Extremes of Emergency Department Boarding are Associated With Poorer Financial Performance Among Hospitals.

GOAL: Boarding emergency department (ED) patients is associated with reductions in quality of care, patient safety and experience, and ED operational efficiency. However, ED boarding is ultimately reflective of inefficiencies in hospital capacity management. The ability of a hospital to accommodate variability in patient flow presumably affects its financial performance, but this relationship is not well studied. We investigated the relationship between ED boarding and hospital financial performance measures. Our objective was to see if there was an association between key financial measures of business performance and limitations in patient progression efficiency, as evidenced by ED boarding. METHODS: Cross-sectional ED operational data were collected from the Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance, a voluntarily self-reporting operational database that includes 54% of EDs in the United States. Freestanding EDs, pediatric EDs and EDs with missing boarding data were excluded. The key operational outcome variable was boarding time. We reviewed the financial information of these nonprofit institutions by accessing their Internal Revenue Service Form 990. We examined standard measures of financial performance, including return on equity, total margin, total asset turnover, and equity multiplier (EM). We studied these associations using quantile regressions of added ED volume, ED admission percentage, urban versus nonurban ED site location, trauma status, and percentage of the population receiving Medicare and Medicaid as covariates in the regression models. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Operational data were available for 892 EDs from 31 states. Of those, 127 reported a Form 990 in the year corresponding to the ED boarding measures. Median boarding time across EDs was 148 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 100-216). A significant relationship exists between boarding and the EM, along with a negative association with the hospital's total profit margin in the highest-performing hospitals (by profit margin percentage). After adjusting for the covariates in the regression model, we found that for every 10 min above 90 min of boarding, the mean EM for the top quartile increased from 245.8% to 249.5% (p < .001). In hospitals in the top 90th percentile of total margin, every 10 min beyond the median ED boarding interval led to a decrease in total margin of 0.24%. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Using the largest available national registry of ED operational data and concordant nonprofit financial reports, higher boarding among the highest-profitability hospitals (i.e., top 10%) is associated with a drag on profit margin, while hospitals with the highest boarding are associated with the highest leverage (i.e., indicated by the EM). These relationships suggest an association between a key ED indicator of hospital capacity management and overall institutional financial performance.

The impact of emergency medicine residents on clinical productivity.

CONTEXT: Faculty productivity is of interest for hospital and university administrators as pressure is placed on them by government and private payors. Further, the effect of trainees on clinical productivity is of personal interest to physicians because their performance evaluations and earning potential are often tied to their productivity. Several groups have utilized creative methodology to study the effect of learners on emergency department (ED) productivity, but they were faced with multiple confounding variables for which it was difficult to adjust. In this study, we utilize relative value unit (RVU)/h to study the effect of resident physicians and medical students on the productivity of academic emergency physicians (EPs) during the implementation of a new residency program. Each physician's productivity on shifts with distinct types of learners present is compared to their shifts worked without any learners during the same time frame. Each attending physician serves as their own control while the confounding variables introduced by comparing over multiple years are minimized. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to measure the influence of emergency medicine (EM) residents on the clinical productivity of attending EPs. METHODS: We conducted an observational study of a single ED during implementation of a new residency program. The productivity of each EP was measured by RVU/h billed. Trainees' schedules and end-of-shift evaluations were utilized to determine what learners (if any) were working with the EP on each shift. RVU/h calculations were performed for each EP (overall, when working without learners, and when working with each of the four learner categories). The primary outcome (determined a priori) was the difference in RVU/h for the attending EPs when they worked without learners compared to when they worked a majority of their shift with at least one learner. The secondary outcome (also determined a priori) was determining the influence of the learners of each type on EP RVU/h for the subgrouped shifts in which a learner was present for the majority of the shift. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in mean EP RVU/h when attendings worked with a medical student or non-EM R1 in comparison to working without learners in the 1761 ED encounters analyzed (12.95 RVU/h vs. 12.52 RVU/h; p=0.125). Although there was variability among individual physicians, EP RVU/h increased significantly for the overall group when one or more EM R1s were present (15.19 RVU/h with one EM R1 present, 15.25 RVU/h with two, 24.75 RVU/h with three; p<0.001). Similarly, mean EP productivity increased significantly with the addition of an EM R2 (17.96 RVU/h vs. 16.84 RVU/h; p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of EM residents was positively associated with the clinical productivity of EM faculty as measured by RVU/h. There was also a positive association between productivity and the number of EM residents present as well as their training level. Non-EM residents and medical students had no effect on EP productivity.

Mentorship and how to conduct research: A research primer for low- and middle-income countries.

Development of a successful research program can seem daunting when looked at from the starting line. It will take years if not decades to succeed and become sustainable. It requires local partnerships and mentoring; it mandates the establishment of review boards; it requires national health policies to allow for protected time for research in salaries and for fund granting agencies to be set up; it requires training of researchers and support staff as well as a change in the mindset of clinical staff on the floor. It will almost inevitably require international support of some kind for low- and middle-income country researchers, be it university programs or other academic or private institutions. Success can occur; most likely it will occur by partnering with local research experts outside of emergency medicine in some combination with international networks and mentoring. Perhaps the most critical elements to success are intellectual curiosity and a burning flame of passion - and neither of those carry a financial cost.

Estimates of throughput and utilization at freestanding compared to low-volume hospital-based emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: Our investigation compared throughput metrics and utilization measures for freestanding emergency departments (FSEDs) versus hospital-based emergency departments (HBEDs) of similar volumes in the United States. METHODS: This study is a cross sectional survey of 183 FSEDs and 317 HBEDs located across the United States using the Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA) Database. We measured common emergency department (ED) throughput metrics. Primary outcomes included overall length of stay, length of stay for admitted, and length of stay for treated and released patients. Outcomes were weighted based on the proportion of ED volume per facility as per a prior pilot study. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to adjust for measured differences between FSEDs and HBEDs. The variables that were controlled for in regression analysis included geographic location of the ED (urban, suburban, and rural), percent of high acuity capacity, ED volume, percentage of patients arriving via emergency medical services (EMS), and percentage of pediatric patients. RESULTS: Nationally, the median length of stay in minutes (104.2 vs 140.0), length of stay for treated and released patients (98.6 vs 122.9), door-to-bed (4.0 vs 8.0), door-to-doctor (11.0 vs 16.0), percentage of patients admitted through the ED (4.0 vs 11.0), and percentage of patients leaving the ED without being seen (LWBS) (0.9 vs 1.5), were significantly lower at FSEDs compared to HBEDs (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Length of stay for admitted patients (265.9 vs 241.8) and median boarding time (96.8 vs. 71.3) were significantly lower in HBEDs compared to FSEDs. X-ray, computed tomography, and ECG utilization per 100 patients was significantly lower at the FSEDs compared to HBEDs. Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that the length of stay for treated and released patients was 8.67 minutes shorter for FSEDs as compared to HBEDs (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.4 to -16.0). The length of stay for admitted patients was 44 minutes longer for FSEDs as compared to HBEDs (95% CI = 25.5 to 63.0). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of similarly sized EDs in the United States, throughput metrics for FSEDs tended to be significantly shorter from the arrival of the patient until their departure, except for patients requiring hospital admission. For measures favoring FSEDs, throughput times range from 20%-50% shorter than HBEDs.

Consensus statement on advancing research in emergency department operations and its impact on patient care.

The consensus conference on "Advancing Research in Emergency Department (ED) Operations and Its Impact on Patient Care," hosted by The ED Operations Study Group (EDOSG), convened to craft a framework for future investigations in this important but understudied area. The EDOSG is a research consortium dedicated to promoting evidence-based clinical practice in emergency medicine. The consensus process format was a modified version of the NIH Model for Consensus Conference Development. Recommendations provide an action plan for how to improve ED operations study design, create a facilitating research environment, identify data measures of value for process and outcomes research, and disseminate new knowledge in this area. Specifically, we call for eight key initiatives: 1) the development of universal measures for ED patient care processes; 2) attention to patient outcomes, in addition to process efficiency and best practice compliance; 3) the promotion of multisite clinical operations studies to create more generalizable knowledge; 4) encouraging the use of mixed methods to understand the social community and human behavior factors that influence ED operations; 5) the creation of robust ED operations research registries to drive stronger evidence-based research; 6) prioritizing key clinical questions with the input of patients, clinicians, medical leadership, emergency medicine organizations, payers, and other government stakeholders; 7) more consistently defining the functional components of the ED care system, including observation units, fast tracks, waiting rooms, laboratories, and radiology subunits; and 8) maximizing multidisciplinary knowledge dissemination via emergency medicine, public health, general medicine, operations research, and nontraditional publications.

Emergency department performance measures updates: proceedings of the 2014 emergency department benchmarking alliance consensus summit.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to review and update key definitions and metrics for emergency department (ED) performance and operations. METHODS: Forty-five emergency medicine leaders convened for the Third Performance Measures and Benchmarking Summit held in Las Vegas, February 21-22, 2014. Prior to arrival, attendees were assigned to workgroups to review, revise, and update the definitions and vocabulary being used to communicate about ED performance and operations. They were provided with the prior definitions of those consensus summits that were published in 2006 and 2010. Other published definitions from key stakeholders in emergency medicine and health care were also reviewed and circulated. At the summit, key terminology and metrics were discussed and debated. Workgroups communicated online, via teleconference, and finally in a face-to-face meeting to reach consensus regarding their recommendations. Recommendations were then posted and open to a 30-day comment period. Participants then reanalyzed the recommendations, and modifications were made based on consensus. RESULTS: A comprehensive dictionary of ED terminology related to ED performance and operation was developed. This article includes definitions of operating characteristics and internal and external factors relevant to the stratification and categorization of EDs. Time stamps, time intervals, and measures of utilization were defined. Definitions of processes and staffing measures are also presented. Definitions were harmonized with performance measures put forth by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized definitions are necessary to improve the comparability of EDs nationally for operations research and practice. More importantly, clear precise definitions describing ED operations are needed for incentive-based pay-for-performance models like those developed by CMS. This document provides a common language for front-line practitioners, managers, health policymakers, and researchers.