour returns, 30-day admissions, LOS, and satisfaction after adjusting for characteristics such as age, insurance, having a PCP, and whether the scheduled appointment was attended.

Reducing Unnecessary 'Admission' Chest X-rays: An Initiative to Minimize Low-Value Care.

Introduction Internal medicine admission services often request a baseline admission chest X-ray (CXR) for patients already admitted to the emergency department (ED) and who are waiting for inpatient beds, despite rarely providing clinical value. Adverse consequences of such CXRs include unnecessary radiation exposure, cost, time, and false positives, which can trigger a diagnostic cascade. Extraneous CXRs performed on already-admitted ED patients can delay inpatient transfer, thereby increasing boarding and crowding, which in turn may affect mortality and satisfaction. In 2016, our ED and internal medicine hospitalist services implemented guidelines (reflecting those of the American College of Radiology) to reduce unnecessary admission CXRs. All relevant providers were educated on the guideline. The primary aim of this study was to determine if there were changes in the percentage of patients with pre-admission and admission CXRs following guideline implementation. Our secondary aim was to determine which patient characteristics predict getting a CXR. Methods All ED and internal medicine hospitalist providers were educated once about the guideline. We performed a retrospective analysis of pre- vs. post-guideline data. Patients were included if admitted to the internal medicine service during those timeframes with an admission diagnosis unrelated to the cardiac or pulmonary systems. A CXR performed during ED evaluation prior to the admission disposition time was recorded as "pre-admission," and if performed after disposition time it was recorded as "admission." A CXR was "unwarranted" if the admission diagnosis did not suggest a CXR was necessary. The numerator was the number of unnecessary admission CXRs ordered on patients with diagnoses unrelated to the cardiac or pulmonary systems (minus those with a pre-admission CXR); the denominator was the number of such admissions (minus those with a pre-admission CXR). Variables of interest that might influence whether a CXR was ordered were age, gender, respiratory rate ≥20, cardiac- or pulmonary-related chief complaint, ED diagnosis category, or past medical history.  Results Among admitted patients with diagnoses that did not suggest a CXR was warranted, there was no change in the percentage of admission CXRs (21.7% to 25.6%, p = 0.2678), whereas the percentage with pre-admission CXRs decreased (66.6% to 60.7%, p = 0.0152). This decrease was driven by fewer CXRs being performed on patients whose chief complaint did not suggest one was indicated (p = .0121). In multivariate analysis, risk factors for an unwarranted CXR were age >40 (risk ratio (RR) = 2.9) and past medical history of cardiovascular disease (e.g., myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation), renal disease, or hyperkalemia.  Conclusion This educational initiative was not associated with the intended decrease in ordering unwarranted admission CXRs among ED boarding patients, though there was an unanticipated decrease in pre-admission CXRs. This decrease was driven by fewer CXRs being performed on patients whose chief complaint did not suggest one was indicated. Organizations interested in reducing processes with little clinical value might adopt a similar program while emphasizing the lack of benefit to admitted patients through iterative educational programs on hospital admitting services.

Globe Rupture - A Case Report and Review of Emergency Department Diagnosis and Management.

Globe ruptures, while uncommon, must be promptly recognized to optimize the possibility of preserving vision. Differentiating open globe injuries from corneal abrasions, hyphema, and other ocular injuries is critical. When a globe rupture is identified, prompt ophthalmology consultation, placement of a rigid eye shield, administration of prophylactic systemic antibiotics (and antifungals with an appropriate history), and a tetanus vaccine update (if needed) are key to a successful outcome, so long as the visual prognosis is not dismal. We describe a case of ocular trauma presenting as a blood blister adherent to the cornea, which was initially assessed (by the triage nurse) to be a blood clot but later identified as a globe rupture. We include a discussion of globe rupture recognition and its management by the emergency department.