White Paper: Best Practices in the Communication and Management of Actionable Incidental Findings in Emergency Department Imaging.

PURPOSE: Actionable incidental findings (AIFs) are common in radiologic imaging. Imaging is commonly performed in emergency department (ED) visits, and AIFs are frequently encountered, but the ED presents unique challenges for communication and follow-up of these findings. The authors formed a multidisciplinary panel to seek consensus regarding best practices in the reporting, communication, and follow-up of AIFs on ED imaging tests. METHODS: A 15-member panel was formed, nominated by the ACR and American College of Emergency Physicians, to represent radiologists, emergency physicians, patients, and those involved in health care systems and quality. A modified Delphi process was used to identify areas of best practice and seek consensus. The panel identified four areas: (1) report elements and structure, (2) communication of findings with patients, (3) communication of findings with clinicians, and (4) follow-up and tracking systems. A survey was constructed to seek consensus and was anonymously administered in two rounds, with a priori agreement requiring at least 80% consensus. Discussion occurred after the first round, with readministration of questions where consensus was not initially achieved. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in the four areas identified. There was particularly strong consensus that AIFs represent a system-level issue, with need for approaches that do not depend on individual clinicians or patients to ensure communication and completion of recommended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This multidisciplinary collaboration represents consensus results on best practices regarding the reporting and communication of AIFs in the ED setting.

The Intersection of Telemedicine and Wilderness Care: Past, Present, and Future.

Wilderness medicine and telemedicine seemingly exist at opposite ends of the clinical continuum. However, these 2 specialties share a common history and the literature abounds with examples of successful deployment of telemedicine to resource limited settings. The recent widespread adoption of telemedicine has important ramifications for wilderness providers. Telemedicine is inherently reliant on some sort of technology. There is a wide spectrum of complexity involved, but in general these systems rely on a hardware component, a software component, and a network system to transmit information from place to place. Today, connectivity is nearly ubiquitous through access to cellular networks, Wi-Fi, or communication satellites. However, bandwidth, defined as the amount of data which can be transmitted through a given connection over time, remains a limiting factor for many austere settings. Telemedicine services are typically organized into 4 categories: 1) live/interactive; 2) store and forward; 3) remote patient monitoring; and 4) mHealth. Each of these categories has an applicable wilderness medicine use case which will be reviewed in this paper. Though the regulatory environment remains complex, there is enormous potential for telemedicine to enhance the practice of wilderness medicine. Drones are likely to transform wilderness medicine supply chains by facilitating delivery of food, shelter, and medicines and are able to enhance search and rescue efforts. Remote consultations can be paired with remote patient monitoring technology to deliver highly specialized care to austere environments. Early feasibility studies are promising, but further prospective data will be required to define future best practices for wilderness telemedicine.

Defining emergency telehealth.

The American College of Emergency Physicians Emergency Telehealth Section was charged with development of a working definition of emergency telehealth that aligns with the College's definition of emergency medicine. A modified Delphi method was used by the section membership who represented telehealth providers in both private and public health-care delivery systems, academia and industry, rural and urban settings. Presented in this manuscript is the final definition of emergency telehealth developed with an additional six clarifying statements to address the context of the definition. Emergency telehealth is a core domain of emergency medicine and is inclusive of remotely providing all types of care for acute conditions of any kind requiring expeditious care irrespective of any prior relationship. The development of this definition is important to the global community of emergency physicians and all patients seeking acute care to ensure that appropriately trained clinicians are providing the highest quality of emergency services via the telehealth modality. We recommend implementing emergency telehealth in a manner that ensures appropriate qualifications of providers, appropriate/parity reimbursement for telehealth services and, most importantly, the delivery of quality care to patients in a safe, efficient, timely and cost-effective manner.

Measuring patient safety in the emergency department.

As a safety net for the health care system, quality and safety performance in emergency medicine (EM) is important for policy makers, insurers, researchers, health care providers, and patients. Developing performance indicators that are relevant, valid, feasible, and easy to measure has proven difficult. To monitor progress, patient safety should be measured objectively. Although conceptual frameworks and error taxonomies have been proposed, a practical scorecard for measuring patient safety over time in EM has been lacking. This article proposes a framework that measures safety through 4 major domains: (1) how often patients are harmed, (2) how often appropriate interventions are delivered, (3) how well errors in the system are identified and corrected, and (4) emergency department (ED) safety culture. Examples of specific measures for each of these domains are provided, but the EM community should reach consensus on what measures are important for the ED environment and patients.

Quality and safety implications of emergency department information systems.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "meaningful use" incentive programs, in tandem with the boundless additional requirements for detailed reporting of quality metrics, have galvanized hospital efforts to implement hospital-based electronic health records. As such, emergency department information systems (EDISs) are an important and unique component of most hospitals' electronic health records. System functionality varies greatly and affects physician decisionmaking, clinician workflow, communication, and, ultimately, the overall quality of care and patient safety. This article is a joint effort by members of the Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Section and the Informatics Section of the American College of Emergency Physicians. The aim of this effort is to examine the benefits and potential threats to quality and patient safety that could result from the choice of a particular EDIS, its implementation and optimization, and the hospital's or physician group's approach to continuous improvement of the EDIS. Specifically, we explored the following areas of potential EDIS safety concerns: communication failure, wrong order-wrong patient errors, poor data display, and alert fatigue. Case studies are presented that illustrate the potential harm that could befall patients from an inferior EDIS product or suboptimal execution of such a product in the clinical environment. The authors have developed 7 recommendations to improve patient safety with respect to the deployment of EDISs. These include ensuring that emergency providers actively participate in selection of the EDIS product, in the design of processes related to EDIS implementation and optimization, and in the monitoring of the system's ongoing success or failure. Our recommendations apply to emergency departments using any type of EDIS: custom-developed systems, best-of-breed vendor systems, or enterprise systems.

Improving interunit transitions of care between emergency physicians and hospital medicine physicians: a conceptual approach.

Patient care transitions across specialties involve more complexity than those within the same specialty, yet the unique social and technical features remain underexplored. Further, little consensus exists among researchers and practitioners about strategies to improve interspecialty communication. This concept article addresses these gaps by focusing on the hand-off process between emergency and hospital medicine physicians. Sensitivity to cultural and operational differences and a common set of expectations pertaining to hand-off content will more effectively prepare the next provider to act safely and efficiently when caring for the patient. Through a consensus decision-making process of experienced and published authorities in health care transitions, including physicians in both specialties as well as in communication studies, the authors propose content and style principles clinicians may use to improve transition communication. With representation from both community and academic settings, similarities and differences between emergency medicine and internal medicine are highlighted to heighten appreciation of the values, attitudes, and goals of each specialty, particularly pertaining to communication. The authors also examine different communication media, social and cultural behaviors, and tools that practitioners use to share patient care information. Quality measures are proposed within the structure, process, and outcome framework for institutions seeking to evaluate and monitor improvement strategies in hand-off performance. Validation studies to determine if these suggested improvements in transition communication will result in improved patient outcomes will be necessary. By exploring the dynamics of transition communication between specialties and suggesting best practices, the authors hope to strengthen hand-off skills and contribute to improved continuity of care.

Data-driven process and operational improvement in the emergency department: the ED Dashboard and Reporting Application.

Emergency departments (EDs) in the United States are expected to provide consistent, high-quality care to patients. Unfortunately, EDs are encumbered by problems associated with the demand for services and the limitations of current resources, such as overcrowding, long wait times, and operational inefficiencies. While increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of emergency care would improve both access and quality of patient care, coordinated improvement efforts have been hindered by a lack of timely access to data. The ED Dashboard and Reporting Application was developed to support data-driven process improvement projects. It incorporated standard definitions of metrics, a data repository, and near real-time analysis capabilities. This helped acute care hospitals in a large healthcare system evaluate and target individual improvement projects in accordance with corporate goals. Subsequently, there was a decrease in "arrival to greet" time--the time from patient arrival to physician contact--from an average of 51 minutes in 2007 to the goal level of less than 35 minutes by 2010. The ED Dashboard and Reporting Application has also contributed to data-driven improvements in length of stay and other measures of ED efficiency and care quality. Between January 2007 and December 2010, overall length of stay decreased 10.5 percent while annual visit volume increased 13.6 percent. Thus, investing in the development and implementation of a system for ED data capture, storage, and analysis has supported operational management decisions, gains in ED efficiency, and ultimately improvements in patient care.

Assessment of Medicare's imaging efficiency measure for emergency department patients with atraumatic headache.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography (CT) use has increased rapidly, raising concerns about radiation exposure and cost. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed an imaging efficiency measure (Outpatient Measure 15 [OP-15]) to evaluate the use of brain CT in the emergency department (ED) for atraumatic headache. We aim to determine the reliability, validity, and accuracy of OP-15. METHODS: This was a retrospective record review at 21 US EDs. We identified 769 patient visits that CMS labeled as including an inappropriate brain CT to identify clinical indications for CT and reviewed the 748 visits with available records. The primary outcome was the reliability of OP-15 as determined by CMS from administrative data compared with medical record review. Secondary outcomes were the measure's validity and accuracy. Outcome measures were defined according to the testing protocol of the American Medical Association's Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. RESULTS: On record review, 489 of 748 ED brain CTs identified as inappropriate by CMS had a measure exclusion documented that was not identified by administrative data; the measure was 34.6% reliable (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.2% to 38.0%). Among the 259 patient visits without measure exclusions documented in the record, the measure's validity was 47.5% (95% CI 41.4% to 53.6%), according to a consensus list of indications for brain CT. Overall, 623 of the 748 ED visits had either a measure exclusion or a consensus indication for CT; the measure's accuracy was 16.7% (95% CI 14% to 19.4%). Hospital performance as reported by CMS did not correlate with the proportion of CTs with a documented clinical indication (r=-0.11; P=.63). CONCLUSION: The CMS imaging efficiency measure for brain CTs (OP-15) is not reliable, valid, or accurate and may produce misleading information about hospital ED performance.

National study on the frequency, types, causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported emergency department medication errors.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors contribute to significant morbidity, mortality, and costs to the health system. Little is known about the characteristics of Emergency Department (ED) medication errors. STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency, types, causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported ED medication errors in the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of all ED errors reported to the MEDMARX system between 2000 and 2004. MEDMARX is an anonymous, confidential, de-identified, Internet-accessible medication error-reporting program designed to allow hospitals to report, track, and share error data in a standardized format. RESULTS: There were 13,932 medication errors from 496 EDs analyzed. The error rate was 78 reports per 100,000 visits. Physicians were responsible for 24% of errors, nurses for 54%. Errors most commonly occurred in the administration phase (36%). The most common type of error was improper dose/quantity (18%). Leading causes were not following procedure/protocol (17%), and poor communication (11%), whereas contributing factors were distractions (7.5%), emergency situations (4.1%), and workload increase (3.4%). Computerized provider order entry caused 2.5% of errors. Harm resulted in 3% of errors. Actions taken as a result of the error included informing the staff member who committed the error (26%), enhancing communication (26%), and providing additional training (12%). Patients or family members were notified about medication errors 2.7% of the time. CONCLUSION: ED medication errors may be a result of the acute, crowded, and fast-paced nature of care. Further research is needed to identify interventions to reduce these risks and evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions.

Improving handoffs in the emergency department.

Patient handoffs at shift change are a ubiquitous and potentially hazardous process in emergency care. As crowding and lengthy evaluations become the standard for an increasing proportion of emergency departments (EDs), the number of patients handed off will likely increase. It is critical now more than ever before to ensure that handoffs supply valid and useful shared understandings between providers at transitions of care. The purpose of this article is to provide the most up-to-date evidence and collective thinking about the process and safety of handoffs between physicians in the ED. It offers perspectives from other disciplines, provides a conceptual framework for handoffs, and categorizes models of existing practices. Legal and risk management issues are also addressed. A proposal for the development of handoff quality measures is outlined. Practical strategies are suggested to improve ED handoffs. Finally, a research agenda is proposed to provide a roadmap to future work that may increase knowledge in this area.

Safe and effective intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke caused by left atrial myxoma.

Atrial myxoma may be associated with syncope or sudden death attributed to left-sided cardiac outflow obstruction or embolization caused by tumor dislodgement or thrombus formation. Definitive treatment for primary and secondary stroke prevention is surgical resection. The role of thrombolysis in acute brain ischemia in patients with atrial myxoma is not defined. There are few data available regarding safety and efficacy of thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic strokes caused by atrial myxoma. Prior case reports described partial success using intra-arterial local thrombolysis; however, this is invasive and can be associated with significant complications. A previously reported case of systemic thrombolysis resulted in development of cerebral hemorrhage. We describe a young man who presented with syncope and a dense stroke developing as a complication of atrial myxoma, followed by a remarkable recovery after treatment with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and urgent cardiac surgery. Contrary to some expert opinion, systemic thrombolytic therapy may be safely and effectively used to treat acute ischemic strokes from atrial myxoma.

Application of lean manufacturing techniques in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: "Lean" is a set of principles and techniques that drive organizations to continually add value to the product they deliver by enhancing process steps that are necessary, relevant, and valuable while eliminating those that fail to add value. Lean has been used in manufacturing for decades and has been associated with enhanced product quality and overall corporate success. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the adoption of Lean principles by an Emergency Department (ED) improves the value of emergency care delivered. METHODS: Beginning in December 2005, we implemented a variety of Lean techniques in an effort to enhance patient and staff satisfaction. The implementation followed a six-step process of Lean education, ED observation, patient flow analysis, process redesign, new process testing, and full implementation. Process redesign focused on generating improvement ideas from frontline workers across all departmental units. Value-based and operational outcome measures, including patient satisfaction, expense per patient, ED length of stay (LOS), and patient volume were compared for calendar year 2005 (pre-Lean) and periodically after 2006 (post-Lean). RESULTS: Patient visits increased by 9.23% in 2006. Despite this increase, LOS decreased slightly and patient satisfaction increased significantly without raising the inflation adjusted cost per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Lean improved the value of the care we delivered to our patients. Generating and instituting ideas from our frontline providers have been the key to the success of our Lean program. Although Lean represents a fundamental change in the way we think of delivering care, the specific process changes we employed tended to be simple, small procedure modifications specific to our unique people, process, and place. We, therefore, believe that institutions or departments aspiring to adopt Lean should focus on the core principles of Lean rather than on emulating specific process changes made at other institutions.

Clinical practice guideline: adult sinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing sinusitis, defined as symptomatic inflammation of the paranasal sinuses. Sinusitis affects 1 in 7 adults in the United States, resulting in about 31 million individuals diagnosed each year. Since sinusitis almost always involves the nasal cavity, the term rhinosinusitis is preferred. The guideline target patient is aged 18 years or older with uncomplicated rhinosinusitis, evaluated in any setting in which an adult with rhinosinusitis would be identified, monitored, or managed. This guideline is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage adults with sinusitis. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, reduce inappropriate use of radiographic imaging, and promote appropriate use of ancillary tests that include nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function. In creating this guideline the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of allergy, emergency medicine, family medicine, health insurance, immunology, infectious disease, internal medicine, medical informatics, nursing, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, pulmonology, and radiology. RESULTS: The panel made strong recommendations that 1) clinicians should distinguish presumed acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) from acute rhinosinusitis caused by viral upper respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions, and a clinician should diagnose ABRS when (a) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis are present 10 days or more beyond the onset of upper respiratory symptoms, or (b) symptoms or signs of acute rhinosinusitis worsen within 10 days after an initial improvement (double worsening), and 2) the management of ABRS should include an assessment of pain, with analgesic treatment based on the severity of pain. The panel made a recommendation against radiographic imaging for patients who meet diagnostic criteria for acute rhinosinusitis, unless a complication or alternative diagnosis is suspected. The panel made recommendations that 1) if a decision is made to treat ABRS with an antibiotic agent, the clinician should prescribe amoxicillin as first-line therapy for most adults, 2) if the patient worsens or fails to improve with the initial management option by 7 days, the clinician should reassess the patient to confirm ABRS, exclude other causes of illness, and detect complications, 3) clinicians should distinguish chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis from isolated episodes of ABRS and other causes of sinonasal symptoms, 4) clinicians should assess the patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis for factors that modify management, such as allergic rhinitis, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, ciliary dyskinesia, and anatomic variation, 5) the clinician should corroborate a diagnosis and/or investigate for underlying causes of CRS and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, 6) the clinician should obtain computed tomography of the paranasal sinuses in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 7) clinicians should educate/counsel patients with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis regarding control measures. The panel offered as options that 1) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing viral rhinosinusitis, 2) clinicians may prescribe symptomatic relief in managing ABRS, 3) observation without use of antibiotics is an option for selected adults with uncomplicated ABRS who have mild illness (mild pain and temperature <38.3 degrees C or 101 degrees F) and assurance of follow-up, 4) the clinician may obtain nasal endoscopy in diagnosing or evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis, and 5) the clinician may obtain testing for allergy and immune function in evaluating a patient with CRS or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis. DISCLAIMER: This clinical practice guideline is not intended as a sole source of guidance for managing adults with rhinosinusitis. Rather, it is designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making strategies. It is not intended to replace clinical judgment or establish a protocol for all individuals with this condition, and may not provide the only appropriate approach to diagnosing and managing this problem.

Ultrasound-guided noninvasive measurement of a patient's central venous pressure.

Central venous pressure (CVP) is an important physiological parameter, the correct measure of which is a clinically relevant diagnostic tool for heart failure patients. A current challenge for physicians, however, is to obtain a quick and accurate measure of a patient's CVP in a manner that poses minimum discomfort. Current approaches for measuring CVP involve invasive methods such as threading a central venous catheter along a major vein, or tedious physical exams that require physicians to grossly estimate the measurement. Our solution proposes a novel noninvasive method to estimate central venous pressure using ultrasound-guided surface pressure measurement. Specifically, our device works in conjunction with an ultrasound machine and probe that is used to visualize the interior jugular (IJ) vein below the surface of the skin on a patient's neck. Once the interior jugular vein is located, our device detects the pressure on the skin required to collapse the IJ and correlates this value to a central venous pressure reading reported to the operator. This quick and noninvasive measurement is suitable for emergency situations or primary care settings where rapid diagnosis of a patient's CVP is required, and prevents the need for further invasive and costly procedures. The measurement procedure is also simple enough to be performed by operators without extensive medical training.