2023 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on Precision Emergency Medicine: Development of a policy-relevant, patient-centered research agenda.

OBJECTIVES: Precision medicine is data-driven health care tailored to individual patients based on their unique attributes, including biologic profiles, disease expressions, local environments, and socioeconomic conditions. Emergency medicine (EM) has been peripheral to the precision medicine discourse, lacking both a unified definition of precision medicine and a clear research agenda. We convened a national consensus conference to build a shared mental model and develop a research agenda for precision EM. METHODS: We held a conference to (1) define precision EM, (2) develop an evidence-based research agenda, and (3) identify educational gaps for current and future EM clinicians. Nine preconference workgroups (biomedical ethics, data science, health professions education, health care delivery and access, informatics, omics, population health, sex and gender, and technology and digital tools), comprising 84 individuals, garnered expert opinion, reviewed relevant literature, engaged with patients, and developed key research questions. During the conference, each workgroup shared how they defined precision EM within their domain, presented relevant conceptual frameworks, and engaged a broad set of stakeholders to refine precision EM research questions using a multistage consensus-building process. RESULTS: A total of 217 individuals participated in this initiative, of whom 115 were conference-day attendees. Consensus-building activities yielded a definition of precision EM and key research questions that comprised a new 10-year precision EM research agenda. The consensus process revealed three themes: (1) preeminence of data, (2) interconnectedness of research questions across domains, and (3) promises and pitfalls of advances in health technology and data science/artificial intelligence. The Health Professions Education Workgroup identified educational gaps in precision EM and discussed a training roadmap for the specialty. CONCLUSIONS: A research agenda for precision EM, developed with extensive stakeholder input, recognizes the potential and challenges of precision EM. Comprehensive clinician training in this field is essential to advance EM in this domain.

The Management of Elevated Blood Pressure in the Acute Care Setting: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Over the past 3 decades, a substantial body of high-quality evidence has guided the diagnosis and management of elevated blood pressure (BP) in the outpatient setting. In contrast, there is a lack of comparable evidence for guiding the management of elevated BP in the acute care setting, resulting in significant practice variation. Throughout this scientific statement, we use the terms acute care and inpatient to refer to care received in the emergency department and after admission to the hospital. Elevated inpatient BP is common and can manifest either as asymptomatic or with signs of new or worsening target-organ damage, a condition referred to as hypertensive emergency. Hypertensive emergency involves acute target-organ damage and should be treated swiftly, usually with intravenous antihypertensive medications, in a closely monitored setting. However, the risk-benefit ratio of initiating or intensifying antihypertensive medications for asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP is less clear. Despite this ambiguity, clinicians prescribe oral or intravenous antihypertensive medications in approximately one-third of cases of asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP. Recent observational studies have suggested potential harms associated with treating asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP, which brings current practice into question. Despite the ubiquity of elevated inpatient BPs, few position papers, guidelines, or consensus statements have focused on improving BP management in the acute care setting. Therefore, this scientific statement aims to synthesize the available evidence, provide suggestions for best practice based on the available evidence, identify evidence-based gaps in managing elevated inpatient BP (asymptomatic and hypertensive emergency), and highlight areas requiring further research.

Heterogeneity of State Stroke Center Certification and Designation Processes.

BACKGROUND: Stroke centers are critical for the timely diagnosis and treatment of acute stroke and have been associated with improved treatment and outcomes; however, variability exists in the definitions and processes used to certify and designate these centers. Our study categorizes state stroke center certification and designation processes and provides examples of state processes across the United States, specifically in states with independent designation processes that do not rely on national certification. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study from September 2022 to April 2023, we used peer-reviewed literature, primary source documents from states, and communication with state officials in all 50 states to capture each state's process for stroke center certification and designation. We categorized this information and outlined examples of processes in each category. RESULTS: Our cross-sectional study of state-level stroke center certification and designation processes across states reveals significant heterogeneity in the terminology used to describe state processes and the processes themselves. We identify 3 main categories of state processes: No State Certification or Designation Process (category A; n=12), State Designation Reliant on National Certification Only (category B; n=24), and State Has Option for Self-Certification or Independent Designation (category C; n=14). Furthermore, we describe 3 subcategories of self-certification or independent state designation processes: State Relies on Self-Certification or Independent Designation for Acute Stroke Ready Hospital or Equivalent (category C1; n=3), State Has Hybrid Model for Acute Stroke Ready Hospital or Equivalent (category C2; n=5), and State Has Hybrid Model for Primary Stroke Center and Above (category C3; n=6). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found significant heterogeneity in state-level processes. A better understanding of how these differences may impact the rigor of each process and clinical performance of stroke centers is worthy of further investigation.

The Value of an Emergency Medicine Virtual Observation Unit.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We implemented a virtual observation unit in which emergency department (ED) patients receive observation-level care at home. Our primary aim was to compare this new care model to in-person observation care in terms of brick-and-mortar ED length of stay (inclusive of ED observation unit time) as well as secondarily on inpatient admission and 72-hour return visits (overall and with admission). METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data on ED observation patients from January 1, 2022 to December 29, 2022 from an academic urban ED, we used propensity matching to compare virtual to in-person observation patients on outcomes of interest. Patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and reason for observation. We also conducted real-time review of all virtual observation cases for potential safety concerns. RESULTS: Of 8,218 observation stays, 361 virtual observation patients were matched with 361 in-person observation patients. Virtual observation patients experienced lower median brick-and-mortar ED + EDOU LOS [14.6 (IQR 10.2, 18.9) versus 33.3 (IQR 28.1, 38.1) hours] and lower inpatient admission rates (10.2% [SD 5.0] versus 24.7% [SD 11.3]). The 72-hour return rate was higher for virtual observation patients (3.6% [SD 3.0] versus 2.5% [SD 3.0]). Among those with return visits, the rate of inpatient admission was higher among virtual observation patients (53.8% [SD 3.2] versus 11.1% [13.0]). There were no significant patient safety events recorded. CONCLUSION: Virtual observation unit patients used fewer hours in ED and ED observation relative to on-site observation patients. This new care delivery model warrants further study because it has the potential to positively impact ED capacity.

Evaluating the Quality of Virtual Urgent Care: Barriers, Motivations, and Implementation of Quality Measures.

BACKGROUND: Experts estimate virtual urgent care programs could replace approximately 20% of current emergency department visits. In the absence of widespread quality guidance to programs or quality reporting from these programs, little is known about the state of virtual urgent care quality monitoring initiatives. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize ongoing quality monitoring initiatives among virtual urgent care programs. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews of virtual health and health system leaders were conducted using a pilot-tested interview guide to assess quality metrics captured related to care effectiveness and equity as well as programs' motivations for and barriers to quality measurement. We classified quality metrics according to the National Quality Forum Telehealth Measurement Framework. We developed a codebook from interview transcripts for qualitative analysis to classify motivations for and barriers to quality measurement. KEY RESULTS: We contacted 13 individuals, and ultimately interviewed eight (response rate, 61.5%), representing eight unique virtual urgent care programs at primarily academic (6/8) and urban institutions (5/8). Most programs used quality metrics related to clinical and operational effectiveness (7/8). Only one program reported measuring a metric related to equity. Limited resources were most commonly cited by participants (6/8) as a barrier to quality monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: We identified variation in quality measurement use and content by virtual urgent care programs. With the rapid growth in this approach to care delivery, more work is needed to identify optimal quality metrics. A standardized approach to quality measurement will be key to identifying variation in care and help focus quality improvement by virtual urgent care programs.

Critical Domains Within the Self-Reported Patient Experience of Virtual Care.

This cross-sectional study examines the association between domains of patient experience with a physician and patient likelihood of recommending the physician for virtual vs in-person visits.

Emergency Department and Health Care System Factors Associated with Telehealth Innovation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: Telehealth capacity may be an important component of pandemic response infrastructure. We aimed to examine changes in the telehealth use by the US emergency departments (EDs) during COVID-19, and to determine whether existing telehealth infrastructure or increased system integration were associated with increased likelihood of use. Methods: We analyzed 2016-2020 National ED Inventory (NEDI)-USA data, including ED characteristics and nature of telehealth use for all US EDs. American Hospital Association data characterized EDs' system integration. An ordinary least-squares regression model obtained one-step-ahead forecast of the expected proportion of EDs using telehealth in 2020 based on growth observed from 2016 to 2019. Among EDs without telehealth in 2019, we used logistic regression models to examine whether system membership or existing telehealth infrastructure were associated with odds of innovation in telehealth use in 2020, accounting for ED characteristics. Results: Of 4,038 EDs responding to telehealth questions in 2019 and 2020 (73% response rate), 3,015 used telehealth in 2020. Telehealth use by US EDs increased more than expected in 2020 (2016: 58%, 2017: 61%, 2018: 65%, 2019: 67%, 2020: 74%, greater than predicted 71%, p = 0.004). Existing telehealth infrastructure was associated with increased telehealth innovation (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.49-2.36), whereas hospital system membership was not (odds ratio [OR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-1.25). Conclusions: Telehealth use by US EDs in 2020 grew more than expected and preexisting telehealth infrastructure was associated with increased innovation in its use. Preparation for future pandemic responses may benefit from considering strategies to invest in local infrastructure to facilitate technology adoption and innovation.

Pediatric Patients Discharged After Transfer to a Pediatric Emergency Department: Opportunities for Telehealth?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Interemergency department pediatric transfers can be costly, involve risk, and may be disruptive to patients and families. Telehealth could be a way to safely reduce the number of transfers. We made an estimate of the proportion of transfers of pediatric patients to our emergency department (ED) that may have been avoidable using telehealth. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data of all pediatric patients (younger than 19 years) who were transferred to a single urban, academic medical center pediatric emergency department (PED) (annual pediatric volume approximately 15,000) between June 1, 2016, and December 29, 2021. We defined transfers as potentially avoidable with telehealth (the primary outcome) when the encounter at the receiving ED resulted in ED discharge and 1) met our definition of low-resource intensity (had no laboratory tests, diagnostic imaging, procedures, or consultations) or 2) could have used initial ED resources with telehealth guidance. RESULTS: Among 4,446 PED patients received in transfer during the study period, 406 (9%) were low-resource intensity. Of the non-low-resource intensity encounters, as many as another 1,103 (24.8%) potentially could have been avoided depending on available telehealth and initial ED resources, ranging from 210 (4.7%) with only telehealth specialty consultation to 538 (7.4%) with imaging and telehealth specialty consultation, and up to 1,034 (23.3%) with laboratory, imaging, and telehealth specialty consultation. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that depending on available telehealth and initial ED resources, between 9% and 33% of pediatric inter-ED transfers may have been avoidable. This information may guide health system design and PED operations when considering implementing pediatric telehealth.

Provider-to-provider telehealth for sepsis patients in a cohort of rural emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has been proposed as one strategy to improve the quality of time-sensitive sepsis care in rural emergency departments (EDs). The purpose of this study was to measure the association between telehealth-supplemented ED (tele-ED) care, health care costs, and clinical outcomes among patients with sepsis in rural EDs. METHODS: Cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service claims data for beneficiaries treated for sepsis in rural EDs between February 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. Our primary hospital-level analysis used multivariable generalized estimating equations to measure the association between treatment in a tele-ED-capable hospital and 30-day total costs of care. In our supporting secondary analysis, we conducted a propensity-matched analysis of patients who used tele-ED with matched controls from non-tele-ED-capable hospitals. Our primary outcome was total health care payments among index hospitalized patients between the index ED visit and 30 days after hospital discharge, and our secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, 90-day mortality, 28-day hospital-free days, and 30-day inpatient readmissions. RESULTS: In our primary analysis, sepsis patients in tele-ED-capable hospitals had 6.7% higher (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1%-11.5%) total health care costs compared to those in non-tele-ED-capable hospitals. In our propensity-matched patient-level analysis, total health care costs were 23% higher (95% CI 16.5%-30.4%) in tele-ED cases than matched non-tele-ED controls. Clinical outcomes were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-ED capability in a mature rural tele-ED network was not associated with decreased health care costs or improved clinical outcomes. Future work is needed to reduce rural-urban sepsis care disparities and formalize systems of regionalized care.

Most Promising Approaches to Improve Stroke Outcomes: The Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable XII Workshop.

The Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable XII included a workshop to discuss the most promising approaches to improve outcome from acute stroke. The workshop brought together representatives from academia, industry, and government representatives. The discussion examined approaches in 4 epochs: pre-reperfusion, reperfusion, post-reperfusion, and access to acute stroke interventions. The participants identified areas of priority for developing new and existing treatments and approaches to improve stroke outcomes. Although many advances in acute stroke therapy have been achieved, more work is necessary for reperfusion therapies to benefit the most possible patients. Prioritization of promising approaches should help guide the use of resources and investigator efforts.

Safety and Feasibility of an Emergency Department-to-Outpatient Pathway for Patients With TIA and Nondisabling Stroke.

Background and Objectives: Evaluation of transient ischemic attack/nondisabling ischemic strokes (TIA/NDS) in the emergency department (ED) contributes to capacity issues and increasing health care expenditures, especially high-cost duplicative imaging. Methods: As an institutional quality improvement project, we developed a novel pathway to evaluate patients with TIA/NDS in the ED using a core set of laboratory tests and CT-based neuroimaging. Patients identified as 'low risk' through a safety checklist were discharged and scheduled for prompt outpatient tests and stroke clinic follow-up. In this prespecified analysis designed to assess feasibility and safety, we abstracted data from patients consecutively enrolled in the first 6 months. Results: We compared data from 106 patients with TIA/NDS enrolled in the new pathway from April through September 2020 (age 67.9 years, 45% female), against 55 unmatched historical controls with TIA encountered from April 2016 through March 2017 (age 68.3 years, 47% female). Both groups had similar median NIHSS scores (pathway and control 0) and ABCD2 scores (pathway and control 3). Pathway-enrolled patients had a 44% decrease in mean ED length of stay (pathway 13.7 hours, control 24.4 hours, p < 0.001) and decreased utilization of ED MRI-based imaging (pathway 63%, control 91%, p < 0.001) and duplicative ED CT plus MRI-based brain and/or vascular imaging (pathway 35%, control 53%, p = 0.04). Among pathway-enrolled patients, 89% were evaluated in our stroke clinic within a median of 5 business days; only 5.5% were lost to follow-up. Both groups had similar 90-day rates of ED revisits (pathway 21%, control 18%, p = 0.84) and recurrent TIA/ischemic stroke (pathway 1%, control 2%, p = 1.0). Recurrent ischemic events among pathway-enrolled patients were attributed to errors in following the safety checklist before discharge. Discussion: Our TIA/NDS pathway, implemented during the initial outbreak of COVID-19, seems feasible and safe, with significant positive impact on ED throughput and ED-based high-cost duplicative imaging. The safety checklist and option of virtual telehealth follow-up are novel features. Broader adoption of such pathways has important implications for value-based health care.

Changing Health Care Markets Have the Potential to Undermine Stroke Systems of Care.

This Viewpoint discusses the importance of prioritizing quality of care for patients with stroke in a changing health care environment.

Insurance-Based Disparities in Stroke Center Access in California: A Network Science Approach.

BACKGROUND: Our objectives were to determine whether there is an association between ischemic stroke patient insurance and likelihood of transfer overall and to a stroke center and whether hospital cluster modified the association between insurance and likelihood of stroke center transfer. METHODS: This retrospective network analysis of California data included every nonfederal hospital ischemic stroke admission from 2010 to 2017. Transfers from an emergency department to another hospital were categorized based on whether the patient was discharged from a stroke center (primary or comprehensive). We used logistic regression models to examine the relationship between insurance (private, Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured) and odds of (1) any transfer among patients initially presenting to nonstroke center hospital emergency departments and (2) transfer to a stroke center among transferred patients. We used a network clustering method to identify clusters of hospitals closely connected through transfers. Within each cluster, we quantified the difference between insurance groups with the highest and lowest proportion of transfers discharged from a stroke center. RESULTS: Of 332 995 total ischemic stroke encounters, 51% were female, 70% were ≥65 years, and 3.5% were transferred from the initial emergency department. Of 52 316 presenting to a nonstroke center, 3466 (7.1%) were transferred. Relative to privately insured patients, there were lower odds of transfer and of transfer to a stroke center among all groups (Medicare odds ratio, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.22-0.26] and 0.59 [95% CI, 0.50-0.71], Medicaid odds ratio, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.23-0.29] and odds ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.38-0.62], uninsured odds ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.89], and 0.72 [95% CI, 0.6-0.8], respectively). Among the 14 identified hospital clusters, insurance-based disparities in transfer varied and the lowest performing cluster (also the largest; n=2364 transfers) fully explained the insurance-based disparity in odds of stroke center transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured patients had less stroke center access through transfer than patients with insurance. This difference was largely explained by patterns in 1 particular hospital cluster.

Factors Associated with the Digital Patient Experience of Virtual Care Across Specialties.

Background: We aimed to characterize patient experience with virtual care across medical specialties using validated survey data. Primary objective: to determine whether experience varied by visit modality (virtual vs. in-person) and whether relationships persisted after adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. Secondarily, among physicians with sufficient data, we compared virtual versus in-person patient experience scores at the physician level and identified characteristics associated with better experience scores for virtual care. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of administrative databases from a large New England health care system, including all ambulatory visits from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 with patient experience scores recorded. We compared experience between virtual and in-person at the visit level (score: 0-10) and the physician level for likelihood of recommending the physician to friends or family. We used a series of cross-classified hierarchical models with visits grouped by patient and by physician to decompose sources of variation. Among physicians with sufficient data, we compared physicians with higher virtual versus higher in-person net promoter score (NPS). Results: Of 378,472 visits performed by 3368 physicians, 86,878 (23%) were conducted virtually. Most scored ≥9 for either modality, with a small preference for virtual versus in-person care (9.6 vs. 9.5, p < 0.001). We found that more variation in scores was explained by patient than by physician (22.9% vs. 3%). Visit modality was of minimal explanatory value. Most physicians' virtual and in-person NPS were similar, and virtual visit volume was not associated. Conclusions: We found robust evidence for the parity of patient experience between virtual and in-person modalities across specialties.

Hospital-Level Implementation Barriers, Facilitators, and Willingness to Use a New Regional Disaster Teleconsultation System: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The Region 1 Disaster Health Response System project is developing new telehealth capabilities to provide rapid, temporary access to clinical experts across US jurisdictions to support regional disaster health response. OBJECTIVE: To guide future implementation, we identified hospital-level barriers, facilitators, and willingness to use a novel regional peer-to-peer disaster teleconsultation system for disaster health response. METHODS: We used the National Emergency Department Inventory-USA database to identify all 189 hospital-based and freestanding emergency departments (EDs) in New England states. We digitally or telephonically surveyed emergency managers regarding notification systems used for large-scale no-notice emergency events, access to consultants in 6 disaster-relevant specialties, disaster credentialing requirements before system use, reliability and redundancy of internet or cellular service, and willingness to use a disaster teleconsultation system. We examined state-wise hospital and ED disaster response capability. RESULTS: Overall, 164 (87%) hospitals and EDs responded-126 (77%) completed telephone surveys. Most (n=148, 90%) receive emergency notifications from state-based systems. Forty (24%) hospitals and EDs lacked access to burn specialists; toxicologists, 30 (18%); radiation specialists, 25 (15%); and trauma specialists, 20 (12%). Among critical access hospitals (CAHs) or EDs with <10,000 annual visits (n=36), 92% received routine nondisaster telehealth services but lacked toxicologist (25%), burn (22%), and radiation (17%) specialist access. Most hospitals and EDs (n=115, 70%) require disaster credentialing of teleconsultants before system use. Among 113 hospitals and EDs with written disaster credentialing procedures, 28% expected completing disaster credentialing within 24 hours, and 55% within 25-72 hours, which varied by state. Most (n=154, 94%) reported adequate internet or cellular service for video-streaming; 81% maintained cellular service despite internet disruption. Fewer rural hospitals and EDs reported reliable internet or cellular service (19/22, 86% vs 135/142, 95%) and ability to maintain cellular service with internet disruption (11/19, 58% vs 113/135, 84%) than urban hospitals and EDs. Overall, 133 (81%) were somewhat or very likely to use a regional disaster teleconsultation system. Large-volume EDs (annual visits ≥40,000) were less likely to use the service than smaller ones; all CAHs and nearly all rural hospitals or freestanding EDs were likely to use disaster consultation services. Among hospitals and EDs somewhat or very unlikely to use the system (n=26), sufficient consultant access (69%) and reluctance to use new technology or systems (27%) were common barriers. Potential delays (19%), liability (19%), privacy (15%), and hospital information system security restrictions (15%) were infrequent concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Most New England hospitals and EDs have access to state emergency notification systems, telecommunication infrastructure, and willingness to use a new regional disaster teleconsultation system. System developers should focus on ways to improve telecommunication redundancy in rural areas and use low-bandwidth technology to maintain service availability to CAHs and rural hospitals and EDs. Policies and procedures to accelerate and standardize disaster credentialing are needed for implementation across jurisdictions.