Access to care for patients with time-sensitive conditions in Pennsylvania.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Collective knowledge and coordination of vital interventions for time-sensitive conditions (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], stroke, cardiac arrest, and septic shock) could contribute to a comprehensive statewide emergency care system, but little is known about population access to the resources required. We seek to describe existing clinical management strategies for time-sensitive conditions in Pennsylvania hospitals. METHODS: All Pennsylvania emergency departments (EDs) open in 2009 were surveyed about resource availability and practice patterns for time-sensitive conditions. The frequency with which EDs provided essential clinical bundles for each condition was assessed. Penalized maximum likelihood regressions were used to evaluate associations between ED characteristics and the presence of the 4 clinical bundles of care. We used geographic information science to calculate 60-minute ambulance access to the nearest facility with these clinical bundles. RESULTS: The percentage of EDs providing each of the 4 clinical bundles in 2009 ranged from 20% to 57% (stroke 20%, STEMI 32%, cardiac arrest 34%, sepsis 57%). For STEMI and stroke, presence of a board-certified/board-eligible emergency physician was significantly associated with presence of a clinical bundle. Only 8% of hospitals provided all 4 care bundles. However, 53% of the population was able to reach this minority of hospitals within 60 minutes. CONCLUSION: Reliably matching patient needs to ED resources in time-dependent illness is a critical component of a coordinated emergency care system. Population access to critical interventions for the time-dependent diseases discussed here is limited. A population-based planning approach and improved coordination of care could improve access to interventions for patients with time-sensitive conditions.

Analgesia for older adults with abdominal or back pain in emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between age and analgesia for emergency department (ED) patients with abdominal or back pain. METHODS: Using a fully electronic medical record, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with abdominal or back pain to two urban EDs. To assess differences in analgesia administration and time to analgesia between age groups, we used chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test respectively. To adjust for potential confounders, we used a generalized linear model with log link and Gaussian error. RESULTS: Of 24,752 subjects (mean age 42 years, 65% female, 69% black, mean triage pain score 7.5), the majority (76%) had abdominal pain and 61% received analgesia. The ≥80 years group (n=722; 3%), compared to the 65-79 years group (n=2,080; 8%) and to the <65 years group (n=21,950; 89%), was more often female (71 vs. 61 vs. 65%), black (72 vs. 65 vs. 69%), and had a lower mean pain score (6.6 vs. 7.1 vs. 7.6). Both older groups were less likely to receive any analgesia (48 vs. 59 vs. 62%, p<0.0001) and the oldest group less likely to receive opiates (35 vs. 47 vs. 44%, p<0.0001). Of those who received analgesia, both older groups waited longer for their medication (123 vs. 113 vs. 94 minutes; p<0.0001). After controlling for potential confounders, patients ≥80 years were 17% less likely than the <65 years group to receive analgesia (95% CI 14-20%). CONCLUSION: Older adults who present to the ED for abdominal or back pain are less likely to receive analgesia and wait significantly longer for pain medication compared to younger adults.