A Cross-Sectional Analysis of High-Acuity Professional Services Performed by Urban and Rural Emergency Care Physicians Across the United States.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We seek to examine differences in the provision of high-acuity professional services between rural and urban physicians receiving reimbursement for emergency care evaluation and management services from Medicare fee-for-service Part B. METHODS: Using the 2017 Medicare Public Use Files, we performed a cross-sectional analysis and defined the primary outcome, the proportion of high-acuity charts (PHAC), at the physician level as the proportion of services provided as 99285 and 99291 emergency care evaluation and management service codes relative to all such codes. After accounting for unique clinician-level characteristics, we categorized individual physicians by PHAC quintiles and conducted ordered logistic regression analyses reporting adjusted marginal probabilities to examine associations with rurality. RESULTS: A total of 34,256 physicians providing emergency care had a median PHAC of 66.8% (interquartile range 55.6% to 75.7%), with 89.2% practicing in an urban setting. Urban and rural physicians had respective median PHACs of 67.6% (interquartile range 57.1% to 76.2%) and 57.9% (interquartile range 42.7% to 69.4%). Urban and rural physicians had respective adjusted marginal probabilities of 15.2% and 11.8% of being in the highest PHAC quintile, and respective adjusted marginal probabilities of 14.3% and 18.2% of being in the lowest PHAC quintile. CONCLUSION: In comparison with rural physicians, urban physicians providing emergency care received reimbursements for a greater PHAC when caring for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Policymakers must consider these differences in the design and implementation of new emergency care payment policies.

The effect of electronic health record implementation on community emergency department operational measures of performance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We study the effect of an emergency department (ED) electronic health record implementation on the operational metrics of a diverse group of community EDs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective before/after analysis of 23 EDs from a single management group that experienced ED electronic health record implementation (with the majority of electronic health records optimized specifically for ED use). We obtained electronic data for 4 length of stay measures (arrival to provider, admitted, discharged, and overall length of stay) and 4 measures of operational characteristics (left before treatment complete, significant returns, overall patient satisfaction, and provider efficiency). We compared the 6-month "baseline" period immediately before implementation with a "steady-state" period commencing 6 months after implementation for all 8 metrics. RESULTS: For the length of stay measures, there were no differences in the arrival-to-provider interval (difference of -0.02 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI] of difference -0.12 to 0.08), admitted length of stay (difference of 0.10 hours; 95% CI of difference -0.17 to 0.37), discharged length of stay (difference of 0.07 hours; 95% CI of difference -0.07 to 0.22), and overall length of stay (difference of 0.11 hours; 95% CI of difference -0.04 to 0.27). For operational characteristics, there were no differences in the percentage who left before treatment was complete (difference of 0.24%; 95% CI of difference -0.47% to 0.95%), significant returns (difference of -0.04%; 95% CI of difference -0.48% to 0.39%), overall percentile patient satisfaction (difference of -0.02%; 95% CI of difference -2.35% to 2.30%), and provider efficiency (difference of -0.05 patients/hour; 95% CI of difference -0.11 to 0.02). CONCLUSION: There is no meaningful difference in 8 measures of operational performance for community EDs experiencing optimized ED electronic health record implementation between a baseline and steady-state period.

Practical implications of implementing emergency department crowding interventions: summary of a moderated panel.

Emergency department (ED) crowding continues to be a major public health problem in the United States and around the world. In June 2011, the Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference focused on exploring interventions to alleviate ED crowding and to generate a series of research agendas on the topic. As part of the conference, a panel of leaders in the emergency care community shared their perspectives on emergency care, crowding, and some of the fundamental issues facing emergency care today. The panel participants included Drs. Bruce Siegel, Sandra Schneider, Peter Viccellio, and Randy Pilgrim. The panel was moderated by Dr. Jesse Pines. Dr. Siegel's comments focused on his work on Urgent Matters, which conducted two multihospital collaboratives related to improving ED crowding and disseminating results. Dr. Schneider focused on the future of ED crowding measures, the importance of improving our understanding of ED boarding and its implications, and the need for the specialty of emergency medicine (EM) to move beyond the discussion of unnecessary visits. Dr. Viccellio's comments focused on several areas, including the need for a clear message about unnecessary ED visits by the emergency care community and potential solutions to improve ED crowding. Finally, Dr. Pilgrim focused on the effect of effective leadership and management in crowding interventions and provided several examples of how these considerations directly affected the success or failure of well-constructed ED crowding interventions. This article describes each panelist's comments in detail.

The future of emergency medicine.

Physician shortages are being projected for most medical specialties. The specialty of emergency medicine continues to experience a significant workforce shortage in the face of increasing demand for emergency care. The limited supply of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, and other resources is creating an urgent, untenable patient care problem. In July 2009, representatives of the leading emergency medicine organizations met in Dallas, TX, for the Future of Emergency Medicine Summit. This consensus document, agreed to and cowritten by all participating organizations, describes the substantive issues discussed and provides a foundation for the future of the specialty.

The future of emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: The specialty of emergency medicine (EM) continues to experience a significant workforce shortage in the face of increasing demand for emergency care. SUMMARY: In July 2009, representatives of the leading EM organizations met in Dallas for the Future of Emergency Medicine Summit. Attendees at the Future of Emergency Medicine Summit agreed on the following: 1) Emergency medical care is an essential community service that should be available to all; 2) An insufficient emergency physician workforce also represents a potential threat to patient safety; 3) Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education/American Osteopathic Association (AOA)-accredited EM residency training and American Board of Medical Specialties/AOA EM board certification is the recognized standard for physician providers currently entering a career in emergency care; 4) Physician supply shortages in all fields contribute to-and will continue to contribute to-a situation in which providers with other levels of training may be a necessary part of the workforce for the foreseeable future; 5) A maldistribution of EM residency-trained physicians persists, with few pursuing practice in small hospital or rural settings; 6) Assuring that the public receives high quality emergency care while continuing to produce highly skilled EM specialists through EM training programs is the challenge for EM's future; 7) It is important that all providers of emergency care receive continuing postgraduate education.