Errors in Decisionmaking in Emergency Medicine: The Case of the Landscaper's Back and Root Cause Analysis.

Root cause analysis is often suggested as a means of conducting quality assurance, but few physicians are familiar with the actual process. We describe a detailed approach to conducting root cause analysis, with an illustrative case to explain the technique. By studying how root cause analysis is applied to the case of a missed epidural abscess, the reader will see how the process reveals systems improvements that reduce the risk that such a miss will happen again. Following this process will be helpful in using root cause analysis to fix not just individuals' issues but also but systemwide quality assurance issues to improve patient care.

Utility of Procedural Sedation as a Marker for Quality Assurance in Emergency Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission requires health care organizations to monitor and evaluate procedural sedation. However, the utility of mandatory review of procedural sedation in evaluating health care quality is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether procedural sedation is a useful marker for evaluating error in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We prospectively collected data for patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center ED between October 2013 and June 2015. We used an automated, electronic tracking system to identify patients who underwent procedural sedation. We randomly assigned cases to physician reviewers. Reviewers used a structured tool to determine the presence of error and adverse events. If a reviewer felt that the case had an error or adverse event, it was referred to a quality assurance (QA) committee, which made a final determination as to whether or not an error or adverse event occurred. RESULTS: There were 166 cases of procedural sedation reviewed. Two errors were identified, for an error rate of 1.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.003-0.043). Both errors occurred during the use of propofol to facilitate upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Neither error resulted in an adverse event. One adverse event was identified that was unrelated to physician error (0.6%; 95% CI 0.001-0.033). CONCLUSION: Routine review of procedural sedation performed in the ED offers little advantage over existing QA markers. Directed review of high-risk cases, such as those involving endoscopy or other longer-duration procedures, may be more useful. Future studies focusing quality review on projected high-risk sedation cases may establish more valuable markers for QA review.

Health care system hazard vulnerability analysis: an assessment of all public hospitals in Abu Dhabi.

Hazard vulnerability analysis (HVA) is used to risk-stratify potential threats, measure the probability of those threats, and guide disaster preparedness. The primary objective of this project was to analyse the level of disaster preparedness in public hospitals in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, utilising the HVA tool in collaboration with the Disaster Medicine Section at Harvard Medical School. The secondary objective was to review each facility's disaster plan and make recommendations based on the HVA findings. Based on the review, this article makes eight observations, including on the need for more accurate data; better hazard assessment capabilities; enhanced decontamination capacities; and the development of hospital-specific emergency management programmes, a hospital incident command system, and a centralised, dedicated regional disaster coordination centre. With this project, HVAs were conducted successfully for the first time in health care facilities in Abu Dhabi. This study thus serves as another successful example of multidisciplinary emergency preparedness processes.

"Operation Helping Hands": Massachusetts health and medical response to Hurricane Katrina.

INTRODUCTION: As Hurricane Katrina bore down on New Orleans in August 2005, the city's mandatory evacuation prompted the exodus of an estimated 80% of its 485,000 residents. According to estimates from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at least 18 states subsequently hosted more than 200,000 evacuees. HYPOTHESIS/PROBLEM: In this case study, "Operation Helping Hands" (OHH), the Massachusetts health and medical response in assisting Hurricane Katrina evacuees is described. Operation Helping Hands represents the largest medical response to evacuees in recent Massachusetts history. METHODS: The data describing OHH were derived from a series of structured interviews conducted with two leading public health officials directing planning efforts, and a sample of first responders with oversight of operations at the evacuation site. Also, a literature review was conducted to identify similar experiences, common challenges, and lessons learned. RESULTS: Activities and services were provided in the following areas: (1) administration and management; (2) medical and mental health; (3) public health; and (4) social support. This study adds to the knowledge base for future evacuation and shelter planning, and presents a conceptual framework that could be used by other researchers and practitioners to describe the process and outcomes of similar operations. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a description of the planning and implementation efforts of the largest medical evacuee experience in recent Massachusetts history, an effort that involved multiple agencies and partners. The conceptual framework can inform future evacuation and shelter initiatives at the state and national levels, and promotes the overarching public health goal of the highest attainable standard of health for all.

Using a rule-based system to define error in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of peer-reviewed cases for error is key to quality assurance (QA) in emergency medicine, but defining error to ensure reviewer agreement and reproducibility remains elusive. The objective of this study was to create a consensus-based set of rules to systematically identify medical errors. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study of all cases presented for peer review at an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center emergency department (ED) quality assurance (QA) committee between October 13, 2015, and September 14, 2016. Our hospital uses an electronic system enabling staff to self-identify QA issues for subsequent review. In addition, physician or patient complaints, 72-hour returns with admission, death within 24 hours, floor transfers to ICU < 24 hours, and morbidity and mortality conference cases are automatic triggers for review. Trained reviewers not involved in the patient's care use a structured 8-point Likert scale to assess for error and preventable or non-preventable adverse events. Cases where reviewers perceived a need for additional treatment, or that caused patient harm, are referred to a 20-member committee of emergency department leadership, attendings, residents, and nurses for consensus review. For this study, "rules" were proposed by the reviewers identifying the error and validated by consensus during each meeting. The committee then decided if a rule had been broken (error) or not broken (judgment call). If an error could not be phrased in terms of a rule broken, then it would not be considered an error. The rules were then evaluated by 2 reviewers and organized by theme into categories to determine common errors in emergency medicine. RESULTS: We identified 108 episodes of rules broken in 103 cases within a database of 920 QA reviewed cases. In cases where a rule was broken and therefore an error was scored, the following 5 major themes emerged: (1) not acquiring necessary information (eg, not completing a relevant physical exam), N = 33 (31%); (2) not acting on data that were acquired (eg, abnormal vital signs or labs), N = 25 (23%); (3) knowledge gaps by clinicians (eg, not knowing to reduce a hernia), N = 16 (15%); (4) communication gaps (eg, discharge instructions), N = 17 (16%); and (5) systems issues (eg, improper patient registration), N = 17 (16%). CONCLUSION: The development of consensus-based rules may result in a more standardized and practical definition of error in emergency medicine to be used as a QA tool and a basis for research. The most common type of rule broken was not acquiring necessary information. A rule-based definition of medical error in emergency medicine may identify key areas for risk reduction strategies, help standardize medical QA, and improve patient care and physician education.

Core Disaster Medicine Education (CDME) for Emergency Medicine Residents in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Disaster Medicine (DM) education for Emergency Medicine (EM) residents is highly variable due to time constraints, competing priorities, and program expertise. The investigators' aim was to define and prioritize DM core competencies for EM residency programs through consensus opinion of experts and EM professional organization representatives. METHODS: Investigators utilized a modified Delphi methodology to generate a recommended, prioritized core curriculum of 40 DM educational topics for EM residencies. RESULTS: The DM topics recommended and outlined for inclusion in EM residency training included: patient triage in disasters, surge capacity, introduction to disaster nomenclature, blast injuries, hospital disaster mitigation, preparedness, planning and response, hospital response to chemical mass-casualty incident (MCI), decontamination indications and issues, trauma MCI, disaster exercises and training, biological agents, personal protective equipment, and hospital response to radiation MCI. CONCLUSIONS: This expert-consensus-driven, prioritized ranking of DM topics may serve as the core curriculum for US EM residency programs.

Use of Physician Concerns and Patient Complaints as Quality Assurance Markers in Emergency Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The value of using patient- and physician-identified quality assurance (QA) issues in emergency medicine remains poorly characterized as a marker for emergency department (ED) QA. The objective of this study was to determine whether evaluation of patient and physician concerns is useful for identifying medical errors resulting in either an adverse event or a near-miss event. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients presenting between January 2008 and December 2014 to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center ED with an electronic error reporting system that allows physicians to identify QA issues for review. In our system, both patient and physician concerns are reviewed by physician evaluators not involved with the patients' care to determine if a QA issue exists. If a potential QA issue is present, it is referred to a 20-member QA committee of emergency physicians and nurses who make a final determination as to whether or not an error or adverse event occurred. RESULTS: We identified 570 concerns within a database of 383,419 ED presentations, of which 33 were patient-generated and 537 were physician-generated. Out of the 570 reports, a preventable adverse event was detected in 3.0% of cases (95% CI = [1.52-4.28]). Further analysis revealed that 9.1% (95% CI = [2-24]) of patient complaints correlated to preventable errors leading to an adverse event. In contrast, 2.6% (95% CI = [2-4]) of QA concerns reported by a physician alone were found to be due to preventable medical errors leading to an adverse event (p=0.069). Near-miss events (errors without adverse outcome) trended towards more accurate reporting by physicians, with medical error found in 12.1% of reported cases (95% CI = [10-15]) versus 9.1% of those reported by patients (95% CI = [2-24] p=0.079). Adverse events in general that were not deemed to be due to preventable medical error were found in 12.1% of patient complaints (95% CI = [3-28]) and in 5.8% of physician QA concerns (95% CI = [4-8]). CONCLUSION: Screening and systemized evaluation of ED patient and physician complaints may be an underutilized QA tool. Patient complaints demonstrated a trend to identify medical errors that result in preventable adverse events, while physician QA concerns may be more likely to uncover a near miss.

Integration of academia and practice in preparedness training: the Harvard School of Public Health experience.

Given the need for public health professionals well trained in emergency preparedness and response, students in public health programs require ample practical training to prepare them for careers in public health practice. The Harvard School of Public Health Center for Public Health Preparedness has been instrumental in the creation and implementation of a course entitled, "Bioterrorism: Public Health Preparedness and Response." This course features lectures on specific applications of public health practice in emergency preparedness and response. In addition, it provides students the opportunity to operationalize and apply their knowledge during an interactive tabletop exercise. In light of their university affiliations and expertise in providing preparedness training, other Academic Centers for Public Health Preparedness have the opportunity to be instrumental in providing similar training to graduate students of public health.

Health care facility and community strategies for patient care surge capacity.

Recent terrorist and epidemic events have underscored the potential for disasters to generate large numbers of casualties. Few surplus resources to accommodate these casualties exist in our current health care system. Plans for "surge capacity" must thus be made to accommodate a large number of patients. Surge planning should allow activation of multiple levels of capacity from the health care facility level to the federal level. Plans should be scalable and flexible to cope with the many types and varied timelines of disasters. Incident management systems and cooperative planning processes will facilitate maximal use of available resources. However, resource limitations may require implementation of triage strategies. Facility-based or "surge in place" solutions maximize health care facility capacity for patients during a disaster. When these resources are exceeded, community-based solutions, including the establishment of off-site hospital facilities, may be implemented. Selection criteria, logistics, and staffing of off-site care facilities is complex, and sample solutions from the United States, including use of local convention centers, prepackaged trailers, and state mental health and detention facilities, are reviewed. Proper pre-event planning and mechanisms for resource coordination are critical to the success of a response.

Protective equipment for health care facility decontamination personnel: regulations, risks, and recommendations.

After recent terrorist attacks, new attention has been focused on health care facility decontamination practices. This article reviews core issues related to the selection of appropriate personal protective equipment for health care facility decontamination personnel, with an emphasis on respiratory protection. Existing federal regulations focus primarily on scene response and not on issues specific to health care facility decontamination practices. Review of existing databases, relevant published literature, and individual case reports reveal some provider health risks, especially when the exposure involves organophosphate agents. However, reported risks from secondary exposure to contaminated patients at health care facilities are low. These risks should be adequately addressed with Level C personal protective equipment, including air-purifying respirator technologies, unless the facility determines that specific local threats require increased levels of protection.

Establishing and training health care facility decontamination teams.

Recent terrorist events, changes in Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations requirements, and availability of grant funding have focused health care facility attention on emergency preparedness. Health care facilities have historically been underprepared for contaminated patients presenting to their facilities. These incidents must be properly managed to reduce the health risks to the victims, providers, and facility. A properly equipped and well-trained health care facility team is a prerequisite for rapid and effective decontamination response. This article reviews Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) training requirements for personnel involved with decontamination responses, as well as issues of team selection and training. Sample OSHA operations-level training curricula tailored to the health care environment are outlined. Initial and ongoing didactic and practical training can be implemented by the health care facility to ensure effective response when contaminated patients arrive seeking emergency medical care.