Beyond SEP-1 Compliance: Assessing the Impact of Antibiotic Overtreatment and Fluid Overload in Suspected Septic Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Performance Measure bundle (SEP-1) metric to improve sepsis care, but evidence supporting this bundle is limited and harms secondary to compliance have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the effect of an emergency department (ED) sepsis quality-improvement (QI) effort to improve CMS SEP-1 compliance, looking specifically at antibiotic overtreatment and harm from fluid resuscitation. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study conducted between March and July 2021 with patients for whom a sepsis order set was initiated. The primary outcomes included the number of patients treated with antibiotics who were ultimately deemed nonseptic and the number of patients who developed pulmonary edema, with or without need for positive pressure ventilation (PPV), within 48 h of receiving a 30 mL/kg fluid bolus. Data were collected via nonblinded chart reviews, with a free marginal κ-calculation indicating excellent interrater reliability. RESULTS: The study cohort included 273 patients, 170 (62.3%) who were ultimately determined to be septic and 103 (37.7%) who were nonseptic. Of the 103 nonseptic patients, 82 (79.6%) received antibiotics in the ED. Of the 121 patients (44.3%) who received a 30 mL/kg bolus, 5 patients (4.1%) developed pulmonary edema and 0 of 121 patients required PPV within 48 h. CONCLUSIONS: The QI effort led to moderate rates of antibiotic overtreatment and very few patients developed pulmonary edema due to a 30 mL/kg fluid bolus.

Stage-of-change Assessment Predicts Short-term Treatment Engagement for Opioid Use Disorder Patients Initiated on Buprenorphine.

INTRODUCTION: The emergency department (ED) is an effective setting for initiating medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD); however, predicting who will remain in treatment remains a central challenge. We hypothesize that baseline stage-of-change (SOC) assessment is associated with short-term treatment retention outcomes. METHODS: This is a longitudinal cohort study of all patients enrolled in an ED MOUD program over 12 months. Eligible and willing patients were treated with buprenorphine at baseline and had addiction medicine specialist follow-up arranged. Treatment retention at 30 and 90 days was determined by review of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. We used uni- and multivariate logistic regression to evaluate associations between patient variables and treatment retention at 30 and 90 days. RESULTS: From June 2018-May 2019, 279 patients were enrolled in the ED MOUD program. Of those patients 151 (54.1%) and 120 (43.0%) remained engaged in MOUD treatment at 30 and 90 days, respectively. The odds of treatment adherence at 30 days were significantly higher for those with advanced SOC (preparation/action/maintenance) compared to those presenting with limited SOC (pre-contemplation/contemplation) (60.0% vs 40.8%; odds ratio 2.18; 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 4.1; P <0.05). At 30 days, multivariate logistic regression determined that advanced SOC, age >40, having medical insurance, and being employed were significant predictors of continued treatment adherence. At 90 days, advanced SOC, non-White race, age > 40, and having insurance were all significantly associated with higher likelihood of treatment engagement. CONCLUSION: Greater stage-of-change was significantly associated with MOUD treatment retention at 30 and 90 days post index ED visit.

Long-term treatment retention of an emergency department initiated medication for opioid use disorder program.

INTRODUCTION: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) has been shown to decrease mortality, reduce overdoses, and increase treatment retention for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) and has become the state-of-the-art treatment strategy in the emergency department (ED). There is little evidence on long-term (6 and 12 month) treatment retention outcomes for patients enrolled in MOUD from the ED. METHODS: A prospective observational study used a convenience sample of patients seen at one community hospital ED over 12 months. Patients >18 years with OUD were eligible for MOUD enrollment. After medical screening, patients were evaluated by the addiction care coordinator (ACC) who evaluated and counselled the patient and if eligible, directly connected them with an addiction medicine appointment. Once enrolled, the patient received treatment with buprenorphine in the ED. A chart review was completed for all enrollments during the first year of the program. Treatment retention was determined by review of the prescription drug monitoring program and defined as patients receiving regular suboxone prescriptions at 6 and 12 months after index ED visit date. RESULTS: From June 2018 - May 2019 the ACCs evaluated patients during 691 visits, screening 571 unique patients. Of the 571 unique patients screened, 279 (48.9%) were enrolled into the MOUD program. 210 (75.3%) attended their first addiction medicine appointment, 151 (54.1%) were engaged in treatment at 1 month, 120 (43.0%) at 3 months, 105 (37.6%) at 6 months, and 97 (34.8%) at 12 months post index ED visit. Self-pay insurance status was associated with a significantly decrease in the odds of long-term treatment retention. CONCLUSION: Our ED-initiated MOUD program, in partnership with local addiction medicine services, produced high rates of long-term treatment retention.

Managing and Measuring Emergency Department Care: Results of the Fourth Emergency Department Benchmarking Definitions Summit.

BACKGROUND: A shared language and vocabulary are essential for managing emergency department (ED) operations. This Fourth Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA) Summit brought together experts in the field to review, update, and add to key definitions and metrics of ED operations. OBJECTIVE: Summit objectives were to review and revise existing definitions, define and characterize new practices related to ED operations, and introduce financial and regulatory definitions affecting ED reimbursement. METHODS: Forty-six ED operations, data management, and benchmarking experts were invited to participate in the EDBA summit. Before arrival, experts were provided with documents from the three prior summits and assigned to update the terminology. Materials and publications related to standards of ED operations were considered and discussed. Each group submitted a revised set of definitions prior to the summit. Significantly revised, topical, or controversial recommendations were discussed among all summit participants. The goal of the in-person discussion was to reach consensus on definitions. Work group leaders made changes to reflect the discussion, which was revised with public and stakeholder feedback. RESULTS: The entire EDBA dictionary was updated and expanded. This article focuses on an update and discussion of definitions related to specific topics that changed since the last summit, specifically ED intake, boarding, diversion, and observation care. In addition, an extensive new glossary of financial and regulatory terminology germane to the practice of emergency medicine is included. CONCLUSIONS: A complete and precise set of operational definitions, time intervals, and utilization measures is necessary for timely and effective ED care. A common language of financial and regulatory definitions that affect ED operations is included for the first time. This article and its companion dictionary should serve as a resource to ED leadership, researchers, informatics and health policy leaders, and regulatory bodies.

Clinical differences between visits to adult freestanding and hospital-based emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: Compare clinical characteristics for adult visits to freestanding emergency departments (FEDs) and a hospital-based ED (HBED). METHODS: Electronic health records were collected on adult ED visits from 7/1/14 to 6/30/15 from three FEDs and one level 1 trauma tertiary care HBED. RESULTS: There were 55,909 HBED visits; 44,108 FED visits. The FED population was slightly more female (61% vs 57%), younger (48 vs 46 years), white (86% vs 60%), and employed (67% vs 49%). A higher percent of FED visits had private insurance (43% vs 20%); a lower percent had Medicaid (25% vs 42%) and Medicare (23% vs 30%). The top three presenting problems were the same at the HBED and FEDs, but the order differed: gastrointestinal (HBED 19% vs FED 18%), cardiorespiratory (18% vs 16%), injury-pain-swelling of extremity (14% vs 17%). Differences were seen in primary ICD9 codes. One quarter of FED visits and only 18% of HBED visits were for injury/poisoning. A higher percent of FED visits were for respiratory diseases (12% vs 9%) but a lower percent were for circulatory system diseases (7% vs 11%) and visits for mental illness (2% vs 6%). Nearly 30% of HBED visits resulted in admission, compared to 8% of FED visits. ESI level differed significantly, with a lower percent of high acuity cases at FEDs (level 1: 0.1% vs 1.6%; level 2: 5% vs 26%). CONCLUSION: Differences were observed in clinical characteristics of adult HBED visits versus FEDs. Results of this study can help communities plan their emergency care system.

Patient Insurance Profiles: A Tertiary Care Compared to Three Freestanding Emergency Departments.

BACKGROUND: It has been speculated that freestanding emergency departments (FEDs) draw more affluent, better-insured patients away from urban hospital EDs. It is believed that this leaves urban hospital-based EDs less financially secure. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether the distribution of patients with four types of insurance (self-pay, Medicaid, Medicare, and private) at the main ED changed after opening three affiliated FEDs, and whether the insurance type distribution was different between main ED and FEDs and between individual FEDs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of insurance status of all patients presenting to our EDs from July 2006 through August 2013. Insurance was divided into self-pay, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance across three time periods, which reflect the sequential opening of each FED. Insurance types for each facility were compared for individual time periods and across time periods. χ2 was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: In the three studied time frames (periods B, C, and D), there were less privately insured patients and more self-pay, Medicaid, and Medicare patients at the main than at each FED (p < 0.001). Insurance types were significantly different between each of the three FEDs and the main ED (p < 0.001) and between each of the three FEDs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were less privately insured patients and more self-pay, Medicaid, and Medicare patients at the main ED compared to the FEDs. Privately insured patients decreased at both the FEDs and main ED during the study. Insurance distribution was significantly different between the main ED, and three FEDs, and between individual FEDs.

A comparison of acuity levels between 3 freestanding and a tertiary care ED.

INTRODUCTION: Freestanding emergency departments (FEDs) have grown in popularity. They often provide emergent care in areas distant from other EDs. Investigations and research to characterize the operation and dynamics of FEDs are needed. This study characterizes the severity of illness seen at FEDs and compares it with a hospital-based urban tertiary care ED using the emergency severity index (ESI), a quantification of patient acuity. METHODS: Patient ESI levels were analyzed retrospectively over 1 year for a single hospital system with 1 main urban hospital-based ED and 3 FEDs. Data analysis was completed using analysis of variance with and without time as a factor. RESULTS: The average ESI level at the main ED (3.04) was lower than the FEDs, respectively (3.42, 3.22, and 3.38) (P < .001). Patient ESI levels were significantly different between FEDs (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The main ED demonstrated lower ESI levels and thus higher acuity than the 3 affiliated FEDs. There were significantly different acuity levels between the main ED and 3 FEDs as well as between individual FEDs.

Posted emergency department wait times are not always accurate.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitals around the United States are advertising emergency department (ED) wait times. The objective was to measure the difference between publicly posted and actual ED wait times and to compare these between ED site volumes. METHODS: This study was a retrospective consecutive sample of ED patients at one hospital system with four EDs. The wait times of 8,889 patients were included in this analysis. One ED was in a large teaching hospital with 5,000 ED patients per month; the other three were freestanding or community EDs without teaching and with fewer than 2,000 ED patients per month each. The publicly posted ED wait times at the time of patient arrival were recorded and compared to the actual wait times as retrieved from the ED tracking system. The difference between posted and actual wait times for each site was calculated. Separate one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests with post hoc testing were conducted to assess actual wait time and wait time difference between ED sites. RESULTS: Mean and standard deviation (SD) wait time difference at the main ED with a volume of 5,000 patients per month was 31.5 (±61.2) minutes. At the facilities with fewer than 2,000 ED patients per month each, the differences in wait times were 4.2 (±21.8), 8.6 (±23.8), and 1.3 (±11.9) minutes. ANOVA results revealed that the main ED had significantly different actual wait time and wait time differences (p < 0.05) when compared to the other three EDs. CONCLUSIONS: In one hospital system, publicly posted ED wait times show better accuracy in EDs that see 2,000 or fewer patients per month and less accuracy for an ED that sees 5,000 patients per month, likely due to flow confounders.

The impact of two freestanding emergency departments on a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: Freestanding emergency departments (FEDs) have become increasingly popular as the need for emergency care continues to grow. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of two FEDs on a local tertiary care center's patient volume and admission rates. METHODS: A retrospective analysis examined monthly volume and admission rates for the main ED and two FEDs located 9.6 and 12 miles away. Main ED census records were divided into three distinct time frames: period A (control) was January 2007 through June 2007. Period B was July 2007 through July 2009 when one FED was open. Period C was August 2009 through June 2010 when both FEDs were open. A two-factor analysis of variance was used to analyze admission rates while adjusting for monthly variation. RESULTS: The mean monthly patient volume for the main ED was 4709 for period A, but dropped significantly (p<0.01) to 4447 for period B, and again dropped significantly (p<0.01) to 4242 during period C. The volume for all facilities increased throughout the study period. A combined monthly volume increase to 5642 occurred in Period B, and increased to 6808 in Period C. The adjusted mean admission rate at the main ED for period A was 0.221, which dropped somewhat, though not significantly (p=0.3505) to 0.213 for period B, and then significantly (p<0.01) to 0.189 for period C. CONCLUSION: Opening two FEDs decreased the volume and admission rates for the main ED and increased the overall ED volume for the health care system.

International Federation for Emergency Medicine Model Curriculum for Emergency Medicine Specialists.

To meet a critical and growing need for emergency physicians and emergency medicine resources worldwide, physicians must be trained to deliver time-sensitive interventions and lifesaving emergency care. Currently, there is no globally recognized, standard curriculum that defines the basic minimum standards for specialist trainees in emergency medicine. To address this deficit, the International Federation for Emergency Medicine convened a committee of international physicians, health professionals and other experts in emergency medicine and international emergency medicine development to outline a curriculum for training of specialists in emergency medicine. This curriculum document represents the consensus of recommendations by this committee. The curriculum is designed to provide a framework for educational programmes in emergency medicine. The focus is on the basic minimum emergency medicine educational content that any emergency medicine physician specialist should be prepared to deliver on completion of a training programme. It is designed not to be prescriptive but to assist educators and emergency medicine leadership to advance physician education in basic emergency medicine no matter the training venue. The content of this curriculum is relevant not just for communities with mature emergency medicine systems, but in particular for developing nations or for nations seeking to expand emergency medicine within the current educational structure. We anticipate that there will be wide variability in how this curriculum is implemented and taught. This variability will reflect the existing educational milieu, the resources available, and the goals of the institutions' educational leadership with regard to the training of emergency medicine specialists.

Regionalization of emergency care future directions and research: workforce issues.

The provision of emergency care in the United States, regionalized or not, depends on an adequate workforce. Adequate must be defined both qualitatively and quantitatively. There is currently a shortage of emergency care providers, one that will exist for the foreseeable future. This article discusses what is known about the current emergency medicine (EM) and non-EM workforce, future trends, and research opportunities.