The WNT7A/WNT7B/GPR124/RECK signaling module plays an essential role in mammalian limb development.

In central nervous system vascular endothelial cells, signaling via the partially redundant ligands WNT7A and WNT7B requires two co-activator proteins, GPR124 and RECK. WNT7A and RECK have been shown previously to play a role in limb development, but the mechanism of RECK action in this context is unknown. The roles of WNT7B and GPR124 in limb development have not been investigated. Using combinations of conventional and/or conditional loss-of-function alleles for mouse Wnt7a, Wnt7b, Gpr124 and Reck, including a Reck allele that codes for a protein that is specifically defective in WNT7A/WNT7B signaling, we show that reductions in ligand and/or co-activator function synergize to cause reduced and dysmorphic limb bone growth. Two additional limb phenotypes - loss of distal Lmx1b expression and ectopic growth of nail-like structures - occur with reduced Wnt7a/Wnt7b gene copy number and, respectively, with Reck mutations and with combined Reck and Gpr124 mutations. A third limb phenotype - bleeding into a digit - occurs with the most severe combinations of Wnt7a/Wnt7b, Reck and Gpr124 mutations. These data imply that the WNT7A/WNT7B-FRIZZLED-LRP5/LRP6-GPR124-RECK signaling system functions as an integral unit in limb development.

Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measures in Alternative Payment Models: Current Use, Implementation Barriers, and Principles to Succeed.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based performance measures (PRO-PMs) offer opportunities to aggregate survey data into a reliable and valid assessment of performance at the entity-level (eg, clinician, hospital, and accountable care organization). Our objective was to address the existing literature gap regarding the implementation barriers, current use, and principles for PRO-PMs to succeed. METHODS: As quality measurement experts, we first highlighted key principles of PRO-PMs and how alternative payment models (APMs) may be integral in promoting more widespread use. In May 2023, we reviewed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Measures Inventory Tool for active PRO-PM usage within CMS programs. We finally present principles to prioritize as part PRO-PMs succeeding within APMs. RESULTS: We identified 5 implementation barriers to PRO-PM use: original development of instrument, response rate sufficiency, provider burden, hesitancy regarding fairness, and attribution of desired outcomes. There existed 54 instances of active PRO-PM usage across CMS programs, including 46 unique PRO-PMs within 14 CMS programs. Five principles to prioritize as part of greater PRO-PM development and incorporation within APMs include the following: (1) clinical salience, (2) adequate sample size, (3) meaningful range of performance among measured entities and the ability to detect performance change in a reasonable time frame, (4) equity focus, and (5) appropriate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Identified barriers and principles to prioritize should be considered during PRO-PM development and implementation phases to link available and novel measures to payment programs while ensuring provider and stakeholder engagement.

Cost-Effectiveness of CT, CTA, MRI, and Specialized MRI for Evaluation of Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Dizziness.

BACKGROUND. Underlying stroke is often misdiagnosed in patients presenting with dizziness. Although such patients are usually ineligible for acute stroke treatment, accurate diagnosis may still improve outcomes through selection of patients for secondary prevention measures. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of differing neuroimaging approaches in the evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with dizziness who are not candidates for acute intervention. METHODS. A Markov decision-analytic model was constructed from a health care system perspective for the evaluation of a patient presenting to the ED with dizziness. Four diagnostic strategies were compared: noncontrast head CT, head and neck CTA, conventional brain MRI, and specialized brain MRI (including multiplanar high-resolution DWI). Differing long-term costs and outcomes related to stroke detection and secondary prevention measures were compared. Cost-effectiveness was calculated in terms of lifetime expenditures in 2022 U.S. dollars for each quality-adjusted life year (QALY); deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS. Specialized MRI resulted in the highest QALYs and was the most cost-effective strategy with US$13,477 greater cost and 0.48 greater QALYs compared with noncontrast head CT. Conventional MRI had the next-highest health benefit, although was dominated by extension with incremental cost of US$6757 and 0.25 QALY; CTA was also dominated by extension, with incremental cost of US$3952 for 0.13 QALY. Non-contrast CT alone had the lowest utility among the four imaging choices. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, specialized MRI remained the most cost-effective strategy. Conventional MRI was more cost-effective than CTA across a wide range of model parameters, with incremental cost-effectiveness remaining less than US$30,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis yielded similar results as found in the base-case analysis, with specialized MRI being more cost-effective than conventional MRI, which in turn was more cost-effective than CTA. CONCLUSION. The use of MRI in patients presenting to the ED with dizziness improves stroke detection and selection for subsequent preventive measures. MRI-based evaluation leads to lower long-term costs and higher cumulative QALYs. CLINICAL IMPACT. MRI, incorporating specialized protocols when available, is the preferred approach for evaluation of patients presenting to the ED with dizziness, to establish a stroke diagnosis and to select patients for secondary prevention measures.

Reliability of a Measure of Admission Intensity for Emergency Physicians.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the stability of a measure of emergency department (ED) admission intensity for value-based care programs designed to reduce variation in ED admission rates. Measure stability is important to accurately assess admission rates across sites and among physicians. METHODS: We sampled data from 358 EDs in 41 states (January 2018 to December 2021), separate from sites where the measure was derived. The measure is the ED admission rate per 100 ED visits for 16 clinical conditions and 535 included International Classification of Disease 10 diagnosis codes. We used descriptive plots and multilevel linear probability models to assess stability over time across EDs and among physicians. RESULTS: Across included 3,571 ED-quarters, the average admission rate was 27.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.0% to 28.2%). The between-facility standard deviation was 9.7% (95% CI 9.0% to 10.6%), and the within-facility standard deviation was 3.0% (95% CI 2.95% to 3.10%), with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91. At the physician-quarter level, the average admission rate was 28.3% (95% CI 28.0% to 28.5%) among 7,002 physicians. Relative to their site's mean in each quarter, the between-physician standard deviation was 6.7% (95% CI 6.6% to 6.8%), and the within-physician standard deviation was 5.5% (95% CI 5.5% to 5.6%), with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.59. Moreover, 2.9% of physicians were high-admitting in 80%+ of their practice quarters relative to their peers in the same ED and in the same quarter, whereas 3.9% were low-admitting. CONCLUSION: The measure exhibits stability in characterizing ED-level admission rates and reliably identifies high- and low-admitting physicians.

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry: Structure, Use, and Limitations for Research.

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR) is a qualified clinical data registry that collects data from participating emergency departments (EDs) in the United States for quality measurement, improvement, and reporting purposes. This article aims to provide an overview of the data collection and validation process, describe the existing data structure and elements, and explain the potential opportunities and limitations for ongoing and future research use. CEDR data are primarily collected for quality reporting purposes and are obtained from diverse sources, including electronic health records and billing data that are de-identified and stored in a secure, centralized database. The CEDR data structure is organized around clinical episodes, which contain multiple data elements that are standardized using common data elements and are mapped to established terminologies to enable interoperability and data sharing. The data elements include patient demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnostic and treatment procedures, and outcomes. Key limitations include the limited generalizability due to the selective nature of participating EDs and the limited validation and completeness of data elements not currently used for quality reporting purposes, including demographic data. Nonetheless, CEDR holds great potential for ongoing and future research in emergency medicine due to its large-volume, longitudinal, near real-time, clinical data. In 2021, the American College of Emergency Physicians authorized the transition from CEDR to the Emergency Medicine Data Institute, which will catalyze investments in improved data quality and completeness for research to advance emergency care.

Payment Innovation in Emergency Care: A Case for Global Clinician Budgets.

The fee-for-service funding model for US emergency department (ED) clinician groups is increasingly fragile. Traditional fee-for-service payment systems offer no financial incentives to improve quality, address population health, or make value-based clinical decisions. Fee-for-service also does not support maintaining ED capacity to handle peak demand periods. In fee-for-service, clinicians rely heavily on cross-subsidization, where high reimbursement from commercial payors offsets low reimbursement from government payors and the uninsured. Although fee-for-service survived decades of steady cuts in government reimbursement rates, it is increasingly strained because of visit volatility and the effects of the No Surprises Act, which is driving down commercial reimbursement. Financial pressures on ED clinician groups and higher hospital boarding and clinical workloads are increasing workforce attrition. Here, we propose an alternative model to address some of these fundamental issues: an all-payer-funded, voluntary global budget for ED clinician services. If designed and implemented effectively, the model could support robust clinician staffing over the long term, ensure stability in clinical workload, and potentially improve equity in payments. The model could also be combined with population health programs (eg, pre-ED and post-ED telehealth, frequent ED use programs, and other innovations), offering significant payer returns and addressing quality and value. A linked program could also change hospital incentives that contribute to boarding. Strategies exist to test and refine ED clinician global budgets through existing government programs in Maryland and potentially through state-level legislation as a precursor to broader adoption.

Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs Surrounding Emergency Department Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify differences in total and out-of-pocket health care costs associated with treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visits among older adults with traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of treat-and-release ED visits using 2015 to 2020 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We measured total and out-of-pocket health care spending during 3 time periods: the 30 days prior to the ED visit, the treat-and-release ED visit itself, and the 30 days after the ED visit. Stratified by traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage status, we determined median total costs and the proportion of costs that were out-of-pocket. RESULTS: Among the 5,011 ED visits by those enrolled in traditional Medicare, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $881.95 (13.3%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $419.70 (10.1%) for the ED visit, and $809.00 (13.8%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. For the 2,595 ED visits by those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $484.92 (24.0%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $216.66 (21.9%) for the ED visit, and $439.13 (22.4%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. CONCLUSION: Older adults insured by Medicare Advantage incur lower total health care costs and face similar overall out-of-pocket expenses in the time period surrounding emergency care. However, a higher proportion of expenses are out-of-pocket compared with those insured by traditional Medicare, providing evidence of greater cost sharing for Medicare Advantage plan enrollees.

Geriatric Emergency Medication Safety Recommendations (GEMS-Rx): Modified Delphi Development of a High-Risk Prescription List for Older Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Half of emergency department (ED) patients aged 65 years and older are discharged with new prescriptions. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions contribute to adverse drug events. Our objective was to develop an evidence- and consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions to avoid among older ED patients. METHODS: We performed a modified, 3-round Delphi process that included 10 ED physician experts in geriatrics or quality measurement and 1 pharmacist. Consensus members reviewed all 35 medication categories from the 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and ranked each on a 5-point Likert scale (5=highest) for overall priority for avoidance (Round 1), risk of short-term adverse events and avoidability (Round 2), and reasonable medical indications for high-risk medication use (Round 3). RESULTS: For each round, questionnaire response rates were 91%, 82%, and 64%, respectively. After Round 1, benzodiazepines (mean, 4.60 [SD, 0.70]), skeletal muscle relaxants (4.60 [0.70]), barbiturates (4.30 [1.06]), first-generation antipsychotics (4.20 [0.63]) and first-generation antihistamines (3.70 [1.49]) were prioritized for avoidance. In Rounds 2 and 3, hypnotic "Z" drugs (4.29 [1.11]), metoclopramide (3.89 [0.93]), and sulfonylureas (4.14 [1.07]) were prioritized for avoidability, despite lower concern for short-term adverse events. All 8 medication classes were included in the final list. Reasonable indications for prescribing high-risk medications included seizure disorders, benzodiazepine/ethanol withdrawal, end of life, severe generalized anxiety, allergic reactions, gastroparesis, and prescription refill. CONCLUSION: We present the first expert consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions for older ED patients (GEMS-Rx) to improve safety among older ED patients.

Leveraging a Learning Collaborative Model to Develop and Pilot Quality Measures to Improve Opioid Prescribing in the Emergency Department.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Medicine Quality Network (E-QUAL) Opioid Initiative was launched in 2018 to advance the dissemination of evidence-based resources to promote the care of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder. This virtual platform-based national learning collaborative includes a low-burden, structured quality improvement project, data benchmarking, tailored educational content, and resources designed to support a nationwide network of EDs with limited administrative and research infrastructure. As a part of this collaboration, we convened a group of experts to identify and design a set of measures to improve opioid prescribing practices to provide safe analgesia while reducing opioid-related harms. We present those measures here, alongside initial performance data on those measures from a sample of 370 nationwide community EDs participating in the 2019 E-QUAL collaborative. Measures include proportion of opioid administration in the ED, proportion of alternatives to opioids as first-line treatment, proportion of opioid prescription, opioid pill count per prescription, and patient medication safety education among ED visits for atraumatic back pain, dental pain, or headache. The proportion of benzodiazepine and opioid coprescribing for ED visits for atraumatic back pain was also evaluated. This project developed and effectively implemented a collection of 6 potential measures to evaluate opioid analgesic prescribing across a national sample of community EDs, representing the first feasibility assessment of opioid prescribing-related measures from rural and community EDs.

Inequities among patient placement in emergency department hallway treatment spaces.

BACKGROUND: Limited capacity in the emergency department (ED) secondary to boarding and crowding has resulted in patients receiving care in hallways to provide access to timely evaluation and treatment. However, there are concerns raised by physicians and patients regarding a decrease in patient centered care and quality resulting from hallway care. We sought to explore social risk factors associated with hallway placement and operational outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Observational study between July 2017 and February 2020. Primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of patient placement in a hallway treatment space adjusting for patient demographics and ED operational factors. Secondary outcomes included left without being seen (LWBS), discharge against medical advice (AMA), elopement, 72-h ED revisit, 10-day ED revisit and escalation of care during boarding. RESULTS: Among 361,377 ED visits, 100,079 (27.7%) visits were assigned to hallway beds. Patient insurance coverage (Medicaid (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01,1.06) and Self-pay/Other (1.08, (1.03, 1.13))) with comparison to private insurance, and patient sex (Male (1.08, (1.06, 1.10))) with comparison to female sex are associated with higher odds of hallway placement but patient age, race, and language were not. These associations are adjusted for ED census, triage assigned severity, ED staffing, boarding level, and time effect, with social factors mutually adjusted. Additionally adjusting for patients' social factors, patients placed in hallways had higher odds of elopement (1.23 (1.07,1.41)), 72-h ED revisit (1.33 (1.08, 1.64)) and 10-day ED revisit (1.23 (1.11, 1.36)) comparing with patients placed in regular ED rooms. We did not find statistically significant associations between hallway placement and LWBS, discharge AMA, or escalation of care. CONCLUSION: While hallway usage is ad hoc, we find consistent differences in care delivery with those insured by Medicaid and self-pay or male sex being placed in hallway beds. Further work should examine how new front-end processes such as provider in triage or split flow may be associated with inequities in patient access to emergency and hospital care.

Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance.

Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

Three-Month Symptom Profiles Among Symptomatic Adults With Positive and Negative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Tests: A Prospective Cohort Study From the INSPIRE Group.

BACKGROUND: Long-term symptoms following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease-positive [COVID+]) with adults who tested negative (COVID-), enrolled within 28 days of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SARS-CoV-2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (ie, fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email. RESULTS: Among the first 1000 participants, 722 were COVID+ and 278 were COVID-. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID+ group than the COVID- group. At 3 months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups, although were more prevalent in the COVID+ group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID+ and COVID- groups at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of COVID+ participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID- participants, had at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish long COVID. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04610515.

Severe Fatigue and Persistent Symptoms at 3 Months Following Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections During the Pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron Time Periods: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Most research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants focuses on initial symptomatology with limited longer-term data. We characterized prevalences of prolonged symptoms 3 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection across 3 variant time-periods (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study of adults with acute illness tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared fatigue severity, fatigue symptoms, organ system-based symptoms, and ≥3 symptoms across variants among participants with a positive ("COVID-positive") or negative SARS-CoV-2 test ("COVID-negative") at 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 testing. Variant periods were defined by dates with ≥50% dominant strain. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to estimate independent effects of variants adjusting for sociodemographics, baseline health, and vaccine status. RESULTS: The study included 2402 COVID-positive and 821 COVID-negative participants. Among COVID-positives, 463 (19.3%) were pre-Delta, 1198 (49.9%) Delta, and 741 (30.8%) Omicron. The pre-Delta COVID-positive cohort exhibited more prolonged severe fatigue (16.7% vs 11.5% vs 12.3%; P = .017) and presence of ≥3 prolonged symptoms (28.4% vs 21.7% vs 16.0%; P < .001) compared with the Delta and Omicron cohorts. No differences were seen in the COVID-negatives across time-periods. In multivariable models adjusted for vaccination, severe fatigue and odds of having ≥3 symptoms were no longer significant across variants. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were more common among participants infected during pre-Delta than with Delta and Omicron; however, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for vaccination status, suggesting a beneficial effect of vaccination on risk of long-term symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

Prevalence of Symptoms ≤12 Months After Acute Illness, by COVID-19 Testing Status Among Adults - United States, December 2020-March 2023.

To further the understanding of post-COVID conditions, and provide a more nuanced description of symptom progression, resolution, emergence, and reemergence after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-like illness, analysts examined data from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a prospective multicenter cohort study. This report includes analysis of data on self-reported symptoms collected from 1,296 adults with COVID-like illness who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a Food and Drug Administration-approved polymerase chain reaction or antigen test at the time of enrollment and reported symptoms at 3-month intervals for 12 months. Prevalence of any symptom decreased substantially between baseline and the 3-month follow-up, from 98.4% to 48.2% for persons who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-positive participants) and from 88.2% to 36.6% for persons who received negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-negative participants). Persistent symptoms decreased through 12 months; no difference between the groups was observed at 12 months (prevalence among COVID test-positive and COVID test-negative participants = 18.3% and 16.1%, respectively; p>0.05). Both groups reported symptoms that emerged or reemerged at 6, 9, and 12 months. Thus, these symptoms are not unique to COVID-19 or to post-COVID conditions. Awareness that symptoms might persist for up to 12 months, and that many symptoms might emerge or reemerge in the year after COVID-like illness, can assist health care providers in understanding the clinical signs and symptoms associated with post-COVID-like conditions.

CT With CTA Versus MRI in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Dizziness: Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching.

BACKGROUND. CT with CTA is widely used to exclude stroke in patients with dizziness, although MRI has higher sensitivity. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to compare patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with dizziness who undergo CT with CTA alone versus those who undergo MRI in terms of stroke-related management and outcomes. METHODS. This retrospective study included 1917 patients (mean age, 59.5 years; 776 men, 1141 women) presenting to the ED with dizziness from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021. A first propensity score matching analysis incorporated demographic characteristics, medical history, findings from the review of systems, physical examination findings, and symptoms to construct matched groups of patients discharged from the ED after undergoing head CT with head and neck CTA alone and patients who underwent brain MRI (with or without CT and CTA). Outcomes were compared. A second analysis compared matched patients discharged after CT with CTA alone and patients who underwent specialized abbreviated MRI using multiplanar high-resolution DWI for increased sensitivity for posterior circulation stroke. Sensitivity analyses were performed involving MRI examinations performed as the first or only neuroimaging examination and involving alternative matching and imputation techniques. RESULTS. In the first analysis (406 patients per group), patients who underwent MRI, compared with patients who underwent CT with CTA alone, showed greater frequency of critical neuroimaging results (10.1% vs 4.7%, p = .005), change in secondary stroke prevention medication (9.6% vs 3.2%, p = .001), and subsequent echocardiography evaluation (6.4% vs 1.0%, p < .001). In the second analysis (100 patients per group), patients who underwent specialized abbreviated MRI, compared with patients who underwent CT with CTA alone, showed greater frequency of critical neuroimaging results (10.0% vs 2.0%, p = .04), change in secondary stroke prevention medication (14.0% vs 1.0%, p = .001), and subsequent echocardiography evaluation (12.0% vs 2.0%, p = .01) and lower frequency of 90-day ED readmissions (12.0% vs 28.0%, p = .008). Sensitivity analyses showed qualitatively similar findings. CONCLUSION. A proportion of patients discharged after CT with CTA alone may have benefitted from alternative or additional evaluation by MRI (including MRI using a specialized abbreviated protocol). CLINICAL IMPACT. Use of MRI may motivate clinically impactful management changes in patients presenting with dizziness.

An Outcome Comparison Between Geriatric and Nongeriatric Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe diagnosis rates and compare common process outcomes between geriatric emergency departments (EDs) and nongeriatric EDs participating in the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR). METHODS: We conducted an observational study of ED visits in calendar year 2021 within the CEDR by older adults. The analytic sample included 6,444,110 visits at 38 geriatric EDs and 152 matched nongeriatric EDs, with the geriatric ED status determined based on linkage to the American College of Emergency Physicians' Geriatric ED Accreditation program. Stratified by age, we assessed diagnosis rates (X/1000) for 4 common geriatric syndrome conditions and a set of common process outcomes including the ED length of stay, discharge rates, and 72-hour revisit rates. RESULTS: Across all age categories, geriatric EDs had higher diagnosis rates than nongeriatric EDs for 3 of the 4 following geriatric syndrome conditions of interest: urinary tract infection, dementia, and delirium/altered mental status. The median ED site-level length of stay for older adults was lower at geriatric EDs compared with that at nongeriatric EDs, whereas 72-hour revisit rates were similar across all age categories. Geriatric EDs exhibited a median discharge rate of 67.5% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 60.8% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 55.6% for adults aged >85 years. Comparatively, the median discharge rate at nongeriatric ED sites was 69.0% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 64.2% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 61.3% for adults aged >85 years. CONCLUSION: Geriatric EDs had higher geriatric syndrome diagnosis rates, lower ED lengths of stay, and similar discharge and 72-hour revisit rates when compared with nongeriatric EDs in the CEDR. These findings provide the first benchmarks for emergency care process outcomes in geriatric EDs compared with nongeriatric EDs.

Development and Internal Validation of an Emergency Department Admission Intensity Measure Using Data From a National Group.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We develop and assess variation in an emergency department (ED) admission intensity measure intended for value-based payment models. The measure includes ED diagnoses amenable to evidence-based protocols and where admission decisions vary based on physician discretion. METHODS: Measure International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes were selected by face validity by 3 emergency physicians using expertise and administrative data. Feedback was sought from a separate technical panel. Using data from a national group (2018 to 2019), we assessed measure stability at the physician and facility level by quarter using descriptive plots, multilevel linear probability models, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: A total of 535 ICD-10 measure codes were selected from 23,590 codes. Across 127 EDs, facility-quarter admission rates averaged 26.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.5 to 27.7). Between- and within-facility standard deviations were 9.2 (95% CI 8.2 to 10.5) and 2.9 (95% CI 2.7 to 3.0), respectively, with an ICC of 0.91. Most ED-quarters (749/961) fell within 2.5% of their facility's average. Among 2,398 physicians, quarterly rates averaged 29.1% (95% CI 28.6 to 29.6). The between- and within-physician standard deviation was 6.3 (95% CI 6.1 to 6.5) and 5.3 (95% CI 5.3 to 5.4), respectively, with an ICC of 0.58; 220 physicians (9.2%) had an admission rate consistently higher than average and 193 (8.0%) consistently lower. CONCLUSION: This set of ICD-10 diagnoses demonstrates face validity and stability for quarterly admission rates at the facility and physician levels. The measure may be useful to monitor facility admission rates in value-based models and reliably identify high and low admitters within facilities to manage admission variation.

A Quality Measurement Framework for Emergency Department Care of Psychiatric Emergencies.

As a primary access point for crisis psychiatric care, the emergency department (ED) is uniquely positioned to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients with psychiatric emergencies. Quality measurement is the first key step in understanding the gaps and variations in emergency psychiatric care to guide quality improvement initiatives. Our objective was to develop a quality measurement framework informed by a comprehensive review and gap analysis of quality measures for ED psychiatric care. We conducted a systematic literature review and convened an expert panel in emergency medicine, psychiatry, and quality improvement to consider if and how existing quality measures evaluate the delivery of emergency psychiatric care in the ED setting. The expert panel reviewed 48 measures, of which 5 were standardized, and 3 had active National Quality Forum endorsement. Drawing from the measure appraisal, we developed a quality measurement framework with specific structural, process, and outcome measures across the ED care continuum. This framework can help shape an emergency medicine roadmap for future clinical quality improvement initiatives, research, and advocacy work designed to improve outcomes for patients presenting with psychiatric emergencies.

A Quality Framework to Address Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Emergency Department Care.

The emergency department serves as a vital source of health care for residents in the United States, including as a safety net. However, patients from minoritized racial and ethnic groups have historically experienced disproportionate barriers to accessing health care services and lower quality of services than White patients. Quality measures and their application to quality improvement initiatives represent a critical opportunity to incentivize health care systems to advance health equity and reduce health disparities. Currently, there are no nationally recognized quality measures that track the quality of emergency care delivery by race and ethnicity and no published frameworks to guide the development and prioritization of quality measures to reduce health disparities in emergency care. To address these gaps, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) convened a working group of experts in quality measurement, health disparities, and health equity to develop guidance on establishing quality measures to address racial and ethnic disparities in the provision of emergency care. Based on iterative discussion over 3 working group meetings, we present a summary of existing emergency medicine quality measures that should be adapted to track racial and ethnic disparities, as well as a framework for developing new measures that focus on disparities in access to emergency care, care delivery, and transitions of care.

The Cost Shifting Economics of United States Emergency Department Professional Services (2016-2019).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We estimate the economics of US emergency department (ED) professional services, which is increasingly under strain given the longstanding effect of unreimbursed care, and falling Medicare and commercial payments. METHODS: We used data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), Medicare, Medicaid, Health Care Cost Institute, and surveys to estimate national ED clinician revenue and costs from 2016 to 2019. We compare annual revenue and cost for each payor and calculate foregone revenue, the amount clinicians may have collected had uninsured patients had either Medicaid or commercial insurance. RESULTS: In 576.5 million ED visits (2016 to 2019), 12% were uninsured, 24% were Medicare-insured, 32% Medicaid-insured, 28% were commercially insured, and 4% had another insurance source. Annual ED clinician revenue averaged $23.5 billion versus costs of $22.5 billion. In 2019, ED visits covered by commercial insurance generated $14.3 billion in revenues and cost $6.5 billion. Medicare visits generated $5.3 billion and cost $5.7 billion; Medicaid visits generated $3.3 billion and cost $7 billion. Uninsured ED visits generated $0.5 billion and cost $2.9 billion. The average annual foregone revenue for ED clinicians to treat the uninsured was $2.7 billion. CONCLUSION: Large cost-shifting from commercial insurance cross-subsidizes ED professional services for other patients. This includes the Medicaid-insured, Medicare-insured, and uninsured, all of whom incur ED professional service costs that substantially exceed their revenue. Foregone revenue for treating the uninsured relative to what may have been collected if patients had health insurance is substantial.