Effect of Automated Real-Time Feedback on Early-Sepsis Care: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if a real-time monitoring system with automated clinician alerts improves 3-hour sepsis bundle adherence. DESIGN: Prospective, pragmatic clinical trial. Allocation alternated every 7 days. SETTING: Quaternary hospital from December 1, 2020 to November 30, 2021. PATIENTS: Adult emergency department or inpatients meeting objective sepsis criteria triggered an electronic medical record (EMR)-embedded best practice advisory. Enrollment occurred when clinicians acknowledged the advisory indicating they felt sepsis was likely. INTERVENTION: Real-time automated EMR monitoring identified suspected sepsis patients with incomplete bundle measures within 1-hour of completion deadlines and generated reminder pages. Clinicians responsible for intervention group patients received reminder pages; no pages were sent for controls. The primary analysis cohort was the subset of enrolled patients at risk of bundle nonadherent care that had reminder pages generated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was orders for all 3-hour bundle elements within guideline time limits. Secondary outcomes included guideline-adherent delivery of all 3-hour bundle elements, 28-day mortality, antibiotic discontinuation within 48-hours, and pathogen recovery from any culture within 7 days of time-zero. Among 3,269 enrolled patients, 1,377 had reminder pages generated and were included in the primary analysis. There were 670 (48.7%) at-risk patients randomized to paging alerts and 707 (51.3%) to control. Bundle-adherent orders were placed for 198 intervention patients (29.6%) versus 149 (21.1%) controls (difference: 8.5%; 95% CI, 3.9-13.1%; p = 0.0003). Bundle-adherent care was delivered for 152 (22.7%) intervention versus 121 (17.1%) control patients (difference: 5.6%; 95% CI, 1.4-9.8%; p = 0.0095). Mortality was similar between groups (8.4% vs 8.3%), as were early antibiotic discontinuation (35.1% vs 33.4%) and pan-culture negativity (69.0% vs 68.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Real-time monitoring and paging alerts significantly increased orders for and delivery of guideline-adherent care for suspected sepsis patients at risk of 3-hour bundle nonadherence. The trial was underpowered to determine whether adherence affected mortality. Despite enrolling patients with clinically suspected sepsis, early antibiotic discontinuation and pan-culture negativity were common, highlighting challenges in identifying appropriate patients for sepsis bundle application.

An emergency department nurse led intervention to facilitate serious illness conversations among seriously ill older adults: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness conversations may lead to care consistent with patients' goals near the end of life. The emergency department could serve as an important time and location for these conversations. AIM: To determine the feasibility of an emergency department-based, brief motivational interview to stimulate serious illness conversations among seriously ill older adults by trained nurses. DESIGN: A pre-/post-intervention study. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: In an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center and a community hospital from January 2021 to January 2022, we prospectively enrolled adults ⩾50 years of age with serious illness and an expected prognosis <1 year. We measured feasibility outcomes using the standardized framework for feasibility studies. In addition, we also collected the validated 4-item Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey (a 5-point Likert scale) at baseline and 4-week follow-up and reviewing the electronic medical record for documentation related to newly completed serious illness conversations. RESULTS: Among 116 eligible patients who were willing and able to participate, 76 enrolled (65% recruitment rate), and 68 completed the follow-up (91% retention rate). Mean patient age was 64.4 years (SD 8.4), 49% were female, and 58% had metastatic cancer. In all, 16 nurses conducted the intervention, and all participants completed the intervention with a median duration of 27 min. Self-reported Advance Care Planning Engagement increased from 2.78 pre to 3.31 post intervention (readiness to "talk to doctors about end-of-life wishes," p < 0.008). Documentation of health care proxy forms increased (62-70%) as did Medical Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (1-11%) during the 6 months after the emergency department visit. CONCLUSION: A novel, emergency department-based, nurse-led brief motivational interview to stimulate serious illness conversations is feasible and may improve advance care planning engagement and documentation in seriously ill older adults.

Utilization of a multidisciplinary emergency department sepsis huddle to reduce time to antibiotics and improve SEP-1 compliance.

Sepsis is a significant public health crisis in the United States, contributing to 50% of inpatient hospital deaths. Given its dramatic health effects and implications in the setting of new CMS care guidelines, ED leaders have renewed focus on appropriate and timely sepsis care, including timely administration of antibiotics in patients at risk for sepsis. Modeling the success of multidisciplinary bedside huddles in improving compliance with appropriate care in other healthcare settings, a Sepsis Huddle was implemented in a large, academic ED, with the goal of driving compliance with standardized sepsis care as described in the CMS SEP-1 measure. A retrospective cohort analysis was performed, with the primary finding that utilization of the Sepsis Huddle resulted in antibiotics being administered on average 41 min sooner than when the Sepsis Huddle was not performed. Given that literature suggests that early administration of appropriate antibiotic therapy is a major driver of mortality reduction in patients with sepsis, this study represents a proof of concept that utilization of a Sepsis Huddle may serve to improve outcomes among ED patients at risk for sepsis.

Goals-of-Care Conversations for Older Adults With Serious Illness in the Emergency Department: Challenges and Opportunities.

During the last 6 months of life, 75% of older adults with preexisting serious illness, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease, and cancer, visit the emergency department (ED). ED visits often mark an inflection point in these patients' illness trajectories, signaling a more rapid rate of decline. Although most patients are there seeking care for acute issues, many of them have priorities other than to simply live as long as possible; yet without discussion of preferences for treatment, they are at risk of receiving care not aligned with their goals. An ED visit may offer a unique "teachable moment" to empower patients to consider their ability to influence future medical care decisions. However, the constraints of the ED setting pose specific challenges, and little research exists to guide clinicians treating patients in this setting. We describe the current state of goals-of-care conversations in the ED, outline the challenges to conducting these conversations, and recommend a research agenda to better equip emergency physicians to guide shared decisionmaking for end-of-life care. Applying best practices for serious illness communication may help emergency physicians empower such patients to align their future medical care with their values and goals.

New Mandated Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Requirements for Sepsis Reporting: Caution from the Field.

BACKGROUND: The release of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service's (CMS) latest quality measure, Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1), has intensified the long-standing debate over optimal care for severe sepsis and septic shock. Although the last decade of research has demonstrated the importance of comprehensive bundled care in conjunction with compliance mechanisms to reduce patient mortality, it is not clear that SEP-1 achieves this aim. The heterogeneous and often cryptic presentation of severe sepsis and septic shock, along with the multifaceted criteria for the definition of this clinical syndrome, pose a particular challenge for fitting requirements to this disease, and implementation could have unintended consequences. OBJECTIVE: Following a simulated reporting exercise, in which 50 charts underwent expert review, we aimed to detail the challenges of, and offer suggestions on how to rethink, measuring performance in severe sepsis and septic shock care. DISCUSSION: There were several challenges associated with the design and implementation of this measure. The ambiguous definition of severe sepsis and septic shock, prescriptive fluid volume requirements, rigid reassessment, and complex abstraction logic all raise significant concern. CONCLUSIONS: Although SEP-1 represents an important first step in requiring hospitals to improve outcomes for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, the current approach must be revisited. The volume and complexity of the currently required SEP-1 reporting elements deserve serious consideration and revision before they are used as measures of accountability and tied to reimbursement.

Association of magnetic resonance imaging for back pain on seven-day return visit to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of back pain is rising, as is the use of high-cost imaging in the ED. The objective of our study was to determine if an MRI in the ED for patients with back pain resulted in a lower incidence of ED return visit and to determine if these patients had longer ED length of stay (LOS) and use of ED observation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients seen with back pain was conducted at an urban, university-affiliated ED between 1 January 2012 and 11 July 2014. The association of MRI on return within 7 days was assessed using a χ2 test and a multivariable logistic regression model and the difference in median ED LOS was compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: During the study period, 6094 patients were evaluated in the ED with back pain as the primary diagnosis. Of these, 797 (13%) received an MRI. Among all patients with back pain, 277 (4.5%) returned within 7 days. Univariate analysis found that patients who received an MRI were no less likely to return within 7 days than patients who did not (4.3% vs 4.6%; p=0.68). Patients who had an MRI were more likely to be admitted to observation (74.2% vs 10.8%; p<0.0001) and had a longer ED LOS (median 4.8 hours vs 2.7; p<0.0001). Multivariable regression confirmed that MRI did not decrease the rate of a 7-day return visit (OR=0.98; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uncomplicated back pain, performing an MRI will not mitigate their likelihood of return; however, it leads to a longer ED LOS and more ED observation admissions.

A prediction model to identify patients without a concerning intraabdominal diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with abdominal diagnoses constitute 5% to 10% of all emergency department (ED) presentations. The goal of this study is to identify which of these patients will have a nonconcerning diagnosis based on demographic, physical examination, and basic laboratory testing. METHODS: Consecutive patients from July 2013 to March 2014 discharged with a gastrointestinal (GI) diagnosis who presented to an urban, university-affiliated ED were identified. The cohort was split into a derivation set and a validation set. Using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis, a risk score was created based on the deviation data and then tested on the validation data. RESULTS: There were 8852 patients with a GI diagnosis during the study period. A total of 7747 (87.5%) of them had a nonconcerning diagnosis. The logistic regression model identified 13 variables that predict a concerning GI diagnosis and created a scoring system ranging from 0 to 20. The area under the receiver operating characteristic was 0.81. When dichotomized at greater than or equal to 7 vs less than 7, the risk score has a sensitivity of 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88-94), specificity of 46% (95% CI, 44-48), positive predictive value of 17% (95% CI, 15-19) and negative predictive value of 98% (95% CI, 97-99). CONCLUSION: One can determine with a high degree of certainty, based only on an initial evaluation and screening laboratory work (excluding radiology) whether a patient who presents with a GI-related complaint has a nonconcerning diagnosis. This model could be used as a tool to aid in quality assurance when reviewing patients discharged with GI complaints and with future study, as a secondary triage instrument in a crowded ED environment, and aid in resource allocation.

Emergency Palliative Care: Nongoal Concordant Care and Time-Limited Trials in the Emergency Department.

When advance care plans are not communicated or goals are in conflict, significant family and clinician distress may result. The distress is especially high when potentially nongoal concordant care is expected by surrogates in the emergency department (ED). To demonstrate the effect of off-hour, phone consultations by palliative care clinicians in reducing the family and clinician distress when nongoal concordant care is expected in the ED. A partnership between palliative care and emergency medicine can decrease the burden of decision making and provide opportunities for modeling a goals-of-care discussion by experts in this important procedure.

The differences in code status conversation approaches reported by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: During acute health deterioration, emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians routinely discuss code status (e.g., shared decision making about mechanical ventilation) with seriously ill patients. Little is known about their approaches. We sought to elucidate how code status conversations are conducted by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians and why their approaches are different. METHODS: We conducted a sequential-explanatory, mixed-method study in three large academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. Attending physicians and advanced practice providers working in emergency medicine and palliative care were eligible. Among the survey respondents, we purposefully sampled the participants for follow-up interviews. We collected clinicians' self-reported approaches in code status conversations and their rationales. A survey with a 5-point Likert scale ("very unlikely" to "very likely") was used to assess the likelihood of asking about medical procedures (procedure based) and patients' values (value based) during code status conversations, followed by semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Among 272 clinicians approached, 206 completed the survey (a 76% response rate). The reported approaches differed greatly (e.g., 91% of palliative care clinicians reported asking about a patient's acceptable quality of life compared to 59% of emergency medicine clinicians). Of the 206 respondents, 118 (57%) agreed to subsequent interviews; our final number of semistructured interviews included seven emergency medicine clinicians and nine palliative care clinicians. The palliative care clinicians stated that the value-based questions offer insight into patients' goals, which is necessary for formulating a recommendation. In contrast, emergency medicine clinicians stated that while value-based questions are useful, they are vague and necessitate extended discussions, which are inappropriate during emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians reported conducting code status conversations differently. The rationales may be shaped by their clinical practices and experiences.

Goals of Care Conversations Documented By an Embedded Emergency Department-Palliative Care Team During COVID.

Background: There has been growing interest around integrating palliative care (PC) into emergency department (ED) practice but concern about feasibility and impact. In 2020, as the COVID pandemic was escalating, our hospital's ED and PC leadership created a new service of PC clinicians embedded in the ED. Objectives: To describe the clinical work of the embedded ED-PC team, in particular what was discussed during goals of care conversations. Design: Prospective patient identification followed by retrospective electronic health record chart extraction and analysis. Settings/Subjects: Adult ED patients in an academic medical center in the United States. Measurements/Results: The embedded ED-PC team saw 159 patients, whose mean age was 77.5. Nearly all patients were admitted, 48.0% had confirmed or presumed COVID, and overall mortality was 29.1%. Of the patients seen, 58.5% had a serious illness conversation documented as part of the consult. The most common topics addressed were patient (or family) illness understanding (96%), what was most important (92%), and a clinical recommendation (91%). Clinicians provided a prognostic estimate in 57/93 (61.3%) of documented discussions. In the majority of cases where prognosis was discussed, it was described as poor. Conclusion: Specialist PC clinicians embedded in the ED can engage in high-quality goals of care conversations that have the potential to align patients' hospital trajectory with their preferences.

Communication Training and Code Status Conversation Patterns Reported by Emergency Clinicians.

CONTEXT: During acute health decompensations for seriously ill patients, emergency clinicians often determine the intensity end-of-life care. Little is known about how emergency clinicians conduct these conversations, especially among those who have received serious illness communication training. OBJECTIVES: To determine the self-reported practice patterns of code status conversations by emergency clinicians with and without serious illness communication training. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among emergency clinicians with and without a recent evidence-based, serious illness communication training tailored for emergency clinicians. Emergency clinicians were included from two academic medical centers. A five-point Likert scale ("very unlikely" to "very likely" to ask) was used to assess the self-reported likelihood of asking about patients' preferences for medical procedures and patients' values and goals. RESULTS: Among 161 respondents (71% response rate), 77 (48%) received the training. A total of 70% of emergency clinicians reported asking about procedure-based questions, and only 38% reported asking about patient's values regarding end-of-life care. For value-based questions, statistically significant differences were observed between emergency clinicians who underwent the training and those who did not in four of the seven questions asked (e.g., the higher odds of exploring the patient's life priorities [adjusted OR = 4.34, 95% CI = 1.95-9.65, P-value < 0.001]). No difference was observed in the self-reported rates of all procedure-based questions between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Most emergency clinicians reported asking about procedure-based questions, and some asked about patient's value-based questions. Clinicians with recent serious illness communication training may ask more about some values and priorities.

Refinement of an Emergency Department-Based, Advance Care Planning Intervention for Nurses.

Background: Most older adults visit the emergency department (ED) near the end of life without advance care planning (ACP) and thus are at risk of receiving care that does not align with their wishes and values. ED GOAL is a behavioral intervention administered by ED clinicians, which is designed to engage seriously ill older adults in serious illness conversations in the ED. Seriously ill older adults found it acceptable in the ED. However, its potential to be used by nurses remains unclear. Objective: The aim of this study is to identify refinements to adapt an ED-based ACP intervention by eliciting the perspectives of nurses. Design: This is a qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Data were analyzed using axial coding methods. Setting/Subjects: We recruited a purposeful sample of ED nurses in one urban academic ED and one urban community ED in the northeastern region of the United States. Results: Twenty-five nurses were interviewed (mean age 46 years, 84% female, and mean clinical experience of 16 years). Emerging themes were identified within six domains: (1) nurses' prior experience with serious illness conversations, (2) overall impression of ED GOAL, (3) refinements to ED GOAL, (4) implementation of ED GOAL by ED nurses, (5) specially trained nursing model, and (6) use of telehealth with ED GOAL. Conclusions: ED nurses were generally supportive of using ED GOAL and provided insight into how to best adapt and implement it in their clinical practice. Empirical evidence for adapting ED GOAL to the nursing practice remains to be seen.

Mapping the future for research in emergency medicine palliative care: A research roadmap.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of emergency medicine (EM) and palliative care (PC) has been recognized as an essential area of focus, with evidence suggesting that increased integration improves outcomes. This has resulted in increased research in EM PC. No current framework exists to help guide investigation and innovation. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to convene a working group to develop a roadmap that would help provide focus and prioritization for future research. METHODS: Participants were identified based on clinical, operation, policy, and research expertise in both EM and PC and spanned physician, nursing, social work, and patient perspectives. The research roadmap setting process consisted of three distinct phases that were time staggered over 12 months and facilitated through three live video convenings, asynchronous input via an online document, and a series of smaller video convenings of work groups focused on specific topics. RESULTS: Gaps in the literature were identified and informed the four key areas for future research. Consensus was reached on these domains and the associated research questions in each domain to help guide future study. The key domains included work focused on the value imperative for PC in the emergency setting, models of care delivery, disparities, and measurement of impact and efficacy. Additionally, the group identified key methodological considerations for doing work at the intersection of EM and PC. CONCLUSIONS: There are several key domains and associated questions that can help guide future research in ED PC. Focus on these areas, and answering these questions, offers the potential to improve the emergency care of patients with PC needs.

Characteristics of medical malpractice claims involving emergency medicine physicians.

BACKGROUND: Identifying characteristics of malpractice claims involving emergency medicine (EM) physicians allows leaders to develop patient safety initiatives to prevent future harm events. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of paid/unpaid claims closed 2007 to 2016 from Comparative Benchmarking System. Claims were identified by physician specialty involved (EM, internal medicine, general surgery). Various characteristics were compared by physician specialty. Multivariable regression was performed to identify factors associated with claim payment, in which (1) physician specialty was included as a predictor and (2) only the subset involving EM physicians was analyzed. RESULTS: Of 54,772 claims, 2760 involved EM physicians, 5886 involved internists, and 3207 involved surgeons. Death was the most common severity among EM claims (34%). Diagnosis-related allegations accounted for 58%, higher than 42% and 11% of claims involving internists and surgeons, respectively (P < 0.0001). Thirty-one percent was paid. The median indemnity paid on behalf of any defendant was $206,261 (interquartile range $55,065-527,651). The most common final diagnoses were myocardial infarction (2%), pulmonary embolus (2%), and cardiac arrest (2%). Procedure-related claims were associated with increased payment likelihood (odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.34). CONCLUSION: Malpractice claims in EM are often diagnosis- or procedure related. Our findings suggest that diagnostic accuracy and procedural competency should shape future quality improvement work.

Development of a rubric for assessing delayed diagnosis of appendicitis, diabetic ketoacidosis and sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: Using case review to determine whether a patient experienced a delayed diagnosis is challenging. Measurement would be more accurate if case reviewers had access to multi-expert consensus on grading the likelihood of delayed diagnosis. Our objective was to use expert consensus to create a guide for objectively grading the likelihood of delayed diagnosis of appendicitis, new-onset diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and sepsis. METHODS: Case vignettes were constructed for each condition. In each vignette, a patient has the condition and had a previous emergency department (ED) visit within 7 days. Condition-specific multi-specialty expert Delphi panels reviewed the case vignettes and graded the likelihood of a delayed diagnosis on a five-point scale. Delayed diagnosis was defined as the condition being present during the previous ED visit. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement. In each Delphi round, panelists were given the scores from the previous round and asked to rescore. A case scoring guide was created from the consensus scores. RESULTS: Eighteen expert panelists participated. Consensus was achieved within three Delphi rounds for all appendicitis and sepsis vignettes. We reached consensus on 23/30 (77%) DKA vignettes. A case review guide was created from the consensus scores. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-specialty expert reviewers can agree on the likelihood of a delayed diagnosis for cases of appendicitis and sepsis, and for most cases of DKA. We created a guide that can be used by researchers and quality improvement specialists to allow for objective case review to determine when delayed diagnoses have occurred for appendicitis, DKA, and sepsis.