Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs Surrounding Emergency Department Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify differences in total and out-of-pocket health care costs associated with treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visits among older adults with traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of treat-and-release ED visits using 2015 to 2020 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We measured total and out-of-pocket health care spending during 3 time periods: the 30 days prior to the ED visit, the treat-and-release ED visit itself, and the 30 days after the ED visit. Stratified by traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage status, we determined median total costs and the proportion of costs that were out-of-pocket. RESULTS: Among the 5,011 ED visits by those enrolled in traditional Medicare, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $881.95 (13.3%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $419.70 (10.1%) for the ED visit, and $809.00 (13.8%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. For the 2,595 ED visits by those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $484.92 (24.0%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $216.66 (21.9%) for the ED visit, and $439.13 (22.4%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. CONCLUSION: Older adults insured by Medicare Advantage incur lower total health care costs and face similar overall out-of-pocket expenses in the time period surrounding emergency care. However, a higher proportion of expenses are out-of-pocket compared with those insured by traditional Medicare, providing evidence of greater cost sharing for Medicare Advantage plan enrollees.

Leveraging a Learning Collaborative Model to Develop and Pilot Quality Measures to Improve Opioid Prescribing in the Emergency Department.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Medicine Quality Network (E-QUAL) Opioid Initiative was launched in 2018 to advance the dissemination of evidence-based resources to promote the care of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder. This virtual platform-based national learning collaborative includes a low-burden, structured quality improvement project, data benchmarking, tailored educational content, and resources designed to support a nationwide network of EDs with limited administrative and research infrastructure. As a part of this collaboration, we convened a group of experts to identify and design a set of measures to improve opioid prescribing practices to provide safe analgesia while reducing opioid-related harms. We present those measures here, alongside initial performance data on those measures from a sample of 370 nationwide community EDs participating in the 2019 E-QUAL collaborative. Measures include proportion of opioid administration in the ED, proportion of alternatives to opioids as first-line treatment, proportion of opioid prescription, opioid pill count per prescription, and patient medication safety education among ED visits for atraumatic back pain, dental pain, or headache. The proportion of benzodiazepine and opioid coprescribing for ED visits for atraumatic back pain was also evaluated. This project developed and effectively implemented a collection of 6 potential measures to evaluate opioid analgesic prescribing across a national sample of community EDs, representing the first feasibility assessment of opioid prescribing-related measures from rural and community EDs.

An Outcome Comparison Between Geriatric and Nongeriatric Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe diagnosis rates and compare common process outcomes between geriatric emergency departments (EDs) and nongeriatric EDs participating in the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR). METHODS: We conducted an observational study of ED visits in calendar year 2021 within the CEDR by older adults. The analytic sample included 6,444,110 visits at 38 geriatric EDs and 152 matched nongeriatric EDs, with the geriatric ED status determined based on linkage to the American College of Emergency Physicians' Geriatric ED Accreditation program. Stratified by age, we assessed diagnosis rates (X/1000) for 4 common geriatric syndrome conditions and a set of common process outcomes including the ED length of stay, discharge rates, and 72-hour revisit rates. RESULTS: Across all age categories, geriatric EDs had higher diagnosis rates than nongeriatric EDs for 3 of the 4 following geriatric syndrome conditions of interest: urinary tract infection, dementia, and delirium/altered mental status. The median ED site-level length of stay for older adults was lower at geriatric EDs compared with that at nongeriatric EDs, whereas 72-hour revisit rates were similar across all age categories. Geriatric EDs exhibited a median discharge rate of 67.5% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 60.8% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 55.6% for adults aged >85 years. Comparatively, the median discharge rate at nongeriatric ED sites was 69.0% for adults aged 65 to 74 years, 64.2% for adults aged 75 to 84 years, and 61.3% for adults aged >85 years. CONCLUSION: Geriatric EDs had higher geriatric syndrome diagnosis rates, lower ED lengths of stay, and similar discharge and 72-hour revisit rates when compared with nongeriatric EDs in the CEDR. These findings provide the first benchmarks for emergency care process outcomes in geriatric EDs compared with nongeriatric EDs.

Clinical Performance Measures for Emergency Department Care for Adults With Intracranial Hemorrhage.

Though select inpatient-based performance measures exist for the care of patients with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, emergency departments lack measurement instruments designed to support and improve care processes in the hyperacute phase. To address this, we propose a set of measures applying a syndromic (rather than diagnosis-based) approach informed by performance data from a national sample of community EDs participating in the Emergency Quality Network Stroke Initiative. To develop the measure set, we convened a workgroup of experts in acute neurologic emergencies. The group considered the appropriate use case for each proposed measure: internal quality improvement, benchmarking, or accountability, and examined data from Emergency Quality Network Stroke Initiative-participating EDs to consider the validity and feasibility of proposed measures for quality measurement and improvement applications. The initially conceived set included 14 measure concepts, of which 7 were selected for inclusion in the measure set after a review of data and further deliberation. Proposed measures include 2 for quality improvement, benchmarking, and accountability (Last 2 Recorded Systolic Blood Pressure Measurements Under 150 and Platelet Avoidance), 3 for quality improvement and benchmarking (Proportion of Patients on Oral Anticoagulants Receiving Hemostatic Medications, Median ED Length of Stay for admitted patients, and Median Length of Stay for transferred patients), and 2 for quality improvement only (Severity Assessment in the ED and Computed Tomography Angiography Performance). The proposed measure set warrants further development and validation to support broader implementation and advance national health care quality goals. Ultimately, applying these measures may help identify opportunities for improvement and focus quality improvement resources on evidence-based targets.

Managing opioid waste, cost, and opportunity for drug diversion in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Management of pain is a component of 80% of all emergency department (ED) visits, and intravenous (IV) opioids are most commonly used to treat moderate to severe pain. Since the dose of stock vials is rarely purchased based on provider ordering patterns, there is often a discrepancy between ordered doses and the dose of the stock vial, leading to waste. Here, waste is defined as the difference between the dose of the stock vials used to fill an order and the ordered dose. Drug waste is problematic as it increases the chance of administering the incorrect dose, it is a source of lost revenue, and in the context of opioids, it increases the opportunity for drug diversion. In this study, we sought to utilize real-world data to describe the magnitude of morphine and hydromorphone waste in the studied EDs. We also applied scenario analyses based on provider ordering patterns to simulate the effects of cost versus opioid waste minimization when making purchasing decisions for the dose of stock vial of each opioid. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of IV morphine and hydromorphone orders across three EDs within a health care system between December 1, 2014 and November 30, 2015. In the primary analysis we measured total waste and cost of all ordered hydromorphone and morphine, and we created logistic regression models for each opioid to estimate the odds that a given ordered dose would create waste. In the secondary scenario analysis we determined the total waste created and total cost to satisfy all written orders for both opioids with respect to prioritizing minimizing waste versus cost. RESULTS: Among a total of 34,465 IV opioid orders, 7866 (35%) of morphine orders created 21,767 mg of waste, and 10,015 (85%) of hydromorphone orders created 11,689 mg of waste. Larger dose orders were associated with a smaller likelihood of waste in both morphine and hydromorphone due to the doses of stock vials available. In the waste optimization scenario, relative to the base scenario, total waste, which included waste from both morphine and hydromorphone, was reduced by 97% and cost was reduced by 11%. In the cost optimization scenario, cost was reduced by 28% but waste increased by 22%. CONCLUSION: As hospitals continue to seek strategies to reduce costs and mitigate the harms of opioid diversion amidst the opioid epidemic, this study shows that optimizing the dose of the stock vial to minimize waste using provider ordering patterns, could mitigate risk while also reducing cost. Limitations included the use of data from EDs within a single health system, drug shortages that affected stock vial availability, and finally, the actual cost of stock vials, used for cost calculations, can differ based on a variety of factors.

Correlations among common emergency medicine physician performance measures: Mixed messages or balancing forces?

The increasing complexity of ED physician performance measures has resulted in significant challenges, including duplicative and conflicting measures that fail to account for different ED settings. We performed a cross sectional analysis of correlations between measures to characterize their relationships and determine if differences exist between academic versus non-academic ED settings. Pearson correlations were calculated for 12 measures among 220 ED physicians at 11 EDs. Higher admission rate was strongly correlated with higher CT utilization rate (R = 0.7, p < 0.01) and longer room to discharge time (R = 0.7, p < 0.01). Higher patients per hour was strongly correlated with shorter room to doctor time (R = -0.7, p < 0.01). Stronger measure correlations were found in the academic setting compared to the non-academic setting. Strong correlations between ED measures imply opportunities to reduce competing performance demands on clinicians. Differences in correlations at academic versus non-academic settings suggest that it may be inappropriate to apply the same performance standards across settings.

The 2013 to 2019 Emergency Medicine Workforce: Clinician Entry and Attrition Across the US Geography.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify longitudinal trends in workforce entry and attrition among rural and urban emergency physicians, nonemergency physicians, and advanced practice providers. METHODS: We performed a repeated cross-sectional analysis, from 2013 to 2019, of emergency clinicians who received reimbursement for at least 50 Evaluation and Management services [99281-99285] from Medicare part B within any study year. We calculated the emergency workforce's entry and attrition rates annually. Entry was defined as clinicians newly entering or re-entering the workforce, and attrition was defined as clinicians leaving permanently or temporarily. We stratified the analyses by rural designation and assessed the proportions and state-level changes in clinician density. RESULTS: In total, 82,499 unique clinicians performed at least 50 Evaluation and Management services within any of the 7 study years examined, including 47,000 emergency physicians, 9,029 nonemergency physicians, and 26,470 advanced practice providers. Emergency physicians made up a decreasing proportion of the workforce (68.1% in 2013; 65.5% in 2019), and advanced practice providers made up an increasing proportion of the workforce (20.9% in 2013; 26.1% in 2019). Annually, 5.9% to 6.8% (2,186 to 2,407) of emergency physicians newly entered and 0.8% to 1.4% (264 to 515) re-entered the workforce, whereas 3.8% to 4.9% (1,241 to 1,793) permanently left and 0.8% to 1.6% (276 to 521) temporarily left. Additionally, the total proportion of clinicians practicing in rural designations decreased, and advanced practice providers separately made up a substantially increasing proportion of the rural workforce (23.0% in 2013; 32.7% in 2019). Substantial state-level variation existed in the supply and demand of emergency clinician densities per 100,000 population. CONCLUSION: The annual rate of emergency physician attrition was collectively more than 5%, well above the 3% assumed in a recently publicized projection, suggesting a potential overestimation of the anticipated future clinician surplus. Notably, the attrition of emergency physicians has disproportionately affected vulnerable rural areas. This work can inform emergency medicine workforce decisions regarding residency training, advanced practice provider utilization, and clinician employment.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 Testing of Emergency Department Admissions Increases Emergency Department Length of Stay.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our institution experienced a change in SARS-CoV-2 testing policy as well as substantial changes in local COVID-19 prevalence, allowing for a unique examination of the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 testing and emergency department (ED) length of stay. METHODS: This was an observational interrupted time series of all patients admitted to an academic health system between March 15, 2020, and September 30, 2020. Given testing limitations from March 15 to April 24, all patients receiving SARS-CoV-2 tests were symptomatic. On April 24, testing was expanded to all ED admissions. The primary and secondary outcomes were ED length of stay and number needed to test to obtain a positive, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 70,856 patients were cared for in the EDs during the 7-month period. The testing change increased admission length of stay by 1.89 hours (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.38). The number needed to test was 2.5 patients and was highest yield on April 1, 2020, when the state positivity rate was 39.7%; however, the number needed to test exceeded 170 patients by Sept 1, 2020, at which point the state positivity rate was 0.5%. CONCLUSION: Although universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of ED admissions may meaningfully support mitigation and containment efforts, the clinical cost of testing all admissions amid low community positivity is notable. In our system, universal ED SARS-CoV-2 testing was associated with a 24% increase in admission length of stay alongside the detection of only 1 positive case every other day. Given the known harms and risks of ED boarding and crowding, solutions must be developed to support regular operational flow while balancing infection prevention needs.

Patient cost consciousness in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: 'Surprise billing', or the phenomenon of unexpected coverage gaps in which patients receiving out-of-network medical bills after what they thought was in-network care, has been a major focus of policymakers and advocacy groups recently, particularly in the Emergency Department (ED) setting, where patients' ability to choose a provider is exceedingly limited. The No Surprises Act is the legislative culmination to address "surprise bills," with the aim of promoting price transparency as a solution for billing irregularities. However, the knowledge and perceptions of patients regarding emergency care price transparency, particularly the degree to which ED patients are cost conscious is unknown. Accordingly, we sought to quantify that perception by measuring patients' direct predictions for the cost of their care. METHODS: We conducted an in-person survey of patients in Emergency Departments (EDs) over an 10-month period at two campuses within a large academic hospital system in southern Connecticut. We surveyed a convenience sample of patients at the bedside regarding demographics, care seeking perceptions and their estimates of the total and out-of-pocket costs for their ED care. Survey data was linked to institutional hospital finance datasets including actual charges and payments. We then later obtained the actual costs and billed amounts and compared these to the patients' estimates using a paired t-test. We also analyzed results according to certain patient demographics. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were approached for survey, and data from 455 were available for the final analysis. On average, patients overestimated the cost of their care by $2484 and overestimated out-of-pocket cost by $144; both of these results met statistical significance (p < .005). Patients were better able to predict both total and out-of-pocket costs if they were: college educated or above; unemployed or retired; aged 65 or older; or had private insurance. Uninsured patients could better predict total cost but not out-of-pocket costs. One in 4 patients reported considering the cost of care prior to visiting the ED. Only 12 patients reported trying to look up that price before coming. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to our knowledge that sought to quantify how patients perceive the cost of acute, unscheduled care in the ED. We found that ED patients generally do not consider the price before going to the ED, and subsequently overestimate the negotiated total costs of acute, unscheduled emergency care as well as their out-of-pocket responsibility for care. Certain demographics are less predictive of this association. Notably, patients with Medicare/Medicaid and those with high school education or below were of the furthest off in predicting the actual cost of care. This lends credence to the established trend of patients' limited knowledge of the total cost of healthcare; moreover, that they overestimate the cost of their care could serve as a barrier to accessing that care particularly in more vulnerable groups. We hope that this finding adds useful information to policymakers in sculpting future legislation around surprise billing.

Disparities in Accessing and Reading Open Notes in the Emergency Department Upon Implementation of the 21st Century CURES Act.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There is a continued movement toward health data transparency, accelerated by the 21st Century CURES Act, which mandated the automatic and immediate release of clinical notes, often termed "open notes." Differences in utilization among different patient demographics and disproportionately affected populations within the emergency department (ED) are not yet known. METHODS: This was an observational study of 10 EDs and 3 urgent care centers across a single health system over a 13-week period from February 1, 2021 to May 2, 2021. Primary outcomes included the proportion of patients with patient portal access to open notes at the time of encounter, the proportion of patients with access who opened the clinical note, and time from clinical note signing to patient read. RESULTS: Among 98,725 patient visits, less than half (48.9%) had patient portal access, of which 13.7% read an open note. Access was less likely in patients who were under age 18 (odds ratio 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.11), older than 65 (0.82, 0.73 to 0.93), Black non-Hispanic (0.66, 0.61 to 0.73), non-English speakers, and on public insurance. Patients were less likely to read open notes if they identified as Black non-Hispanic (0.61, 0.57 to 0.66), spoke Spanish (0.70, 0.60 to 0.81), or were on public insurance. CONCLUSION: We identified substantial differences in digital access to clinical notes as well as patient utilization of open notes in a large, diverse sample. Health transparency initiatives must address not only technology adoption broadly but also the unique barriers faced by populations experiencing disadvantage to facilitate equitable access to and awareness about digital health tools without the unintended consequence of expanding disparities.

Fair Play: Application of Normalized Scoring to Emergency Department Throughput Quality Measures in a National Registry.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The measurement of emergency department (ED) throughput as a patient-centered quality measure is ubiquitous; however, marked heterogeneity exists between EDs, complicating comparisons for payment purposes. We evaluate 4 scoring methodologies for accommodating differences in ED visit volume and heterogeneity among ED groups that staff multiple EDs to improve the validity and "fairness" of ED throughput quality measurement in a national registry, with the goal of developing a volume-adjusted throughput measure that balances variation at the ED group level. METHODS: We conducted an ED group-level analysis using the 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Emergency Data Registry data set, which included 548 ED groups inclusive of 889 unique EDs. We calculated ED throughput performance scores for each ED group by using 4 scoring approaches: plurality, simple average, weighted average, and a weighted standardized score. For comparison, ED groups (ie, taxpayer identification numbers) were grouped into 3 types: taxpayer identification numbers with only 1 ED; those with multiple EDs, but no ED with greater than 60,000 visits; and those with multiple EDs and at least 1 ED with greater than 60,000 visits. RESULTS: We found marked differences in the classification of ED throughput performance between scoring approaches. The weighted standardized score (z score) approach resulted in the least skewed and most uniform distribution across the majority of ED types, with a kurtosis of 12.91 for taxpayer identification numbers composed of 1 ED, 2.58 for those with multiple EDs without any supercenter, and 3.56 for those with multiple EDs with at least 1 supercenter, all lower than comparable scoring methods. The plurality and simple average scoring approaches appeared to disproportionally penalize ED groups that staff a single ED or multiple large-volume EDs. CONCLUSION: Application of a weighted standardized (z score) approach to ED throughput measurement resulted in a more balanced variation between different ED group types and reduced distortions in the length-of-stay measurement among ED groups staffing high-volume EDs. This approach may be a more accurate and acceptable method of profiling ED group throughput pay-for-performance programs.

Emergency Department Utilization for Emergency Conditions During COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We use a national emergency medicine clinical quality registry to describe recent trends in emergency department (ED) visitation overall and for select emergency conditions. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Clinical Emergency Department Registry, including 164 ED sites across 35 states participating in the registry with complete data from January 2019 through November 15, 2020. Overall ED visit counts, as well as specific emergency medical conditions identified by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation, and venous thromboembolisms), were tabulated. We plotted biweekly visit counts overall and across specific geographic regions. RESULTS: The largest declines in visit counts occurred early in the pandemic, with a nadir in April 46% lower than the 2019 monthly average. By November, overall ED visit counts had increased, but were 23% lower than prepandemic levels. The proportion of all ED visits that were for the select emergency conditions increased early in the pandemic; however, total visit counts for acute myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular disease have remained lower in 2020 compared with 2019. Despite considerable geographic and temporal variation in the trajectory of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, the overall pattern of ED visits observed was similar across regions and time. CONCLUSION: The persistent decline in ED visits for these time-sensitive emergency conditions raises the concern that coronavirus disease 2019 may continue to impede patients from seeking essential care. Efforts thus far to encourage individuals with concerning signs and symptoms to seek emergency care may not have been sufficient.

Unscheduled Care Access in the United States-A Tale of Two Emergency Departments.

BACKGROUND: Rural communities face challenges in accessing healthcare services due to physician shortages and limited unscheduled care capabilities in office settings. As a result, rural hospital-based Emergency Departments (ED) may disproportionately provide acute, unscheduled care needs. We sought to examine differences in ED utilization and the relative role of the ED in providing access to unscheduled care between rural and urban communities. METHODS: Using a 20% sample of the 2012 Medicare Chronic Condition Warehouse, we studied the overall ED visit rate and the unscheduled care rate by geography using the Dartmouth Atlas' hospital referral regions (HRR). We calculated HRR urbanicity as the proportion of beneficiaries residing in an urban zip code within each HRR. We report descriptive statistics and utilize K-means clustering based on the ED visit rates and unscheduled care rates. RESULTS: We found rural ED use is more common and disproportionately the site of unscheduled care delivery when compared to urban communities. The ED visit and. unscheduled care proportions were negatively correlated with increased urbanicity (r =. -0.48, p < 0.001; r = -0.58, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use and role of EDs by Medicare beneficiaries appears to be substantially different between urban and rural areas. This suggests that the ED may play a distinct role within the healthcare delivery system of rural communities that face disproportionate barriers to care access.

Choosing wisely in emergency medicine: Early results and insights from the ACEP emergency quality network (E-QUAL).

PURPOSE: To characterize performance among ED sites participating in the Emergency Quality Network (E-QUAL) Avoidable Imaging Initiative for clinical targets on the American College of Emergency Physicians Choosing Wisely list. METHODS: This was an observational study of quality improvement (QI) data collected from hospital-based ED sites in 2017-2018. Participating EDs reported imaging utilization rates (UR) and common QI practices for three Choosing Wisely targets: Atraumatic Low Back Pain, Syncope, or Minor Head Injury. RESULTS: 305 ED sites participated in the initiative. Among all ED sites, the mean imaging UR for Atraumatic Low Back Pain was 34.7% (IQR 26.3%-42.6%) for XR, 19.1% (IQR 11.4%-24.9%) for CT, and 0.09% (IQR 0%-0.9%) for MRI. The mean CT UR for Syncope was 50.0% (IQR 38.0%-61.4%). The mean CT UR for Minor Head Injury was 72.6% (IQR 65.6%-81.7%). ED sites with sustained participation showed significant decreases in CT UR in 2017 compared to 2018 for Syncope (56.4% vs 48.0%; 95% CI: -12.7%, -4.1%) and Minor Head Injury (76.3% vs 72.1%; 95% CI: -7.3%, -1.1%). There was no significant change in imaging UR for Atraumatic Back Pain for XR (36.0% vs 33.3%; 95% CI: -5.9%, -0;5%), CT (20.1% vs 17.7%; 95% CI: -5.1%, -0.4%) or MRI (0.8% vs 0.7%, 95% CI: -0.4%, -0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Early data from the E-QUAL Avoidable Imaging Initiative suggests QI interventions could potentially improve imaging stewardship and reduce low-value care. Further efforts to translate the Choosing Wisely recommendations into practice should promote data-driven benchmarking and learning collaboratives to achieve sustained practice improvement.

Delays in antibiotic redosing: Association with inpatient mortality and risk factors for delay.

OBJECTIVE: Although timely administration of antibiotics has an established benefit in serious bacterial infection, the majority of studies evaluating antibiotic delay focus only on the first dose. Recent evidence suggests that delays in redosing may also be associated with worse clinical outcome. In light of the increasing burden of boarding in Emergency Departments (ED) and subsequent need to redose antibiotic in the ED, we examined the association between delayed second antibiotic dose administration and mortality among patients admitted from the ED with a broad array of infections and characterized risk factors associated with delayed second dose administration. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted through five EDs in a single healthcare system from 1/2018 through 12/2018. Our study included all patients, aged 18 years or older, who received two intravenous antibiotic doses within a 30-h period, with the first dose administered in the ED. Patients with end stage renal disease, cirrhosis and extremes of weight were excluded due to a lack of consensus on antibiotic dosing intervals for these populations. Delay was defined as administration of the second dose at a time-point greater than 125% of the recommended interval. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 5605 second antibiotic doses, occurring during 4904 visits, met study criteria. Delayed administration of the second dose occurred during 21.1% of visits. After adjustment for patient characteristics, delayed second dose administration was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.05-2.13). Regarding risk factors for delay, every one-hour increase in allowable compliance time was associated with a 18% decrease in odds of delay (OR 0.82 95%CI 0.75-0.88). Other risk factors for delay included ED boarding more than 4 h (OR 1.47, 95%CI 1.27-1.71) or a high acuity presentation as defined by emergency severity index (ESI) (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.30-1.81 for ESI 1-2 versus 3-5). CONCLUSIONS: Delays in second antibiotic dose administration were frequent in the ED and early hospital course, and were associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality. Several risk factors associated with delays in second dose administration, including ED boarding, were identified.

Identification of Patients with Nontraumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage Using Administrative Claims Data.

INTRODUCTION: Nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is a neurological emergency of research interest; however, unlike ischemic stroke, has not been well studied in large datasets due to the lack of an established administrative claims-based definition. We aimed to evaluate both explicit diagnosis codes and machine learning methods to create a claims-based definition for this clinical phenotype. METHODS: We examined all patients admitted to our tertiary medical center with a primary or secondary International Classification of Disease version 9 (ICD-9) or 10 (ICD-10) code for ICH in claims from any portion of the hospitalization in 2014-2015. As a gold standard, we defined the nontraumatic ICH phenotype based on manual chart review. We tested explicit definitions based on ICD-9 and ICD-10 that had been previously published in the literature as well as four machine learning classifiers including support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression with LASSO, random forest and xgboost. We report five standard measures of model performance for each approach. RESULTS: A total of 1830 patients with 2145 unique ICD-10 codes were included in the initial dataset, of which 437 (24%) were true positive based on manual review. The explicit ICD-10 definition performed best (Sensitivity = 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.92), Specificity = 0.83 (0.81-0.85), F-score = 0.73 (0.69-0.77)) and improves on an explicit ICD-9 definition (Sensitivity = 0.87 (0.83-0.90), Specificity = 0.77 (0.74-0.79), F-score = 0.67 (0.63-0.71). Among machine learning classifiers, SVM performed best (Sensitivity = 0.78 (0.75-0.82), Specificity = 0.84 (0.81-0.87), AUC = 0.89 (0.87-0.92), F-score = 0.66 (0.62-0.69)). CONCLUSIONS: An explicit ICD-10 definition can be used to accurately identify patients with a nontraumatic ICH phenotype with substantially better performance than ICD-9. An explicit ICD-10 based definition is easier to implement and quantitatively not appreciably improved with the additional application of machine learning classifiers. Future research utilizing large datasets should utilize this definition to address important research gaps.

An appraisal of emergency medicine clinical practice guidelines: Do we agree?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) since 1990 to advance evidence-based emergency care. ACEP clinical policies have drawn anecdotal criticism for bias, yet the overall quality of these guidelines has not previously been quantified. We sought to examine ACEP clinical policies using a recognised, validated appraisal instrument: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II). METHODS: Systematic assessment of current ACEP clinical policies was conducted using the AGREE II instrument, which contains 23 appraisal items (scored on a 1-7 scale) in six domains and two overall assessments. Each policy was independently appraised by five trained appraisers. Primary outcomes were AGREE II ratings for each item, domain and "Overall Assessment," and scores were reported as standardised percentages from all five appraisers. Secondary analyses examined associations between AGREE II ratings and policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence and strength of recommendations. Additional analysis examined relationships between domain and "Overall Assessment" ratings. RESULTS: Twenty guidelines published from April 2007 to November 2017 were included. Of the six domains, "Scope and Purpose" scored highest (mean 90%) and "Applicability" scored lowest (mean 35%). The four remaining domains ("Stakeholder Involvement," "Rigor of Development," "Clarity of Presentation" and "Editorial Independence") had mean scores of 53%-78%. The mean "Overall Assessment" rating was 69% and was not associated with policy publication date, strength of underlying evidence or strength of recommendations. We found positive associations between "Overall Assessment" ratings and two domains: "Rigor of Development" (r = 0.70) and "Clarity of Presentation" (r = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Based on validated AGREE II criteria, ACEP clinical policies can be most improved by addressing their application in practice. ACEP clinical policies' overall quality did not improve over the assessed time period and is not explained by the quality of underlying evidence.

Trends and Variation in the Utilization and Diagnostic Yield of Chest Imaging for Medicare Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess trends and variation in chest CT utilization in the emergency department (ED) and its diagnostic yield for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) among a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries. The relationship between hospital and provider characteristics is also discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis of Medicare beneficiaries evaluated in the ED for suspected PE from 2000 to 2009. Standard Medicare analytic files representing a 20% sample of fee-for-service beneficiaries were linked to the American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals, American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, Medicare Physician Identification and Eligibility Registry, and Dartmouth Atlas Project to calculate geographic- and physician-level chest CT utilization (i.e., the proportion of ED visits involving chest CT examination for suspected PE) and diagnostic yield (i.e., the proportion of chest CT examinations with a positive PE diagnosis). RESULTS: Of 2.5 million ED visits, 2.5% (n = 164,274) included chest CT for suspected PE; 6.2% visits (n = 10,121) resulted in positive findings for PE. Between 2000 and 2009, chest CT utilization increased fivefold. Geographic variation in CT utilization (median, 2.38%; interquartile range [IQR], 1.91-2.92%) and diagnostic yield (median, 6.31%; IQR, 5.11-7.66%) was observed between 306 hospital referral regions. Physician use of imaging was explained by greater experience (lower utilization and higher yield) and emergency medicine board certification (lower utilization and equivalent yield). CONCLUSION: CT utilization in the ED for suspected PE has steadily risen, whereas diagnostic yields have declined over time. Wide variation in practice is observed at the physician and geographic levels and is explained by several physician and hospital characteristics. Taken together, our findings suggest a substantial inefficiency of chest CT use and substantial opportunities for improvement.

Preliminary Performance on the New CMS Sepsis-1 National Quality Measure: Early Insights From the Emergency Quality Network (E-QUAL).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe current hospital-level performance for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) quality measure and qualitatively assess emergency department (ED) sepsis quality improvement best practice implementation. METHODS: Using a standardized Web-based submission portal, we surveyed quality improvement data from volunteer hospital-based EDs participating in the Emergency Quality Network Sepsis Initiative. Each hospital submitted preliminary SEP-1 local chart review data, using existing Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definitions. We report descriptive statistics of SEP-1 data availability and performance. The primary outcome for this study was SEP-1 bundle compliance, defined as the proportion of all severe sepsis and septic shock cases receiving all required bundle elements, and secondary outcomes included conditional compliance on reported SEP-1 numerator components and ED implementation of sepsis quality improvement best practices. RESULTS: A total of 50 EDs participated in the survey; 74% were nonteaching sites and 26% were affiliated with academic centers. Of all participating EDs, 80% were in regions with relatively high population density. The mean hospital SEP-1 bundle compliance was 54% (interquartile range 30% to 75%). Bundle compliance improved during fiscal year 2016 from 39% to 57%. Broad variation existed for each bundle component, with intravenous fluid resuscitation and repeated lactate bundle elements having the widest variation and largest gaps in quality. At least one consensus sepsis quality improvement best practice implementation occurred in 92% of participating sites. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data on SEP-1 performance suggest wide hospital-level variation in performance, with modest improvement during the first year of data collection.

Patient centered medical homes did not improve access to timely follow-up after ED visit.

BACKGROUND: Patients newly insured through coverage expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may have difficulty obtaining timely primary care follow-up appointments after emergency department (ED) discharge. We evaluated the association between availability of timely follow-up appointment with practice access improvements, including patient-centered medical home (PCMH) designations or extended-hours appointments. METHODS: We performed a secret-shopper audit of primary care practices in greater New Haven, Connecticut. Two callers, posing as patients discharged from the ED, called these practices requesting follow-up appointments. They followed standardized scripts varying in ED diagnosis (uncontrolled hypertension, acute back pain) and insurance status (commercial, exchange, Medicaid). We linked our findings with data from a previously completed survey that assessed practice characteristics and examined the associations between appointment availability and practice access improvements. RESULTS: Of the 58 included primary care practices, 49 (84.5%) completed both the audit and the survey. Overall, 167/536 calls (31.2%) obtained an appointment in 7days. Practices with PCMH designation were less likely to offer appointments within 7days (23.4% vs. 33.1%, p=0.03). However, callers were more likely to obtain an appointment in 7days from practices offering after-hour appointments (36.3% vs. 27.8%, p=0.04). After adjusting for insurance type, there were no significant associations between practice improvements and 7-day appointment availability or appointment wait time. CONCLUSION: PCMH designation and extended-hours appointments were not associated with improved availability of timely primary care follow-up appointment for discharged ED patients. EDs should engage local clinicians and other stakeholders to strengthen linkage and care transition with outpatient practices.