Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Inappropriate Use of the Emergency Department.

Background: Inappropriate use of the emergency department (IEDU)-consisting of the unnecessary use of the resource by patients with no clinical need-is one of the leading causes of the loss of efficiency of the health system. Specific contexts modify routine clinical practice and usage patterns. This study aims to analyse the influence of COVID-19 on the IEDU and its causes. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study conducted in the emergency department of a high-complexity hospital. The Hospital Emergency Suitability Protocol (HESP) was used to measure the prevalence of IEDU and its causes, comparing three pairs of periods: (1) March 2019 and 2020; (2) June 2019 and 2020; and (3) September 2019 and 2020. A bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models, adjusted for confounding variables, were utilized. Results: In total, 822 emergency visits were included (137 per period). A total prevalence of IEDU of 14.1% was found. There was a significant decrease in IEDU in March 2020 (OR: 0.03), with a prevalence of 0.8%. No differences were found in the other periods. A mistrust in primary care was the leading cause of IEDU (65.1%). Conclusions: The impact of COVID-19 reduced the frequency of IEDU during the period of more significant population restrictions, with IEDU returning to previous levels in subsequent months. Targeted actions in the field of population education and an improvement in primary care are positioned as strategies that could mitigate its impact.

[Apropriateness of hospital admissions due to COVID-19 in the 2nd and 5th phase of the pandemic.] / Adecuación de ingresos hospitalarios por COVID-19 en la 2ª y 5ª fase de la pandemia.

OBJECTIVE: The increase in the demand for healthcare caused by COVID-19 implies a lower availability of health resources and influences the appropriateness of their use. Due to the variability of demand during the pandemic, the study aimed to compare the appropriateness of hospital admissions between the 2nd and 5th phases of the pandemic according to the criteria of the Hospital Emergency Service (CiHRyC). These results were compared with those obtained according to the Pneumonity Severity Index (FINE) and the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP). As a secondary objective, the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of the patients studied were described. METHODS: 80 patients hospitalized from the Emergency Department were randomly selected in two study periods (2nd and 5th pandemic phase) obtained from the registry of hospitalizations of the Preventive Medicine service of Hospital Ramon y Cajal. Prevalences of inappropriateness were estimated according to the CiHRyC, FINE and AEP and an analysis was performed using univariate logistic regression between epidemiological variables of both periods collected through the electronical medical records. RESULTS: Inappropriateness of admissions were 35% and 45% in the 2nd and 5th phase of the pandemic according with CiHRyC, 25% and 5/% according with FINE and 0% and 5% according with AEP. Median age was 71.4 and 50.0 years in 2nd and 5th phase (p=0.02). 72.5% and 17.5% of the patients in the 2nd and 5th phases had at least one risk factor for COVID-19 severe illness (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The measurement tools used identified more inappropriately cases in the 5th phase of the pandemic than in the 2nd one. CiHRyC coincided with FINE and AEP in the result of their evaluation.

OBJETIVO: El aumento de la demanda asistencial hospitalaria producida por la COVID-19 supone una menor disponibilidad de recursos sanitarios e influye en la adecuación de su utilización. Debido a la variabilidad de la demanda durante la pandemia, el objetivo del estudio fue comparar la adecuación de los ingresos hospitalarios entre la 2ª y 5ª fase de la pandemia según los criterios del servicio de Urgencias del Hospital (CiHRyC). Se compararon estos resultados con los obtenidos según el Pneumonity Severity Index (FINE) y el Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP). Como objetivo secundario se describieron las características clínicas y sociodemográficas de los pacientes estudiados. METODOS: Se seleccionaron aleatoriamente 80 pacientes hospitalizados desde Urgencias en dos periodos de estudio (2ª y 5ª fase pandémica) obtenidos del registro de hospitalizaciones del servicio de Medicina Preventiva del Hospital Ramón y Cajal. Se estimaron las prevalencias de inadecuación según los CiHRyC, el FINE y el AEP para admisiones y se realizó un análisis mediante regresión logística univariante entre las variables epidemiológicas de ambos periodos recogidas mediante la Historia Clínica Electrónica (HCE). RESULTADOS: La inadecuación de la hospitalización fue del 35% y 45% en la 2ª y 5ª fase de la pandemia con los CiHRyC, del 25% y 57% con el FINE y del 0% y 5% con el AEP. La mediana de edad fue de 71,4 y 50 años en la 2ª y 5ª fase (p=0,02). El 72,5% y el 17,5% de los pacientes de la 2ª y 5ª fase tuvieron al menos un factor de riesgo de complicaciones de COVID-19 (p<0,01). CONCLUSIONES: Los instrumentos de medida empleados (CiHRyC, el FINE y el AEP) identificaron más casos inadecuadamente ingresados en la 5ª fase de la pandemia que en la 2ª, coincidiendo el CiHRyC con el FINE y el AEP en el resultado de su evaluación.

Adecuación de ingresos hospitalarios por COVID-19 en la 2ª y 5ª fase de la pandemia / Apropriateness of hospital admissions due to COVID-19 in the 2nd and 5th phase of the pandemic

Fundamentos: El aumento de la demanda asistencial hospitalaria producida por la COVID-19 supone una menor disponibilidad de recursos sanitarios e influye en la adecuación de su utilización. Debido a la variabilidad de la demanda durante la pandemia, el objetivo del estudio fue comparar la adecuación de los ingresos hospitalarios entre la 2ª y 5ª fase de la pandemia según los criterios del servicio de Urgencias del Hospital (CiHRyC). Se compararon estos resultados con los obtenidos según el Pneumonity Severity Index (FINE) y el Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP). Como objetivo secundario se describieron las características clínicas y sociodemográficas de los pacientes estudiados. Métodos: Se seleccionaron aleatoriamente 80 pacientes hospitalizados desde Urgencias en dos periodos de estudio (2ª y 5ª fase pandémica) obtenidos del registro de hospitalizaciones del servicio de Medicina Preventiva del Hospital Ramón y Cajal. Se estimaron las prevalencias de inadecuación según los CiHRyC, el FINE y el AEP para admisiones y se realizó un análisis mediante regresión logística univariante entre las variables epidemiológicas de ambos periodos recogidas mediante la Historia Clínica Electrónica (HCE). Resultados: La inadecuación de la hospitalización fue del 35% y 45% en la 2ª y 5ª fase de la pandemia con los CiHRyC, del 25% y 57% con el FINE y del 0% y 5% con el AEP. La mediana de edad fue de 71,4 y 50 años en la 2ª y 5ª fase (p=0,02). El 72,5% y el 17,5% de los pacientes de la 2ª y 5ª fase tuvieron al menos un factor de riesgo de complicaciones de COVID-19 (p<0,01). Conclusiones: Los instrumentos de medida empleados (CiHRyC, el FINE y el AEP) identificaron más casos inadecuadamente ingresados en la 5ª fase de la pandemia que en la 2ª, coincidiendo el CiHRyC con el FINE y el AEP en el resultado de su evaluación.(AU)

Background: The increase in the demand for healthcare caused by COVID-19 implies a lower availability of health resources and influences the appropriateness of their use. Due to the variability of demand during the pandemic, the study aimed to compare the appropriateness of hospital admissions between the 2nd and 5th phases of the pandemic according to the criteria of the Hospital Emergency Service (CiHRyC). These results were compared with those obtained according to the Pneumonity Severity Index (FINE) and the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP). As a secondary objective, the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of the patients studied were described. Methods: 80 patients hospitalized from the Emergency Department were randomly selected in two study periods (2nd and 5th pandemic phase) obtained from the registry of hospitalizations of the Preventive Medicine service of Hospital Ramon y Cajal. Prevalences of inappropriateness were estimated according to the CiHRyC, FINE and AEP and an analysis was performed using univariate logistic regression between epidemiological variables of both periods collected through the electronical medical records. Results: Inappropriateness of admissions were 35% and 45% in the 2nd and 5th phase of the pandemic according with CiHRyC, 25% and 5/% according with FINE and 0% and 5% according with AEP. Median age was 71.4 and 50.0 years in 2nd and 5th phase (p=0.02). 72.5% and 17.5% of the patients in the 2nd and 5 th phases had at least one risk factor for COVID-19 severe illness (p<0.01). Conclusions: The measurement tools used identified more inappropriately cases in the 5th phase of the pandemic than in the 2 nd one. CiHRyC coincided with FINE and AEP in the result of their evaluation.(AU)

Calidad asistencial en el hombro doloroso agudo: ¿qué aporta la ecografía musculoesquelética? / Quality health care in acute shoulder pain: what is the contribution of musculoskeletal ultrasound?

Con el fin de valorar el impacto de la ecografía en pacientes con dolor agudo de hombro realizamos un análisis de indicadores de calidad asistencial: necesidad de reevaluación por dolor, tasa de derivación a consulta especializada y tiempo de estancia en urgencias. Se revisaron los 1.433 registros de pacientes atendidos entre 2015 y 2016. A los 30 días de la primera valoración, 90 pacientes (10,1%) habían reconsultado en el grupo control (56 por urgencias y 34 por AP), mientras que en el grupo ECO habían reconsultado 14 (2,5%) al menos una vez (12 por urgencias y 2 por AP) (p < 0,001). La tasa de derivación a especializada en el grupo control fue del 36,5%, mientras que en el grupo ECO fue del 6,21% (p < 0,0001). El tiempo de estancia media fue de 94,5 (DE: 34,3) minutos en el grupo control y de 105,4 (DE: 40,1) minutos en el grupo ECO (p < 0,0001). Nuestros resultados sugieren que la práctica de ecografía de hombro mejora la calidad asistencial de estos pacientes a costa de un discreto incremento en los tiempos de atención

For the purpose of assessing the impact of ultrasound in patients with acute shoulder pain, we conducted an analysis of quality health care indicators: need for reevaluation of the pain, rate of referral to specialized medicine and length of time in the emergency department. We reviewed the 1,433 records of patients attended to between 2015 and 2016. Thirty days after the first examination, 90 patients (10.1%) had returned to the control group (56 through the emergency department and 34 because of the), whereas, in the ultrasound (US) group, 14 (2.5%) had returned at least once (12 through the emergency department and 2 because of the PCC) (P<.001). The rate of referral to specialized medicine in the control group was 36.5%, whereas in the US group it was 6.21% (P<.0001). The average length of stay was 94.5 (standard deviation [SD] 34.3) minutes in the control group and 105.4 (SD 40.1) minutes in the US group (P<.0001). Our results suggest that the practice of shoulder ultrasound improves health care quality in these patients, at the cost of a slight increase in health care time

Quality Health Care in Acute Shoulder Pain: What Is the Contribution of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound? / Calidad asistencial en el hombro doloroso agudo: ¿qué aporta la ecografía musculoesquelética?

For the purpose of assessing the impact of ultrasound in patients with acute shoulder pain, we conducted an analysis of quality health care indicators: need for reevaluation of the pain, rate of referral to specialized medicine and length of time in the emergency department. We reviewed the 1,433 records of patients attended to between 2015 and 2016. Thirty days after the first examination, 90 patients (10.1%) had returned to the control group (56 through the emergency department and 34 because of the), whereas, in the ultrasound (US) group, 14 (2.5%) had returned at least once (12 through the emergency department and 2 because of the PCC) (P<.001). The rate of referral to specialized medicine in the control group was 36.5%, whereas in the US group it was 6.21% (P<.0001). The average length of stay was 94.5 (standard deviation [SD] 34.3) minutes in the control group and 105.4 (SD 40.1) minutes in the US group (P<.0001). Our results suggest that the practice of shoulder ultrasound improves health care quality in these patients, at the cost of a slight increase in health care time.

Presentación de la herramienta electrónica fichas e-JAC para la evaluación del desempeño de médicos residentes en los servicios de urgencias. Experiencia de 3 años / Presentation of the e-JAC electronic tool for the evaluation of the performance of resident physicians in the emergency departments. Three years of experience

Presentamos, mediante un estudio descriptivo, nuestra experiencia con una herramienta de evaluación de la actividad de médicos internos residentes en los servicios de urgencias durante las jornadas de atención continuada, coloquialmente conocidas como «guardias». Nuestra herramienta fue desarrollada en el 2015 y cuenta, en la actualidad, con una experiencia acumulada de 3 años y 1.497 registros. Describimos el proceso de evolución de la herramienta, su aplicación a lo largo de los últimos 3 años y un análisis de correlación con el sistema clásico de evaluación de residentes. Creemos que nuestra herramienta aporta ventajas respecto del sistema clásico de evaluación (por ser multievaluador, tener un carácter documentable y ser prospectiva), y que satisface las recomendaciones consensuadas y al reclamo de nuestros propios médicos residentes

A descriptive study of our experience with a tool for evaluating the activity of Internal Resident Physicians in the emergency departments during their corresponding on-call periods. The tool was developed in 2015 and has, at present, an accumulated experience of three years and 1,497 records. The evolution process of the tool is presented along with a summary of its application over the last three years. It is believed that the present tool provides advantages over the classical evaluation system (because it is multi-evaluative, has a documentable nature and is prospective) and that it satisfies the consensus recommendations and the approval of our own resident doctors