The effect of increasing emergency department observation volumes on downstream admission rates.

Rising length of stay and inpatient boarding in emergency departments have directly affected patient satisfaction and nearly all provider-to-patient care metrics. Prior studies suggest that ED observation has significant clinical and financial benefits including decreasing hospitalization and length of stay. ED observation is one method long employed to shorten ED length of stay and to free up inpatient beds, yet many patients continue to be admitted to the hospital with an average hospital length of stay of only one day. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether vigorous tracking and provider reviews of one day hospital admits affected the utilization of ED observation and whether this correlated with significant change in rates of admission from observation status. Between September 2020 and May 2021, in a tertiary care hospital with an annual ED volume of 55,0000, chart reviews of 24-h inpatient discharges were initiated by two senior EM faculty to determine perceived suitability for ED observation. Non-punitive email reviews were then initiated with ED attending providers in order to encourage evaluation of whether these patients would have benefitted from being placed into observation. We then analyzed ED observation patient volumes and subsequent admission rates to the hospital from ED observation and compared these numbers to baseline ED observation volume and admission rates between September 2018 and May 2019. A total of 1448 reviews were conducted on 24-h discharges which correlated with an increase in utilization of ED observation from 11.77% (95% CI [11.62, 12.31]) of total ED volume in our control period to 14.21% (95% CI [13.84, 14.58]) during the study period. We found that the overall admission rate from ED observation increased from 20.12% (95% CI [18.97, 21.26]) baseline to 23.80% (95% CI [22.60, 25.00]) during the same time periods. Our data suggest that increasing the total number of patients placed into observation by 21% correlated with a relative increase in admission rates from ED observation by 18%. This would suggest that our efforts to potentially include more patients into our observation program led to a significant increase in subsequent admission rates. There is likely a balance that must be struck between under- and over-utilization of ED observation, and expanding ED observation may be an effective solution to hospital boarding and ED overcrowding.

The Value of Using a Quality Assurance Follow-Up Team to Address Incidental Findings After Emergency Department or Urgent Care Discharge: A Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incidental finding (IF) follow-up is of critical importance for patient safety and is a source of malpractice risk. Laboratory, imaging, or other types of IFs are often uncovered incidentally and are missed, not addressed, or only result after hospital discharge. Despite a growing IF notification literature, a need remains to study cost-effective non-electronic health record (EHR)-specific solutions that can be used across different types of IFs and EHRs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility and cost-effectiveness of an EHR-independent emergency medicine-based quality assurance (QA) follow-up program in which an experienced nurse reviewed laboratory and imaging studies and ensured appropriate follow-up of results. METHODS: A QA nurse reviewed preceding-day abnormal studies from a tertiary care hospital, a community hospital, and an urgent care center. Laboratory values outside preset parameters or radiology over-reads resulting in clinically actionable changes triggered contact with an on-call emergency physician to determine an appropriate intervention and its implementation. RESULTS: Of 104,125 visits with 1,351,212 laboratory studies and 95,000 imaging studies, 6530 visits had IFs, including 2659 laboratory and 4004 imaging results. The most common intervention was contacting a primary care physician (5783 cases [88.6%]). Twenty-one cases resulted in a patient returning to the ED, at an average cost of $28,000 per potential life-/limb-saving intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although abnormalities in laboratory results and imaging are often incidental to patient care, a dedicated emergency department QA follow-up program resulted in the identification and communication of numerous laboratory and imaging abnormalities and may result in changes to patients' subsequent clinical course, potentially increasing patient safety.