Health Information Exchange in the ED: What Do ED Clinicians Think?

OBJECTIVES: Our regional health information exchange (HIE), known as Carolina eHealth Alliance (CeHA)-HIE, serves all major hospital systems in our region and is accessible to emergency department (ED) clinicians in those systems. We wanted to understand reasons for low CeHA-HIE utilization and explore options for improving it. METHODS: We implemented a 24-item user survey among ED clinician users of CeHA-HIE to investigate their perceptions of system usability and functionality, the quality of the information available through CeHA-HIE, the value of clinician time spent using CeHA-HIE, the ease of use of CeHA-HIE, and approaches for improving CeHA-HIE. RESULTS: Of the 231 ED clinicians surveyed, 51 responded, and among those, 48 reported having used CeHA-HIE and completed the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Results show most ED clinicians believed that CeHA-HIE was easy to use and added value to their work, but they also desired better integration of information available from CeHA-HIE into their system's electronic medical record.

Primer in health information exchange for the emergency physician: benefits and barriers.

For various reasons, patients seek care at different hospitals within a region, resulting in fragmented medical records at the point of care. In the emergency department, this is a particularly important issue because the emergency department provides open access to all patients and requires rapid high-stakes decision making to function well. To address these issues and as a result of federal initiatives, health information exchanges (HIEs) have been designed and implemented in various regions throughout the United States to promote health information sharing. The use of HIEs has been demonstrated to lower costs and avoid duplicative testing and treatment; however, obstacles such as physician usage characteristics and institutional concerns regarding information sharing exist and must be addressed before full implementation and adoption of HIEs among institutions take place. Further research is needed to describe the benefits of HIEs and how they can affect these barriers.

Clinician Perception of Risk As a Barrier to Implementation of a High-sensitivity Troponin Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol.

BACKGROUND: To assess emergency department (ED) clinician perception of patient risk, we measured willingness to discharge patients categorized as increased risk by traditional risk stratification modalities for acute coronary syndrome but low risk by a validated high-sensitivity troponin accelerated diagnostic protocol (HST-ADP). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional descriptive survey study distributed to ED clinicians at an urban academic medical center. Four clinical vignettes classified hypothetical patients as low risk for 30-day acute coronary syndrome according to the 0-/1-hour HST-ADP. Vignettes additionally identified patients with History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin (HEART) scores of 4 or 6 (2 cases each). One patient in each subset had preexisting coronary artery disease (CAD). ED clinicians self-reported willingness to discharge patients from the ED on a 10-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Among 66 eligible participants, 36 (55%) participated in the survey. ED clinicians reported a mean willingness to discharge patients of 6.07 (95% confidence interval, 5.34-6.80). They reported higher mean willingness to discharge patients with HEART scores of 4 compared with those with HEART scores of 6 (mean difference, 3.61; 95% confidence interval, 2.19-5.03). There were no differences in willingness to discharge regarding presence or absence of CAD or between clinician types (attending, resident, advanced practice provider). CONCLUSIONS: ED clinicians accustomed to the HEART Pathway demonstrated limited willingness to discharge patients from the ED categorized as moderate risk by the HEART score despite simultaneous classification as low risk by the 0-/1-hour HST-ADP. Willingness to discharge was higher with lower HEART scores but not affected by the presence of CAD and did not vary between clinician types.

Impact of a health information exchange on resource use and Medicare-allowable reimbursements at 11 emergency departments in a midsized city.

INTRODUCTION: Use clinician perceptions to estimate the impact of a health information exchange (HIE) on emergency department (ED) care at four major hospital systems (HS) within a region. Use survey data provided by ED clinicians to estimate reduction in Medicare-allowable reimbursements (MARs) resulting from use of an HIE. METHODS: We conducted the study during a one-year period beginning in February 2012. Study sites included eleven EDs operated by four major HS in the region of a mid-sized Southeastern city, including one academic ED, five community hospital EDs, four free-standing EDs and 1 ED/Chest Pain Center (CPC) all of which participated in an HIE. The study design was observational, prospective using a voluntary, anonymous, online survey. Eligible participants included attending emergency physicians, residents, and mid-level providers (PA & NP). Survey items asked clinicians whether information obtained from the HIE changed resource use while caring for patients at the study sites and used branching logic to ascertain specific types of services avoided including laboratory/microbiology, radiology, consultations, and hospital admissions. Additional items asked how use of the HIE affected quality of care and length of stay. The survey was automated using a survey construction tool (REDCap Survey Software © 2010 Vanderbilt University). We calculated avoided MARs by multiplying the numbers and types of services reported to have been avoided. Average cost of an admission from the ED was based on direct cost trends for ED admissions within the region. RESULTS: During the 12-month study period we had 325,740 patient encounters and 7,525 logons to the HIE (utilization rate of 2.3%) by 231 ED clinicians practicing at the study sites. We collected 621 surveys representing 8.25% of logons of which 532 (85.7% of surveys) reported on patients who had information available in the HIE. Within this group the following services and MARs were reported to have been avoided [type of service: number of services; MARs]: Laboratory/Microbiology:187; $2,073, Radiology: 298; $475,840, Consultations: 61; $6,461, Hospital Admissions: 56; $551,282. Grand total of MARs avoided: $1,035,654; average $1,947 per patient who had information available in the HIE (Range: $1,491 - $2,395 between HS). Changes in management other than avoidance of a service were reported by 32.2% of participants. Participants stated that quality of care was improved for 89% of patients with information in the HIE. Eighty-two percent of participants reported that valuable time was saved with a mean time saved of 105 minutes. CONCLUSION: Observational data provided by ED clinicians practicing at eleven EDs in a mid-sized Southeastern city showed an average reduction in MARs of $1,947 per patient who had information available in an HIE. The majority of reduced MARs were due to avoided radiology studies and hospital admissions. Over 80% of participants reported that quality of care was improved and valuable time was saved.

Does targeted education of emergency physicians improve their comfort level in treating psychiatric patients?

INTRODUCTION: We determined if targeted education of emergency physicians (EPs) regarding the treatment of mental illness will improve their comfort level in treating psychiatric patients boarding in the emergency department (ED) awaiting admission. METHODS: We performed a pilot study examining whether an educational intervention would change an EP's comfort level in treating psychiatric boarder patients (PBPs). We identified a set of psychiatric emergencies that typically require admission or treatment beyond the scope of practice of emergency medicine. Diagnoses included major depression, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar affective disorder, general anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, and criminal behavior. We designed equivalent surveys to be used before and after an educational intervention. Each survey consisted of 10 scenarios of typical psychiatric patients. EPs were asked to rate their comfort levels in treating the described patients on a visual analogue scale. We calculated summary scores for the non intervention survey group (NINT) and intervention survey group (INT) and compared them using Student's t-test. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent (33/42) of eligible participants completed the pre-intervention survey (21 attendings, 12 residents) and comprised the NINT group. Fifty-five percent (23/42) completed the post-intervention survey (16 attendings, 7 residents) comprising the INT group. A comparison of summary scores between 'NINT' and 'INT' groups showed a highly significant improvement in comfort levels with treating the patients described in the scenarios (P = 0.003). Improvements were noted on separate analysis for faculty (P = 0.039) and for residents (P = 0.012). Results of a sensitivity analysis excluding one highly significant scenario showed decreased, but still important differences between the NINT and INT groups for all participants and for residents, but not for faculty (all: P = 0.05; faculty: P = 0.25; residents: P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that the comfort level of EPs, when asked to treat PBPs, may be improved with education. We believe our data support further study of this idea and of whether an improved comfort level will translate to a willingness to treat.