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.

Can Asking Emergency Physicians Whether or Not They Would Have Done Something Differently (WYHDSD) be a Useful Screening Tool to Identify Emergency Department Error?

BACKGROUND: Error in emergency medicine remains common and difficult to identify. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if questioning emergency physician reviewers as to whether or not they would have done something differently (Would you have done something differently? [WYHDSD]) can be a useful marker to identify error. METHODS: Prospective data were collected on all patients presenting to an academic emergency department (ED) between 2017 and 2021. All cases who met the following criteria were identified: 1) returned to ED within 72 h and admitted; 2) transferred to intensive care unit from floor within 24 h of admission; 3) expired within 24 h of arrival; or 4) patient or provider complaint. Cases were randomly assigned to emergency physicians and reviewed using an electronic tool to assess for error and adverse events. Reviewers were then mandated to answer WYHDSD in the management of the case. RESULTS: During the study period, 6672 cases were reviewed. Of the 5857 cases where reviewers would not have done something differently, 5847 cases were found to have no error. The question WYHDSD had a sensitivity of 97.4% in predicting error and a negative predictive value of 99.8%. CONCLUSION: There was a significantly higher rate of near misses, adverse events, and errors attributable to an adverse event in cases where the reviewer would have done something differently (WHDSD) compared with cases where they would not. Therefore, asking reviewers if they WHDSD could potentially be used as a marker to identify error and improve patient care in the ED.

Emergency department observation implementation guide.

Emergency department (ED) crowding poses significant operational challenges to hospitals. One strategy to address these issues is the implementation of an ED observation (EDO) unit. EDO involves placing patients in observation status after their initial evaluation, allowing for continued assessment, treatment, and the determination of a safe disposition. This paper provides a comprehensive guide for ED leaders on the implementation of ED observation in their departments. It includes a checklist summarizing key implementation points, operational and financial considerations, staffing and location planning, patient selection, clinical care protocols, documentation and communication processes, securing buy-in from stakeholders, and outcome measurement. The guide also highlights the updated billing codes based on the 2023 updated Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) guidelines. Successful implementation of an EDO program has shown benefits such as improved patient flow, enhanced revenue generation, reduced costs, and comparable clinical outcomes. This guide aims to equip ED leaders with the necessary knowledge and tools to implement and manage an effective ED observation program in their departments, ultimately improving the overall efficiency of emergency care delivery.

Assessing resident and attending error and adverse events in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data looking at resident error or contrasting errors and adverse events among residents and attendings. This type of data could be vital in developing and enhancing educational curricula OBJECTIVES: Using an integrated, readily accessible electronic error reporting system the objective of this study is to compare the frequency and types of error and adverse events attributed to emergency medicine residents with those attributed to emergency medicine attendings. METHODS: Individual events were classified into errors and/or adverse events, and were attributed to one of three groups-residents only, attendings only, or both (if the event had both resident and attending involvement). Error and adverse events were also classified into five different categories of events-systems, documentation, diagnostic, procedural and treatment. The proportion of error events were compared between the residents only and the attendings only group using a one-sample test of proportions. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of a total of 115 observed events over the 11-month data collection period, 96 (83.4%) were errors. A majority of these errors, 40 (41.7%), were attributed to both residents and attendings, 20 (20.8%) were attributed to residents only, and 36 (37.5%) were attributed to attendings only. Of the 19 adverse events, 14 (73.7%) were attributed to both residents and attendings, and 5 (26.3%) adverse events were attributed to attendings only. No adverse events were attributed solely to residents (Table 1). Excluding events attributed to both residents and attendings, there was a significant difference between the proportion of errors attributed to attendings only (64.3%, CI: 50.6, 76.0), and residents only (35.7%, CI: 24.0, 49.0), p = 0.03. (Table 2). There was no significant difference between the residents only and the attendings only group in the distribution of errors and adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.162). (Table 2). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in errors that did not result in adverse events and the rate of errors proceeding to adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.15). (Table 3). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the distribution of the types of errors and adverse events (Fisher's exact, p = 0.09). Treatment related errors were the most common error types, for both the attending and the resident groups. CONCLUSIONS: Resident error, somewhat expectedly, is most commonly related to treatment interventions, and rarely is due to an individual resident mistake. Resident error instead seems to reflect concomitant error on the part of the attending. Error, in general as well as adverse events, are more likely to be attributed to an attending alone rather than to a resident.

Using a rule-based system to define error in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of peer-reviewed cases for error is key to quality assurance (QA) in emergency medicine, but defining error to ensure reviewer agreement and reproducibility remains elusive. The objective of this study was to create a consensus-based set of rules to systematically identify medical errors. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study of all cases presented for peer review at an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center emergency department (ED) quality assurance (QA) committee between October 13, 2015, and September 14, 2016. Our hospital uses an electronic system enabling staff to self-identify QA issues for subsequent review. In addition, physician or patient complaints, 72-hour returns with admission, death within 24 hours, floor transfers to ICU < 24 hours, and morbidity and mortality conference cases are automatic triggers for review. Trained reviewers not involved in the patient's care use a structured 8-point Likert scale to assess for error and preventable or non-preventable adverse events. Cases where reviewers perceived a need for additional treatment, or that caused patient harm, are referred to a 20-member committee of emergency department leadership, attendings, residents, and nurses for consensus review. For this study, "rules" were proposed by the reviewers identifying the error and validated by consensus during each meeting. The committee then decided if a rule had been broken (error) or not broken (judgment call). If an error could not be phrased in terms of a rule broken, then it would not be considered an error. The rules were then evaluated by 2 reviewers and organized by theme into categories to determine common errors in emergency medicine. RESULTS: We identified 108 episodes of rules broken in 103 cases within a database of 920 QA reviewed cases. In cases where a rule was broken and therefore an error was scored, the following 5 major themes emerged: (1) not acquiring necessary information (eg, not completing a relevant physical exam), N = 33 (31%); (2) not acting on data that were acquired (eg, abnormal vital signs or labs), N = 25 (23%); (3) knowledge gaps by clinicians (eg, not knowing to reduce a hernia), N = 16 (15%); (4) communication gaps (eg, discharge instructions), N = 17 (16%); and (5) systems issues (eg, improper patient registration), N = 17 (16%). CONCLUSION: The development of consensus-based rules may result in a more standardized and practical definition of error in emergency medicine to be used as a QA tool and a basis for research. The most common type of rule broken was not acquiring necessary information. A rule-based definition of medical error in emergency medicine may identify key areas for risk reduction strategies, help standardize medical QA, and improve patient care and physician education.

The Ethics of Error in Medicine.

The practice of medicine forces medical practitioners to make difficult and challenging choices on a daily basis. On the one hand we are obligated to cure with every resource available, while on the other hand we put the patient at risk because our treatments are flawed. To understand the ethics of error in medicine, its moral value, and the effects, error must first be defined. However, definition of error remains elusive, and its incidence has been extraordinarily difficult to quantify. Yet, a health care system that acknowledges error as a consequence of normative ethical practice must create systems to minimize error. Error reduction, in turn, should attempt to decrease patient harm and improve the entire health care system. We discuss a number of ethical and moral considerations that arise from practicing medicine despite anticipated error.

Physician Well-Being.

Burnout is a work-related condition. Although stress may be a part of emergency medicine, excessive levels of chronic stress can lead to maladaptive behaviors and burnout. Burnout can lead to decreased physician longevity and performance and poorer patient outcomes. The first step is recognizing burnout in providers. Efforts can then be made to identify modifiable or unnecessary sources of stress to help reduce chronic stress and burnout. Solutions should be found to eliminate or ameliorate individual-level and system-level sources of stress.

Year-to-year trends in emergency medicine morbidity and mortality cases.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) rounds are peer review conferences during which cases with adverse outcomes and difficult management decisions are presented. Their primary objective is to learn from complications and errors, modify behavior and judgment based on previous experiences, and prevent repetition of errors leading to complications. The objective of this study was to determine if M&M conferences can reduce repetitive error making demonstrated by a shift of the incidence of cases presented at M&M by chief complaint (CC) and experience of attendings. METHODS: All M&M cases from 1/1/2014-12/31/2017 derived from an urban, tertiary referral Emergency Department were reviewed and grouped into 12 different CC categories and by attending years of experience (1-4, 5-9 and 10+). Number and percent of M&M cases by CC and years of attending experience were calculated by year and a chi-squared analysis was performed. RESULTS: 350 M&M cases were presented over the four-year study period. There was a significant difference between CC categories from year-to-year (p < 0.001). Attendings with 1-4 years of experience had the majority of cases (46.3%), while those with 5-9 years had the fewest total cases (15.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a persistent significant difference across CC categories of M&M cases from year-to-year, with down-trending and up-trending of specific CCs suggesting that M&M presentation may prevent repetitive errors. Newer attendings show increased rates of M&M cases relative to more experienced attendings. There may be a distinctive educational benefit of participation at M&M for attendings with fewer than five years of clinical experience.

Three- vs. Four-Year Emergency Medicine Training Programs.

Postgraduate training in emergency medicine (EM) varies in length among different programs. This fact creates a dilemma for applicants to the specialty of EM and prevents EM educators from reaching a consensus regarding the optimal length of training. Historically, EM training existed in the postgraduate year (PGY) 1-3, 2-4, and 1-4 formats, until the PGY 2-4 program became obsolete in 2011-2012. Currently, three-quarters of EM programs follow the PGY 1-3 format. In this article, we clarify for the applicants the main differences between the PGY 1-3 and PGY 1-4 formats. We also discuss the institutional, personal, and graduate considerations that explain why an institution or an individual would choose one format over the other.

Using the Boston Syncope Observation Management Pathway to Reduce Hospital Admission and Adverse Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: In an age of increasing scrutiny of each hospital admission, emergency department (ED) observation has been identified as a low-cost alternative. Prior studies have shown admission rates for syncope in the United States to be as high as 70%. However, the safety and utility of substituting ED observation unit (EDOU) syncope management has not been well studied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of EDOU for the management of patients presenting to the ED with syncope and its efficacy in reducing hospital admissions. METHODS: This was a prospective before-and-after cohort study of consecutive patients presenting with syncope who were seen in an urban ED and were either admitted to the hospital, discharged, or placed in the EDOU. We first performed an observation study of syncope management and then implemented an ED observation-based management pathway. We identified critical interventions and 30-day outcomes. We compared proportions of admissions and adverse events rates with a chi-squared or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In the "before" phase, 570 patients were enrolled, with 334 (59%) admitted and 27 (5%) placed in the EDOU; 3% of patients discharged from the ED had critical interventions within 30 days and 10% returned. After the management pathway was introduced, 489 patients were enrolled; 34% (p<0.001) of pathway patients were admitted while 20% were placed in the EDOU; 3% (p=0.99) of discharged patients had critical interventions at 30 days and 3% returned (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: A focused syncope management pathway effectively reduces hospital admissions and adverse events following discharge and returns to the ED.

A Model for Electronic Handoff Between the Emergency Department and Inpatient Units.

BACKGROUND: Patient handoffs between units can introduce risk and time delays. Verbal communication is the most common mode of handoff, but requires coordination between different parties. OBJECTIVE: We present an asynchronous patient handoff process supported by a structured electronic signout for admissions from the emergency department (ED) to the inpatient medicine service. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients admitted to the medical service from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015 at a tertiary referral center with 520 inpatient beds and 57,000 ED visits annually. We developed a model for structured electronic, asynchronous signout that includes an option to request verbal communication after review of the electronic handoff information. RESULTS: During the 2010 academic year (AY) all admissions used verbal communication for signout. The following academic year, electronic signout was implemented and 77.5% of admissions were accepted with electronic signout. The rate increased to 87.3% by AY 2014. The rate of transfer from floor to an intensive care unit within 24 h for the year before and 4 years after implementation of the electronic signout system was collected and calculated with 95% confidence interval. There was no statistically significant difference between the year prior and the years after the implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our handoff model sought to maximize the opportunity for asynchronous signout while still providing the opportunity for verbal signout when deemed necessary. The process was rapidly adopted with the majority of patients being accepted electronically.

Outcomes in variceal hemorrhage following the use of a balloon tamponade device.

BACKGROUND: Variceal hemorrhage is associated with high morbidity and mortality. A balloon tamponade device (BTD), such as the Sengstaken-Blakemore or Minnesota tube, may be used in cases of variceal hemorrhage. While these devices may be effective at controlling acute bleeding, the effect on patient outcomes remains less clear. We sought to describe the number of patients with variceal hemorrhage and a BTD who survive to discharge, survive to one-year, and develop complications related to a BTD. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified patients at a single, tertiary care center who underwent placement of a BTD for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage between 2003 and 2014. Patient characteristics and outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 34 patients with a BTD were identified. Median age was 57.5 (IQR 47-63) and 76% (26/34) were male. Approximately 59% (20/34) of patients survived to discharge, and 41% (13/32) were alive after one year. Two patients were lost to follow-up. Of those surviving to discharge, 95% (19/20) had undergone transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), while 36% (5/14) of patients who did not survive to discharge had TIPS (p<0.01). One complication, an esophageal perforation, was identified and managed conservatively. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients undergoing BTD placement for variceal hemorrhage, approximately 59% of patients were alive at discharge and 41% were alive after one year. Placement of a BTD as a temporizing measure in the management of acute variceal hemorrhage may be helpful, particularly when utilized as a bridge to more definitive therapy.

The Absence of Fever Is Associated With Higher Mortality and Decreased Antibiotic and IV Fluid Administration in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates whether emergency department septic shock patients without a fever (reported or measured) receive less IV fluids, have decreased antibiotic administration, and suffer increased in-hospital mortality. DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study of patients with shock. SETTING: The study was conducted in an urban, academic emergency department. PATIENTS: The original study enrolled consecutive adult (aged 18 yr or older) emergency department patients from November 11, 2012, to September 23, 2013, who met one of the following shock criteria: 1) systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg after at least 1L IV fluids, 2) new vasopressor requirement, or 3) systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg and IV fluids held for concern of fluid overload. The current study is limited to patients with septic shock. Patients were grouped as febrile if they had a subjective fever or a measured temperature >100.4°F documented in the emergency department; afebrile patients lacked both. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 378 patients with septic shock, 207 of 378 (55%; 50-60%) were febrile by history or measurement. Afebrile patients had lower rates of antibiotic administration in the emergency department (81% vs 94%; p < 0.01), lower mean volumes of IV fluids (2,607 vs 3,013 mL; p < 0.01), and higher in-hospital mortality rates (33% vs 11%; p < 0.01). After adjusting for bicarbonate less than 20 mEq/L, lactate concentration, respiratory rate greater than or equal to 24 breaths/min, emergency department antibiotics, and emergency department IV fluids volume, being afebrile remained a significant predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.2-8.2; area under the curve = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: In emergency department patients with septic shock, afebrile patients received lower rates of emergency department antibiotic administration, lower mean IV fluids volume, and suffered higher in-hospital mortality.

Serum Lactate Predicts Adverse Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With and Without Infection.

INTRODUCTION: Lactate levels are increasingly used to risk stratify emergency department (ED) patients with and without infection. Whether a serum lactate provides similar prognostic value across diseases is not fully elucidated. This study assesses the prognostic value of serum lactate in ED patients with and without infection to both report and compare relative predictive value across etiologies. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of ED patients displaying abnormal vital signs (AVS) (heart rate ≥130 bpm, respiratory rate ≥24 bpm, shock index ≥1, and/or systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg). The primary outcome, deterioration, was a composite of acute renal failure, non-elective intubation, vasopressor administration or in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 1,152 patients with AVS who were screened, 488 patients met the current study criteria: 34% deteriorated and 12.5% died. The deterioration rate was 88/342 (26%, 95% CI: 21 - 30%) for lactate < 2.5 mmol/L, 47/90 (52%, 42 - 63%) for lactate 2.5 - 4.0 mmol/L, and 33/46 (72%, 59 - 85%) for lactate >4.0mmol/L. Trended stratified lactate levels were associated with deterioration for both infected (p<0.01) and non-infected (p<0.01) patients. In the logistic regression models, lactate > 4mmol/L was an independent predictor of deterioration for patients with infection (OR 4.8, 95% CI: 1.7 - 14.1) and without infection (OR 4.4, 1.7 - 11.5). CONCLUSION: Lactate levels can risk stratify patients with AVS who have increased risk of adverse outcomes regardless of infection status.

Hospital ward transfer to intensive care unit as a quality marker in emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: Minimizing and preventing adverse events and medical errors in the emergency department (ED) is an ongoing area of quality improvement. Identifying these events remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of tracking patients transferred to the ICU within 24h of admission from the ED as a marker of preventable errors and adverse events. METHODS: From November 2011 through June 2016, we prospectively collected data for all patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care academic ED. We utilized an automated electronic tracking system to identify ED patients who were admitted to a hospital ward and then transferred to the ICU within 24h. Reviewers screened for possible error or adverse event and if discovered the case was referred to the departmental Quality Assurance (QA) committee for deliberations and consensus agreement. RESULTS: Of 96,377 ward admissions, 921 (1%) patients were subsequently transferred to the ICU within 24h of ED presentation. Of these 165 (19%) were then referred to the QA committee for review. Total rate of adverse events regardless of whether or not an error occurred was 2.1%, 19/921 (95% CI 1.4% to 3.0%). Medical error on the part of the ED was 2.2%, 20/921 (95% CI 1.5% to 3.1%) and ED Preventable Error in 1.1%, 10/921 (95% CI 0.6% to 1.8%). CONCLUSION: Tracking patients admitted to the hospital from the ED who are transferred to the ICU <24h after admission may be a valuable marker for adverse events and preventable errors in the ED.

Use of Physician Concerns and Patient Complaints as Quality Assurance Markers in Emergency Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The value of using patient- and physician-identified quality assurance (QA) issues in emergency medicine remains poorly characterized as a marker for emergency department (ED) QA. The objective of this study was to determine whether evaluation of patient and physician concerns is useful for identifying medical errors resulting in either an adverse event or a near-miss event. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients presenting between January 2008 and December 2014 to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center ED with an electronic error reporting system that allows physicians to identify QA issues for review. In our system, both patient and physician concerns are reviewed by physician evaluators not involved with the patients' care to determine if a QA issue exists. If a potential QA issue is present, it is referred to a 20-member QA committee of emergency physicians and nurses who make a final determination as to whether or not an error or adverse event occurred. RESULTS: We identified 570 concerns within a database of 383,419 ED presentations, of which 33 were patient-generated and 537 were physician-generated. Out of the 570 reports, a preventable adverse event was detected in 3.0% of cases (95% CI = [1.52-4.28]). Further analysis revealed that 9.1% (95% CI = [2-24]) of patient complaints correlated to preventable errors leading to an adverse event. In contrast, 2.6% (95% CI = [2-4]) of QA concerns reported by a physician alone were found to be due to preventable medical errors leading to an adverse event (p=0.069). Near-miss events (errors without adverse outcome) trended towards more accurate reporting by physicians, with medical error found in 12.1% of reported cases (95% CI = [10-15]) versus 9.1% of those reported by patients (95% CI = [2-24] p=0.079). Adverse events in general that were not deemed to be due to preventable medical error were found in 12.1% of patient complaints (95% CI = [3-28]) and in 5.8% of physician QA concerns (95% CI = [4-8]). CONCLUSION: Screening and systemized evaluation of ED patient and physician complaints may be an underutilized QA tool. Patient complaints demonstrated a trend to identify medical errors that result in preventable adverse events, while physician QA concerns may be more likely to uncover a near miss.

Can medical record reviewers reliably identify errors and adverse events in the ED?

BACKGROUND: Chart review has been the mainstay of medical quality assurance practices since its introduction more than a century ago. The validity of chart review, however, has been vitiated by a lack of methodological rigor. OBJECTIVES: By measuring the degree of interrater agreement among a 13-member review board of emergency physicians, we sought to validate the reliability of a chart review-based quality assurance process using computerized screening based on explicit case parameters. METHODS: All patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center emergency department (annual volume of 57,000 patients) between November 2012 and November 2013 were screened electronically. Cases were programmatically flagged for review according to explicit criteria: return within 72hours, procedural evaluation, floor-to-ICU transfer within 24hours of admission, death within 24hours of admission, physician complaints, and patient complaints. Each case was reviewed independently by a 13-member emergency department quality assurance committee all of whom were board certified in emergency medicine and trained in the use of the tool. None of the reviewers were involved in the care of the specific patients reviewed by them. Reviewers used a previously validated 8-point Likert scale to rate the (1) coordination of patient care, (2) presence and severity of adverse events, (3) degree of medical error, and (4) quality of medical judgment. Agreement among reviewers was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each parameter. RESULTS: Agreement and the degree of significance for each parameter were as follows: coordination of patient care (ICC=0.67; P<.001), presence and severity of adverse events (ICC=0.52; P=.001), degree of medical error (ICC=0.72; P<.001), and quality of medical judgment (ICC=0.67; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Agreement in the chart review process can be achieved among physician-reviewers. The degree of agreement attainable is comparable to or superior to that of similar studies reported to date. These results highlight the potential for the use of computerized screening, explicit criteria, and training of expert reviewers to improve the reliability and validity of chart review-based quality assurance.