Failure to notify reportable test results: significance in medical malpractice.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic physicians generally acknowledge their responsibility to notify referring clinicians whenever examinations demonstrate urgent or unexpected findings. During the past decade, clinicians have ordered dramatically greater numbers of diagnostic examinations. One study demonstrated that between 1996 and 2003, malpractice payments related to diagnosis increased by approximately 40%. Communication failures are a prominent cause of action in medical malpractice litigation. The aims of this study were to (1) define the magnitude of malpractice costs related to communication failures in test result notification and (2) determine if these costs are increasing significantly. EVALUATION: Linear regression analysis of National Practitioner Data Bank claims data from 1991 to 2009 suggested that claims payments increased at the national level by an average of $4.7 million annually (95% confidence interval, $2.98 million to $6.37 million). Controlled Risk Insurance Company/Risk Management Foundation claims data for 2004 to 2008 indicate that communication failures played a role, accounting for 4% of cases by volume and 7% of the total cost. DISCUSSION: Faile communication of clinical data constitutes an increasing proportion of medical malpractice payments. The increase in cases may reflect expectations of more reliable notification of medical data. Another explanation may be that the remarkable growth in diagnostic test volume has led to a corresponding increase in reportable results. If notification reliability remained unchanged, this increased volume would predict more failed notifications. CONCLUSIONS: There is increased risk for malpractice litigation resulting from diagnostic test result notification. The advent of semiautomated critical test result management systems may improve notification reliability, improve workflow and patient safety, and, when necessary, provide legal documentation.

Emergency department operations dictionary: results of the second performance measures and benchmarking summit.

The public, payers, hospitals, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are demanding that emergency departments (EDs) measure and improve performance, but this cannot be done unless we define the terms used in ED operations. On February 24, 2010, 32 stakeholders from 13 professional organizations met in Salt Lake City, Utah, to standardize ED operations metrics and definitions, which are presented in this consensus paper. Emergency medicine (EM) experts attending the Second Performance Measures and Benchmarking Summit reviewed, expanded, and updated key definitions for ED operations. Prior to the meeting, participants were provided with the definitions created at the first summit in 2006 and relevant documents from other organizations and asked to identify gaps and limitations in the original work. Those responses were used to devise a plan to revise and update the definitions. At the summit, attendees discussed and debated key terminology, and workgroups were created to draft a more comprehensive document. These results have been crafted into two reference documents, one for metrics and the operations dictionary presented here. The ED Operations Dictionary defines ED spaces, processes, patient populations, and new ED roles. Common definitions of key terms will improve the ability to compare ED operations research and practice and provide a common language for frontline practitioners, managers, and researchers.

Emergency department operational metrics, measures and definitions: results of the Second Performance Measures and Benchmarking Summit.

There is a growing mandate from the public, payers, hospitals, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to measure and improve emergency department (ED) performance. This creates a compelling need for a standard set of definitions about the measurement of ED operational performance. This Concepts article reports the consensus of a summit of emergency medicine experts tasked with the review, expansion, and update of key definitions and metrics for ED operations. Thirty-two emergency medicine leaders convened for the Second Performance Measures and Benchmarking Summit on February 24, 2010. Before arrival, attendees were provided with the original definitions published in 2006 and were surveyed about gaps and limitations in the original work. According to survey responses, a work plan to revise and update the definitions was developed. Published definitions from key stakeholders in emergency medicine and health care were reviewed and circulated. At the summit, attendees discussed and debated key terminology and metrics and work groups were created to draft the revised document. Workgroups communicated online and by teleconference to reach consensus. When possible, definitions were aligned with performance measures and definitions put forth by the CMS, the Emergency Nurses Association Consistent Metrics Document, and the National Quality Forum. The results of this work are presented as a reference document.

Pharmacist improves timely administration of medications to boarded patients in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess the variations in timely administration of medications based on differences in nursing staff (ED nurses who are responsible for emergency and boarded patients vs inpatient nurses who are responsible for only boarded patients) and to determine whether a pharmacist's interventions can improve the timely administration of medications to boarded patients in the emergency department. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. Patients were included in the study if they were aged 18 years or older, were physically located in the emergency department but had already been admitted to the medical center, and had medication orders. The pharmacist documented the medication orders and the allotted time for administration. Once the upper limit of the allotted time frame for administration had passed, the pharmacist determined whether the medications were given and interventions were then carried out for those medications that were not administered. Successful interventions were documented when the medication was given within 1 hour from the time of intervention. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were included in the study, resulting in 266 medication administration opportunities (emergency department, 146; inpatient, 120). Inpatient nurses administered medications in a timely manner at a significantly greater rate than ED nurses (83.3% vs 63.7%, P < .0001). The greatest difference was observed during the evening hours (95.2% vs 53.8% of medications administered for inpatient vs ED nurses, P = .002). The most common reason for medications not being administered by ED nurses was insufficient time (51.4%), and for inpatient nurses, it was that the medication order was not verified (77.8%). The pharmacist's interventions were successful with both the ED and inpatient nurses (95.5% and 94.1%, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates that assigning nurses with varying workloads as a means to manage overcrowding is likely to result in boarded patients in the emergency department not receiving their medications. ED pharmacists' interventions may fill the gap, ensuring compliance with the administration of medication orders prescribed for boarded patients and ensuring more timely administration. A multidisciplinary team approach is needed to manage current overcrowding issues.

Evaluation of emergency medicine community educational program.

Out-of-hospital emergencies occur frequently, and laypersons are often the first to respond to these events. As an outreach to our local communities, we developed "Basic Emergency Interventions Everyone Should Know," a three-hour program addressing cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use, heart attack and stroke recognition and intervention, choking and bleeding interventions and infant and child safety. Each session lasted 45 minutes and was facilitated by volunteers from the emergency department staff. A self-administered 13-item questionnaire was completed by each participant before and after the program. A total of 183 participants completed the training and questionnaires. Average score pre-training was nine while the average score post-training was 12 out of a possible 13 (P< .0001). At the conclusion of the program 97% of participants felt the training was very valuable and 100% would recommend the program to other members of their community.

Coded Chief Complaints--automated analysis of free-text complaints.

OBJECTIVES: To describe a new chief-complaint categorization schema, the development of a computer text-parsing algorithm to automatically classify free-text chief complaints into this schema, and use of these coded chief complaints to describe the case mix of a community emergency department (ED). METHODS: Coded Chief Complaints for Emergency Department Systems (CCC-EDS) is a new and untested schema of 228 chief complaints, grouped within dimensions of type and system. A computerized text-parsing algorithm for automatically reading and classifying free-text chief complaints into 1 of these 228 coded chief complaints was developed by using a consecutive derivation sample of 46,602 patients who presented to a community teaching-hospital ED in 2004. Descriptive statistics included frequency of patients presenting with the 228 coded chief complaints; percentage of free-text complaints not categorizable by the CCC-EDS; and admission rate, age, and gender differences by chief complaint. RESULTS: In the derivation sample, the text-parsing algorithm classified 87.5% of 45,329 ED visits with non-null free-text chief complaints into 1 of 194 coded chief complaints. The text-parsing algorithm successfully classified 87.3% of the free-text chief complaints in a validation sample. The five most common coded chief complaints were Abdominal Pain (3,734 visits), Fever (2,234), Chest Pain (2,183), Breathing Difficulty (2,030), and Cuts-Lacerations (2,028). CONCLUSIONS: The CCC-EDS is a new comprehensive, granular, and useful classification schema for categorizing chief complaints in an ED. A CCC-EDS text-parsing algorithm successfully classified the majority of free-text chief complaints from an ED computer log. These coded chief complaints were used to describe the case mix of a community teaching-hospital ED.

Where's the beef? The promise and the reality of clinical documentation.

Physician-generated emergency department clinical documentation (information obtained from clinician observations and summarized decision processes inclusive of all manner of electronic systems capturing, storing, and presenting clinical documentation) serves four purposes: recording of medical care and communication among providers; payment for hospital and physician; legal defense from medical negligence allegations; and symptom/disease surveillance, public health, and research functions. In the consensus development process described by Handler, these objectives were balanced with the consideration of efficiency, often evaluated as physician time and clinical documentation system costs, in recording the information necessary for their accomplishment. The consensus panel session participants and authors recommend that 1) clinical documentation be electronically retrievable; 2) selection and implementation be evidence-based and grounded on valid metrics (research is needed to identify these metrics); 3) the user interface be crafted to promote clinical excellence through high-quality information collection and efficient charting techniques; 4) the priorities for integration of clinical information be standardized and implemented within enterprises and across health and information systems; 5) systems use accepted standards for bidirectional, real-time clinical data exchange, without limiting the location or number of simultaneous users; 6) systems fully utilize existing electronic sources of specific patient information and general medical knowledge; 7) systems automatically and reliably capture appropriate data that support electronic billing for emergency department services; and 8) systems promote bedside documentation and mobile access.

Physician and nurse satisfaction with an Electronic Medical Record system.

Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) are intended to support clinical activity, improve efficiency, and reduce error. Reluctance to use EMRs may exist among clinicians. The purpose of this study was to assess physician and nurse satisfaction with an Emergency Department (ED) EMR. We surveyed Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians and nurses at a large urban teaching hospital after implementation of an Emergency Department EMR. The questionnaire assessed: 1) computer background and experience; 2) perceptions regarding EMR use; and 3) concerns about impact upon quality of patient care. The clinicians find the EMR easy to use and are generally satisfied with the impact on their work. However, they report that the EMR has no positive impact on patient care. They report confusion in following the sequence of screens, and are concerned with the amount of time it takes to use the EMR and the confidentiality of patient information. Similar results were found between physicians and nurses. Nurses, but not physicians, report that they are able to finish work much faster than before implementation (p < 0.05). We were unable to correlate computer background and experience with satisfaction with an EMR. This survey suggests that EM physicians and nurses favor the use of an EMR and suggests opportunities for EMR enhancement.

Quality in clinical practice.

This paper reports the proceedings of the discussion panel assigned to look at clinical aspects of quality in emergency medicine. One of the seven stated objectives of the Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference on quality in emergency medicine was to educate emergency physicians regarding quality measures and quality improvement as essential aspects of the practice of emergency medicine. Another topic of interest was a discussion of the value of information technology in facilitating quality care in the clinical practice of emergency medicine. It is important to note that this is not intended to be a comprehensive review of this extensive topic, but instead is designed to report the discussion that occurred at this session of the consensus conference.

A Time-Motion Study of the Emergency Medical Services Turnaround Interval.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Because overall EMS system response depends on ambulance availability, we conducted a prospective study of the EMS turnaround interval. This interval represents the time elapsed from ambulance arrival at the hospital until the ambulance reports back in service. METHODS: An on-site observer, while monitoring EMS radio traffic, recorded the delivery and recovery activities of personnel from a large urban EMS system at a university hospital emergency department. System policy permitted a maximum turnaround interval of 30 minutes. Prospectively defined subintervals were analyzed. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 122 patient deliveries was collected. Observed and radio-reported times of arrival at the hospital differed by -1'24" to +11'08". In 18.9% of cases, arrival was reported on radio more than 5 minutes after the observed arrival. Time from arrival to removal of the patient from the ambulance averaged 59" (range, 13" to 2'53"), and time from patient removal to emergency department entry averaged 42" (range, 10" to 5'22"). Time from ED entry to placement of the patient on an ED bed averaged 2'11" (range, 33" to 9'35"). Although the mean interval for the verbal report to ED staff was 33" (range, 13" to 2'53"), it was 15" or less in 36% of cases. Writing the ambulance call report took an average of 17'12" (range, 5'20" to 52'11"). The mean time off radio was 29'51" (range, 11'43" to 53'37"), and the mean time the ambulance was actually at the ED was 30'01" (range, 11'25" to 1°17'53"). Observed and radio-reported ambulance departure times differed by -4'31" to +23'32". In 22% of cases, departure was reported by radio more than 5' after actual departure. CONCLUSION: In this system, ambulance call report documentation required the greatest subinterval of turnaround interval. The turnaround interval and its subintervals varied widely, and radio contact times correlated poorly with observed times at the ED. Attempts at improvement of overall system response through active management of the turnaround interval may be frustrated by reliance on radio-reported availability. [Cone DC, Davidson SJ, Nguyen Q: A time-motion study of the emergency medical services turnaround interval. Ann Emerg Med February 1998;31:241-246.].