Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
World J Emerg Med ; 11(1): 12-17, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31892998

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become increasingly integrated into the practice of emergency medicine. A common application is the extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) exam. The American College of Emergency Physicians has guidelines regarding the scope of ultrasound in the emergency department and the appropriate documentation. The objective of this study was to conduct a review of performed, documented and billed eFAST ultrasounds on trauma activation patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all trauma activation patients during a 10-month period at an academic level-one trauma center. A list comparing all trauma activations was cross-referenced with a list of all billed eFAST scans. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether an eFAST was indicated, performed, and appropriately documented. RESULTS: We found that 1,507 of 1,597 trauma patients had indications for eFAST, but 396 (27%) of these patients did not have a billed eFAST. Of these 396 patients, 87 (22%) had documentation in the provider note that an eFAST was performed but there was no separate procedure note. The remaining 309 (78%) did not have any documentation of the eFAST in the patient's chart although an eFAST was recorded and reviewed during ultrasound quality assurance. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of trauma patients had eFAST exams performed but were not documented or billed. Lack of documentation was multifactorial. Emergency ultrasound programs require appropriate reimbursement to support training, credentialing, equipment, quality assurance, and device maintenance. Our study demonstrates a significant absence of adequate documentation leading to potential revenue loss for an emergency ultrasound program.

2.
Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med ; 1(3): 159-161, 2017 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29849300

RESUMEN

A 59-year-old female presented to the emergency department (ED) three days after accidental ingestion of an intact in-the-ear hearing aid. This is the first report of ingestion of a complete hearing aid traveling past the gastroesophageal junction. Of concern was the exposed battery attached to the hearing aid that had advanced minimally in the three days since last evaluation. This case report discusses her ED testing, including gastroenterology consultation, and ultimately retrieval from her distal stomach. The authors conclude that this removal was not medically necessary.

3.
West J Emerg Med ; 16(7): 1088-93, 2015 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26759661

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Patient satisfaction is a commonly assessed dimension of emergency department (ED) care quality. The ability of ED clinicians to estimate patient satisfaction is unknown. We sought to evaluate the ability of emergency medicine resident physicians and nurses to predict patient-reported satisfaction with physician and nursing care, pain levels, and understanding of discharge instructions. METHODS: We studied a convenience sample of 100 patients treated at an urban academic ED. Patients rated satisfaction with nursing care, physician care, pain level at time of disposition and understanding of discharge instructions. Resident physicians and nurses estimated responses for each patient. We compared patient, physician and nursing responses using Cohen's kappa, weighting the estimates to account for the ordinal responses. RESULTS: Overall, patients had a high degree of satisfaction with care provided by the nurses and physicians, although this was underestimated by providers. There was poor agreement between physician estimation of patient satisfaction (weighted κ=0.23, standard error: 0.078) and nursing estimates of patient satisfaction (weighted κ=0.11, standard error: 0.043); physician estimation of patient pain (weighted κ=0.43, standard error: 0.082) and nursing estimates (weighted κ=0.39, standard error: 0.081); physician estimates of patient comprehension of discharge instruction (weighted κ=0.19, standard error: 0.082) and nursing estimates (weighted κ=0.13, standard error: 0.078). Providers underestimated pain and patient comprehension of discharge instructions. CONCLUSION: ED providers were not able to predict patient satisfaction with nurse or physician care, pain level, or understanding of discharge instructions.


Asunto(s)
Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Cuerpo Médico de Hospitales , Personal de Enfermería en Hospital , Satisfacción del Paciente , Adulto , Competencia Clínica , Hospitales Urbanos , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor/diagnóstico , Dimensión del Dolor , Alta del Paciente , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA