RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Various biases can impact decision-making and judgment of case quality in the Emergency Department (ED). Outcome and hindsight bias can lead to wrong retrospective judgment of care quality, and implicit bias can result in unjust treatment differences in the ED based on irrelevant patient characteristics. OBJECTIVES: First, to evaluate the extent to which knowledge of an outcome influences physicians' quality of care assessment. Secondly, to examine whether patients with functional disorders receive different treatment compared to patients with a somatic past medical history. DESIGN: A web-based cross-sectional study in which physicians received case vignettes with a case description and care provided. Physicians were informed about vignette outcomes in a randomized way (no, good, or bad outcome). Physicians rated quality of care for four casevignettes with different outcomes. Subsequently, they received two more case vignettes. Physicians were informed about the past medical history of the patient in a randomized way (somatic or functional). Physicians made treatment and diagnostic decisions for both cases. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ninety-one Dutch emergency physicians (EPs) and general practitioners (GPs) participated. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: Quality of care was rated on a Likert scale (0-5) and dichotomized as adequate (yes/no). Physicians estimated the likelihood of patients experiencing a bad outcome for hindsight bias. For the second objective, physicians decided on prescribing analgesics and additional diagnostic tests. MAIN RESULTS: Large differences existed in rated quality of care for three out of four vignettes based on different case outcomes. For example, physicians rated the quality of care as adequate in 44% (95% CI 33-57%) for an abdominal pain case with a bad outcome, compared to 88% (95% CI 78-94%) for a good outcome, and 84% (95% CI 73-91%) for no outcome (Pâ <â 0.01). The estimated likelihood of a bad outcome was higher if physicians received a vignette with a bad patient outcome. Fewer diagnostic tests were performed and fewer opioids were prescribed for patients with a functional disorder. CONCLUSION: Outcome, hindsight, and implicit bias significantly influence decision-making and care quality assessment by Dutch EPs and GPs.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: During certain phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease was observed in emergency department (ED) utilization. Although this phenomenon has been thoroughly characterized for the first wave (FW), second wave (SW) studies are limited. We examined the changes in ED utilization between the FW and SW, compared to 2019 reference periods. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of ED utilization in 3 Dutch hospitals in 2020. The FW and SW (March-June and September-December, respectively) were compared to the reference periods in 2019. ED visits were labeled as (non-)COVID-suspected. RESULTS: During the FW and SW ED visits decreased by 20.3% and 15.3%, respectively, when compared to reference periods in 2019. During both waves high urgency visits significantly increased with 3.1% and 2.1%, and admission rates (ARs) increased with 5.0% and 10.4%. Trauma related visits decreased by 5.2% and 3.4%. During the SW we observed less COVID-related visits compared to the FW (4,407 vs 3,102 patients). COVID-related visits were significantly more often in higher need of urgent care and ARs were at least 24.0% higher compared to non-COVID visits. CONCLUSION: During both COVID-19 waves, ED visits were significantly reduced. ED patients were more often triaged as high urgent, the ED length of stay was longer and ARs were increased compared to the reference period in 2019, reflecting a high burden on ED resources. During the FW, the reduction in ED visits was most pronounced. Here, ARs were also higher and patient were more often triaged as high urgency. These findings stress the need to gain better insight into the motives of patients to delay or avoid emergency care during pandemics, as well as to better prepare EDs for future outbreaks.
