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.

Chest pain center accreditation is associated with better performance of centers for Medicare and Medicaid services core measures for acute myocardial infarction.

The aim of this study was determine whether hospitals accredited by the Society of Chest Pain Centers hospitals (accredited chest pain centers [ACPCs]) are associated with better performance regarding Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services core measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) than nonaccredited hospitals. The study was a retrospective, observational cohort study of hospitals reporting Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services core measures for AMI from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2005, on the basis of the presence or absence of Society of Chest Pain Centers accreditation. Data were obtained from the Web sites of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Hospital Compare), Society of Chest Pain Centers listings, and the American Hospital Directory. Groups were compared in terms of demographics and mean percentage compliance with all 8 AMI core measures. Student's t test, chi-square analysis, and logistic regression were used to analyze bivariate relations. Multivariate logistic regression models used a propensity-score adjustment factor. Of the 4,197 hospitals that reported core measures for AMI, 178 (4%) were accredited and 4,019 (96%) were not. ACPCs had been accredited for an average of 12 months and were larger (378 vs 204 beds), more often teaching hospitals (52% vs 30%), and more often urban (95% vs 69%) (all p <0.0001). There were 395,250 patients with AMIs, of whom 55,418 (14%) presented to ACPCs and 339,832 (86%) presented to nonaccredited hospitals. There was significantly greater compliance with all 8 AMI core measures at ACPCs (p <0.0001), except for lytic therapy <30 minutes after arrival (p = 0.04), for which unadjusted performance was the same. In conclusion, ACPCs were associated with better compliance with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services core measures and saw a greater proportion of patients with AMIs.

Comparison of outcomes for low-risk outpatients and inpatients with pneumonia: A propensity-adjusted analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia are often hospitalized despite guideline recommendations for outpatient treatment. METHODS: Using data from a randomized trial conducted in 32 emergency departments, we performed a propensity-adjusted analysis to compare 30-day mortality rates, time to the return to work and to usual activities, and patient satisfaction with care between 944 outpatients and 549 inpatients in pneumonia severity index risk classes I to III who did not have evidence of arterial oxygen desaturation, or medical or psychosocial contraindications to outpatient treatment. RESULTS: After adjusting for quintile of propensity score for outpatient treatment, which eliminated all significant differences for baseline characteristics, outpatients were more likely to return to work (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 2.6) or, for nonworkers, to usual activities (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8) than were inpatients. Satisfaction with the site-of-treatment decision (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.8), with emergency department care (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.9), and with overall medical care (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.6) was not different between outpatients and inpatients. The overall mortality rate was higher for inpatients than outpatients (2.6% vs 0.1%, respectively; p < 0.01); the mortality rate was not different among the 242 outpatients and 242 inpatients matched by their propensity score (0.4% vs 0.8%, respectively; p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for the propensity of site of treatment, outpatient treatment was associated with a more rapid return to usual activities and to work, and with no increased risk of mortality. The higher observed mortality rate among all low-risk inpatients suggests that physician judgment is an important complement to objective risk stratification in the site-of-treatment decision for patients with pneumonia.

Care of the Patient with Chest Pain in the Observation Unit.

Care of the patient presenting to an emergency department (ED) with chest pain remains a common yet challenging aspect of emergency medicine. Acute coronary syndrome presents in nonspecific fashion. The development and evolution of the ED-based observation unit has helped to safely assess and diagnose those most at risk for an adverse cardiac event. Furthermore, there are several provocative testing modalities to help assess for coronary artery disease. This article serves to describe and discuss the modern ED-based observation unit approach to patients with chest pain and/or angina equivalents presenting to an ED.

Factors associated with the hospitalization of low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia in a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Many low-risk patients with pneumonia are hospitalized despite recommendations to treat such patients in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors associated with the hospitalization of low-risk patients with pneumonia. METHODS: We analyzed data collected by retrospective chart review for 1,889 low-risk patients (Pneumonia Severity Index [PSI] risk classes I to III without evidence of arterial oxygen desaturation) enrolled in a cluster-randomized trial conducted in 32 emergency departments. RESULTS: Overall, 845 (44.7%) of all low-risk patients were treated as inpatients. Factors independently associated with an increased odds of hospitalization included PSI risk classes II and III, the presence of medical or psychosocial contraindications to outpatient treatment, comorbid conditions that were not contained in the PSI (cognitive impairment, history of coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, or pulmonary disease), multilobar radiographic infiltrates, and home therapy with oxygen, corticosteroids, or antibiotics before presentation. While 32.8% of low-risk inpatients had a contraindication to outpatient treatment and 47.1% had one or more preexisting treatments, comorbid conditions, or radiographic abnormalities not contained in the PSI, 20.1% had no identifiable risk factors for hospitalization other than PSI risk class II or III. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital admission appears justified for one-third of low-risk inpatients based upon the presence of one or more contraindications to outpatient treatment. At least one-fifth of low-risk inpatients did not have a contraindication to outpatient treatment or an identifiable risk factor for hospitalization, suggesting that treatment of a larger proportion of such low-risk patients in the outpatient setting could be achieved without adversely affecting patient outcomes.

Effect of increasing the intensity of implementing pneumonia guidelines: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the development of evidence-based pneumonia guidelines, limited data exist on the most effective means to implement guideline recommendations into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 3 guideline implementation strategies. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 32 emergency departments in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. PATIENTS: 3219 patients with a clinical and radiographic diagnosis of pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: The authors implemented a project-developed guideline for the initial site of treatment based on the Pneumonia Severity Index and performance of evidence-based processes of care at the emergency department level. Guideline implementation strategies were defined as low (n = 8), moderate (n = 12), and high intensity (n = 12). MEASUREMENTS: Effectiveness outcomes were the rate at which low-risk patients were treated on an outpatient basis and the performance of recommended processes of care. Safety outcomes included death, subsequent hospitalization for outpatients, and medical complications for inpatients. RESULTS: More low-risk patients (n = 1901) were treated as outpatients in the moderate-intensity and high-intensity groups than in the low-intensity group (high-intensity group, 61.9%; moderate-intensity group, 61.0%; low-intensity group, 37.5%; P = 0.004). More outpatients (n = 1125) in the high-intensity group received all 4 recommended processes of care (high-intensity group, 60.9%; moderate-intensity group, 28.3%; low-intensity group, 25.3%; P < 0.001); more inpatients (n = 2076) in the high-intensity group received all 4 recommended processes of care (high-intensity group, 44.3%; moderate-intensity group, 30.1%; low-intensity group, 23.0%; P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences in safety outcomes were observed across interventions. LIMITATIONS: Twenty percent of eligible patients were not enrolled, and data on effectiveness outcomes were not collected before the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Both moderate-intensity and high-intensity guideline implementation strategies safely increased the proportion of low-risk patients with pneumonia who were treated as outpatients. The high-intensity strategy was most effective for increasing the performance of the recommended processes of care for outpatients and inpatients.

Prospective comparison of three validated prediction rules for prognosis in community-acquired pneumonia.

PURPOSE: We assessed the performance of 3 validated prognostic rules in predicting 30-day mortality in community-acquired pneumonia: the 20 variable Pneumonia Severity Index and the easier to calculate CURB (confusion, urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, blood pressure) and CURB-65 severity scores. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively followed 3181 patients with community-acquired pneumonia from 32 hospital emergency departments (January-December 2001) and assessed mortality 30 days after initial presentation. Patients were stratified into Pneumonia Severity Index risk classes (I-V) and CURB (0-4) and CURB-65 (0-5) risk strata. We compared the discriminatory power (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of these rules to predict mortality and their accuracy based on sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: The Pneumonia Severity Index (risk classes I-III) classified a greater proportion of patients as low risk (68% [2152/3181]) than either a CURB score <1 (51% [1635/3181]) or a CURB-65 score <2 (61% [1952/3181]). Low-risk patients identified based on the Pneumonia Severity Index had a slightly lower mortality (1.4% [31/2152]) than patients classified as low-risk based on the CURB (1.7% [28/1635]) or the CURB-65 (1.7% [33/1952]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was higher for the Pneumonia Severity Index (0.81) than for either the CURB (0.73) or CURB-65 (0.76) scores (P <0.001, for each pairwise comparison). At comparable cut-points, the Pneumonia Severity Index had a higher sensitivity and a somewhat higher negative predictive value for mortality than either CURB score. CONCLUSIONS: The more complex Pneumonia Severity Index has a higher discriminatory power for short-term mortality, defines a greater proportion of patients at low risk, and is slightly more accurate in identifying patients at low risk than either CURB score.

Using randomized controlled trial data, the agreement between retrospectively and prospectively collected data comprising the pneumonia severity index was substantial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement between prospectively and retrospectively determined variables comprising the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), assignment to PSI risk class, and designation as low risk, based on these two methods of data collection. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed data from a randomized trial of patients with community-acquired pneumonia managed in 32 hospital emergency departments (EDs). For all enrolled patients, the 20 PSI variables were collected prospectively by ED providers and retrospectively by medical record abstractors. We examined the agreement for each of the 20 PSI variables, assignment to the five PSI risk classes, and classification of patients as low (classes I-III) vs. high (classes IV and V) risk. Agreement was measured using total percent agreement and the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Among the 3,220 enrolled patients, percent agreement was >90% for 18 of the 20 variables comprising the PSI, with most unweighted kappa's being >0.6. Agreement was substantial for assignment to PSI risk class (percent agreement: 92.7%; weighted kappa: 0.79) and for classification as low vs. high risk (percent agreement: 88.5%; unweighted kappa: 0.74). CONCLUSION: There was substantial agreement between retrospective and prospective assignment to PSI risk class, classification as low vs. high risk, and the determination of most individual variables that constitute the PSI.

Dissemination of an evidence-based multicomponent fall risk-assessment and -management strategy throughout a geographic area.

OBJECTIVES: To report on the penetration of, and identified barriers to and facilitators of, efforts to incorporate evidence-based fall risk assessment and management into clinical practice throughout a defined geographic area. DESIGN: Dissemination project. SETTING: North central Connecticut. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitals, home care agencies, primary care providers, and outpatient rehabilitation facilities. INTERVENTION: Multiple professional behavior-change strategies were used to encourage providers to incorporate evidence-based fall assessment and management into their practices. MEASUREMENTS: Penetration of dissemination efforts over 36 months; barriers and facilitators identified by provider working groups during the first 2 years of the project. RESULTS: All seven hospitals and 26 home care agencies in the area, 119 of 130 rehabilitation facilities, and 138 of 212 primary care offices participated. Most provider working groups expressed similar barriers and facilitating factors. Reported barriers specific to fall risk management included lack of awareness of fall morbidity and preventability, perceived lack of expertise and Medicare coverage, inadequate referral patterns among providers, and lack of a federal mandate for physicians. Facilitating factors specific to falls included the opportunity to market new services and to develop new networks of professional relationships across disciplines and the Medicare mandate that home care agencies focus on functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: Dissemination efforts showed notable successes as well as challenges. Although many of the barriers were general to diffusing new practices, several were specific to fall assessment and management that span disciplines and sites. Project results have implications for efforts to diffuse evidence-based practices for multifactorial geriatric conditions such as falls.

Decreasing clinically significant adverse events using feedback to emergency physicians of telephone follow-up outcomes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the effect on adverse events of a telephone follow-up quality improvement program. METHODS: This was a before-and-after intervention comparison based on prospectively collected data in a tertiary care hospital emergency department (ED) (82,000 visits per year). The first half (April 15 to July 31, 2001) served as control, and the second half (August 1 to November 15, 2001) served as intervention with feedback to physicians on telephone follow-up outcomes of discharged patients and resident training about the uncertain presentations of serious diseases and the need to use additional evaluation on selected patients (observation unit, hospital admission). Telephone follow-up of the high-risk patients and retrospective review of 3-day return visits were used to quantify outcome measures: return visits to EDs and clinically significant adverse events (return visits with serious misdiagnoses or an erroneous management plan). The differences in proportions of outcomes were measured with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: High-risk patients were enrolled: 566 (13.7%) of 4,139 discharged patients in the before-intervention period and 397 (11.3%) of 3,507 in the after-intervention period. The quality improvement initiative decreased return visits on enrolled patients from 10.1% (57/566) to 4.9% (19/397) (5.2% difference with 95% CI 1.8% to 8.8%) and decreased clinically significant adverse events from 4.1% (23/566) to 1.5% (6/397) (2.6% difference with 95% CI 0.3% to 4.8%). For all ED discharged patients, clinically significant adverse events decreased from 0.9% (39/4,139) to 0.4% (15/3,507) (0.5% difference with 95% CI 0.1% to 0.9%). During the study, the observation rate increased 4.3% (95% CI 2.8% to 5.7%), and the admission rate increased 3.4% (95% CI 2.1% to 4.8%). CONCLUSION: A quality improvement program with feedback to physicians of telephone follow-up and resident education can decrease clinically significant adverse events in ED discharged patients.

The emergency department community-acquired pneumonia trial: Methodology of a quality improvement intervention.

Community-acquired pneumonia causes more than 4 million episodes of illness each year and has high morbidity, mortality, and total cost of care. Nationwide, nearly 75% of community-acquired pneumonia patients are initially evaluated and treated in hospital-based emergency departments (EDs). Substantial variation exists in illness severity assessment, hospital admission decisions, and performance of recommended processes of care. We designed an ED-based quality improvement trial focused on the initial care of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. We used the Pneumonia Severity Index and level of arterial oxygenation to identify patients at low risk for 30-day mortality and to guide admission decisionmaking. We assessed the performance of recommended "best practices," consisting of assessment of arterial oxygenation, the collection of blood cultures for inpatients, and the timely initiation of appropriate empiric antibiotic therapy for inpatients and outpatients. We conducted a 32-site, cluster-randomized trial in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, comparing the effectiveness and safety of 3 guideline implementation strategies of increasing intensity. The multifaceted implementation plans were carried out in conjunction with each state's quality improvement organization. This article describes the background, objectives, and methodology of this trial to translate evidence-based knowledge on the quality and efficiency of care for community-acquired pneumonia into clinical practice.

Measuring and improving quality in emergency medicine.

The findings are presented of a consensus committee created to address the measuring and improving of quality in emergency medicine. The objective of the committee was to critically evaluate how quality in emergency medicine can be measured and how quality improvement projects can positively affect the care of emergency patients. Medical quality is defined as "the care health professionals would want to receive if they got sick." The literature of quality improvement in emergency medicine is reviewed and analyzed. A summary list of measures of quality is included with four categories: condition-specific diseases, diagnostic syndromes, tasks/procedures, and department efficiency/efficacy. Methods and tools for quantifying these measures are examined as well as their accuracy in assessing quality and adjusting for differences in environment, and patient populations. Successful strategies for changing physician behavior are detailed as well as barriers to change. Examples are given of successful quality improvement efforts. Also examined is how to address the emergency care needs of vulnerable populations such as older persons, women, those without health insurance, and ethnic minorities.

Emergency physicians' acute coronary syndrome testing threshold and diagnostic performance: acute coronary syndrome critical pathway with return visit feedback.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency physician threshold to test for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is directly related to ACS diagnosis rate and inversely related to ACS missed diagnosis rate. Feedback to emergency physicians of information on their prior patients whose ACS diagnosis was not identified may improve physician diagnostic performance. METHODS: A critical pathway for evaluation of patients for ACS was modified to include feedback to physicians on their cases who had a return visit and did not have their ACS diagnosis identified at their prior emergency department visit. Feedback included case-specific details, discussion of the case at the monthly Morbidity and Mortality conference, and a yearly a report to each physician comparing their performance to their peers (ACS evaluation rate, ACS diagnosis rate, and ACS missed diagnosis rate). Cases were identified, and physician-specific performance was calculated from a computerized encounter database at 2 community teaching hospitals. RESULTS: During the study period, 29 emergency physicians evaluated 295,758 patients and identified 6472 ACS cases. During the study, the yearly ACS evaluation rate for individual physician ranged from 19% to 70% (average 40.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 39.5%-41.1%), the yearly ACS diagnosis rate for individual physician ranged from 1.1% to 4.2% (average 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.65%-1.75%), and the yearly missed ACS diagnosis rate for individual physician ranged from 0% to 17% (average 2.8%; 95% CI, 2.3%-3.3%). Individual physician ACS evaluation rate was directly related to physician ACS diagnosis rate (r 0.76, P = 0.00012) and was inversely related to that physician missed ACS rate (r 0.45, P = 0.001). During the study, implementation of the critical pathway increased the ACS evaluation rate from 30% to 48% and decreased the ACS missed diagnosis rate from 1.5% to 0.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency physicians with lower threshold for ACS evaluation more frequently diagnose patients with ACS and less frequently miss the diagnosis of ACS. Feedback to emergency physicians of information on their patient's return visits and their own diagnostic performance may improve outcome for patients with ACS.

Impact of Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care accreditation on quality: an ACTION Registry®-Get With The Guidelines™ analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (SCPC) accredits hospital acute coronary syndrome management. The influence of accreditation on the subset of patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unknown. Our purpose was to describe the association between SCPC accreditation and hospital quality metric performance among AMI patients enrolled in ACTION Registry-GWTG (ACTION-GWTG). This program is a voluntary registry that receives self-reported hospital AMI quality metrics data and provides quarterly feedback to 487 US hospitals. METHODS: Using urban nonacademic hospital registry data from January 1, 2007, to June 30, 2010, we performed a 1 to 2 matched pairs analysis, selecting 14 of 733 (1.9%) SCPC accredited and 28 of 309 (9.1%) nonaccredited registry facilities to compare changes in quality metrics between the year before and after SCPC accreditation. RESULTS: All hospitals improved quality metric compliance during the study period. Nonaccredited hospitals started with slightly lower rates of AMI composite score 1 year before accreditation. Although improvement compared with baseline was greater for nonaccredited hospitals (odds ratio = 1.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.20, 1.35) than accredited hospitals (odds ratio = 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 1.23) (P = 0.022), the group ended with similar compliance scores (92.1% vs. 92.2%, respectively). Improvements in evaluating left ventricular function (P = 0.0001), adult smoking cessation advice (P = 0.0063), and cardiac rehab referral (P = 0.0020) were greater among nonaccredited hospitals, whereas accredited hospitals had greater improvement in discharge angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker use for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (P = 0.0238). CONCLUSIONS: All hospitals had high rates of quality metric compliance and finished with similar overall AMI performance composite scores after 1 year.

State of the art: emergency department observation units.

Hospitals and emergency departments face the challenges of escalating healthcare costs, mismatched resource utilization, concern over avoidable admissions, and hospital and emergency department overcrowding. One approach that has been used by hospitals to address these issues is the use of emergency department observation units. Research in this setting has increased in recent years, leading to a better understanding of the role of these units and their unique benefits. These benefits have been proven for health systems as a whole and for several acute conditions including chest pain, asthma, syncope, transient ischemic attack, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, abdominal pain, and more. Benefits include a decrease in diagnostic uncertainty, lower cost and resource utilization, improved patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes that are comparable to admitted patients. As more hospitals begin to use observation units, there is a need for further education and research in how to optimize the use of emergency department observation units. The purpose of this article is to provide a general overview of observation units, including advancements and research in this field.

Predictors of timely antibiotic administration for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia from the cluster-randomized EDCAP trial.

INTRODUCTION: To identify factors associated with timely initiation of antibiotic therapy for patients hospitalized with pneumonia. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty- two emergency departments (EDs) in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. SUBJECTS: Patients with a clinical and radiographic diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: From January to December 2001, EDs were randomly allocated to guideline implementation strategies of low (n = 8), moderate (n = 12), and high intensity (n = 12) to improve the initial site of treatment and the performance of evidence-based processes of care. Our primary outcome was antibiotic initiation within 4 hours of presentation, which at that time was the recommended process of care for inpatients. RESULTS: Of the 2076 inpatients enrolled, 1632 (78.6%) received antibiotic therapy within 4 hours of presentation. Antibiotic timeliness ranged from 55.6% to 100% (P < 0.001) by ED and from 77.0% to 79.7% (P = 0.2) across the 3 guideline implementation arms. In multivariable analysis, heart rate > or =125 per minute (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3), respiratory rate > or =30 per minute (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.6-3.4), and aspiration pneumonia (OR = 3.7, 95% CI 1.1-12.7) were positively associated with timely initiation of antibiotic therapy, whereas a hematocrit <30% (OR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-1.0) was negatively associated with this outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Timely initiation of antibiotic therapy is associated primarily with patient-related factors that reflect severity of illness at presentation. Although this study demonstrates an opportunity to improve performance on this quality measure in nearly one quarter of inpatients with pneumonia, we failed to identify any modifiable patient, provider, or hospital level factors to target in such quality improvement efforts.

Using patient care quality measures to assess educational outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To report the results of a project designed to develop and implement a prototype methodology for identifying candidate patient care quality measures for potential use in assessing the outcomes and effectiveness of graduate medical education in emergency medicine. METHODS: A workgroup composed of experts in emergency medicine residency education and patient care quality measurement was convened. Workgroup members performed a modified Delphi process that included iterative review of potential measures; individual expert rating of the measures on four dimensions, including measures quality of care and educational effectiveness; development of consensus on measures to be retained; external stakeholder rating of measures followed by a final workgroup review; and a post hoc stratification of measures. The workgroup completed a structured exercise to examine the linkage of patient care process and outcome measures to educational effectiveness. RESULTS: The workgroup selected 62 measures for inclusion in its final set, including 43 measures for 21 clinical conditions, eight medication measures, seven measures for procedures, and four measures for department efficiency. Twenty-six measures met the more stringent criteria applied post hoc to further stratify and prioritize measures for development. Nineteen of these measures received high ratings from 75% of the workgroup and external stakeholder raters on importance for care in the ED, measures quality of care, and measures educational effectiveness; the majority of the raters considered these indicators feasible to measure. The workgroup utilized a simple framework for exploring the relationship of residency program educational activities, competencies from the six Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education general competency domains, patient care quality measures, and external factors that could intervene to affect care quality. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous patient care quality measures have potential for use in assessing the educational effectiveness and performance of graduate medical education programs in emergency medicine. The measures identified in this report can be used as a starter set for further development, implementation, and study. Implementation of the measures, especially for high-stakes use, will require resolution of significant measurement issues.

Delay in the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: effect on quality of care and its assessment.

BACKGROUND: Delay in diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may affect quality of care and its assessment. OBJECTIVES: To examine over time the frequency of delay in AMI diagnosis and the effect of this delay on the quality of patient care and its assessment. METHODS: The authors examined the trend in coded admission diagnosis, age, comorbidities, procedures during hospitalization, and discharge status for 42,406 Connecticut Medicare cases with the principal discharge diagnosis of AMI for the time period 1992 through 2001. For 2,583 cases discharged in 1992 and 1993 and for 1,398 cases discharged in 1998 through 2001, the rates of administration of aspirin (ASA) and beta blocker (BB) on admission and discharge, by admission diagnosis, were ascertained. RESULTS: For patients discharged with the principal diagnosis of AMI over the decade examined, the proportion with this diagnosis on admission fell (59% to 40%, p < 0.001), the proportion with a non-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) admission diagnosis rose (18% to 26%, p < 0.001), and the population aged (proportion older than 85 years of age increased from 16% to 28%, p < 0.001). Patients with ACS as the admission diagnosis more frequently received cardiac catheterization (during 2000-2001, 39% versus 17%, p < 0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (19% versus 4%, p < 0.001), and evidence-based therapy; during 1998-2001, opportunities to give ASA or BB on admission were fulfilled for 88% versus 73% (p < 0.001), and on discharge, for 87% versus 74% (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of AMI is delayed after admission for a significant proportion of cases who receive care that is measured to be of lower quality. There is a need to more effectively diagnose and treat these cases with delayed diagnosis and to develop new quality measures to address changes in the characteristics of patients who are hospitalized with AMI.

A national survey of observation units in the United States.

The objective of this study was to survey the use of observation units (OUs) in the United States. A written survey was mailed to every third hospital (sequential by zip code) in the United States. There was a 32.9% response to the survey (522 of 1588 hospitals). A total of 18.8% of hospitals had an OU with another 11.6% planning to open an OU. Those hospitals that had OUs had a higher overall ED census, higher rate of diversion of ambulances, and were more likely to be in metropolitan areas (P <.05), but there was no relationship to payor mix or to ED hospital admission rate. The OUs were characterized by a mean 4.8 years in existence, 57.3% ED administratively responsible, 59.4% ED clinically responsible, a mean of 1330 patients per year, an average length of stay of 15.3 hours, a 4.2 nurse-to-patient ratio, and 22.3% hospital admission rate.