Above, Beyond, and Over the Side rails: Evaluating the New Memorial Emergency Department Fall-Risk-Assessment Tool.

INTRODUCTION: Patient falls are a significant issue in hospitalized patients and financially costly to hospitals. The Joint Commission requires that patients be assessed for fall risk and interventions in place to mitigate the risk of falls. It is imperative to have a patient population/setting specific fall risk assessment tool to identify patients at risk for falling. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the 2013 Memorial ED Fall Risk Assessment tool (MEDFRAT) specifically designed for the ED population. METHOD: A two-phase prospective design was used for this study. Phase one determined the interrater reliability of the MEDFRAT. Phase two assessed the validity of the MEDFRAT in an emergency department (ED) within a 600-bed academic/teaching institution; Level II Trauma Center with >100,000 annual patient visits. RESULTS: The Memorial ED Fall Risk Assessment Tool was validated in this ED setting. The tool demonstrated positive interrater reliability (k=0.701) and when implemented with a falls prevention strategy and staff education demonstrated a 48% decrease in ED fall rate (0.57 falls/1000 patient visits) post implementation during the study period. DISCUSSION: The MEDFRAT, an evidenced based ED-specific fall risk tool was implemented on the basis of the risk factors consistently identified in the literature: prior fall history, impaired mobility, altered mental status, altered elimination, and the use of sedative medication. The Memorial ED Fall Risk Assessment Tool demonstrated to be a valid tool for this hospital system.

Intravenous Push Cephalosporin Antibiotics in the Emergency Department: A Practice Improvement Project.

Delays in administration of appropriate antibiotics to patients with septic shock are associated with increased mortality. To improve the care of patients with sepsis within our 73-bed emergency department (ED), a "first-dose" intravenous push (IVP) cephalosporin antibiotic protocol was initiated. This project was aimed at improving the time from provider order of antibiotic to administration, which follows the Sepsis Core Measure of timely antibiotic administration.This was a single-center, retrospective analysis of a practice improvement study. Time from provider order of an IV cephalosporin antibiotic to administration was compared between postprotocol dates of March to May 2016 (n = 1110) and preprotocol dates of November 2015 to January 2016 (n = 1146). The cost of supplies for IVP was compared with traditional infusion. Prior to implementation of the IVP protocol, ED nursing staff completed a survey of administration preferences and then received one-on-one instruction about the protocol from the clinical nurse specialist and clinical nurse educator. In addition, a tip sheet was developed and IVP kits complete with all needed supplies were made available in the automated medication dispensing system.Median time from IV cephalosporin antibiotic order to administration significantly decreased by 8, 12, 14, and 13 min for ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefepime, and cefazolin, respectively (p < 0.007 for all). This was true for all indications of antibiotic use. Nursing staff favored IVP administration over traditional IV infusion (87%). Supply cost to administer IVP antibiotics was $0.83 compared with $9.53 for traditional IV infusion.A "first-dose IVP" protocol decreased time to administration by eliminating the need for procurement of an infusion pump, setup, and documentation of a secondary infusion. It was also preferred by ED nursing staff and associated with cost savings.

Reducing indwelling urinary catheter use in the emergency department: a successful quality-improvement initiative.

INTRODUCTION: This quality-improvement project aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing multidisciplinary education and deploying utilization tools aimed at reducing the inappropriate insertion of indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs) in the emergency department. Literature supports the use of decision support tools and education as proven techniques to reduce IUC use. Few studies have implemented a multidisciplinary approach involving the use of focus groups to understand the thought processes behind deciding to place an IUC. METHODS: Focus groups were used to understand the current practice for inserting an IUC in the emergency department. These data were then used to create a nursing-based IUC decision support tool and educational presentation regarding appropriate uses for IUCs. Live, in-person education sessions were given to emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, physicians, and residents; in addition, electronic education was assigned to all emergency nurses and technicians. Seventy-eight percent of ED staff received some form of education regarding appropriate IUC insertion criteria. Physicians and residents also received an in-person presentation on the topic. A survey was sent to all emergency nurses and emergency medical technicians to assess actual practice changes. In addition, an IUC utilization and appropriateness audit was completed before and immediately after the interventions. RESULTS: The project resulted in a 25% decrease in the proportion of patients admitted to inpatient status with IUCs placed in the emergency department and a 9% decrease in the inappropriate use of IUCs. Staff surveys after education showed that staff members were more likely to document the reason for placing an IUC and to use alternatives to IUCs. CONCLUSIONS: The potential risks associated with IUCs often go overlooked by direct-care staff members. Educating staff and creating new standards and utilization tools have often been used to decrease the initial insertion of IUCs and to improve recognition of appropriate removal of IUCs. Using direct feedback from staff to develop the interventions led to a reduction in IUC insertions in the emergency department in the short-term, but long-term changes were not seen. The project results suggest that incorporating staff into the decision making and implementation will lead to long-term acquisition of knowledge and longer-term results. Ongoing regularly scheduled education refreshers need to be assessed for their potential to affect long-term change.