Resuscitation room management of patients with non-traumatic critical illness in the emergency department (OBSERvE-DUS-study).

BACKGROUND: Few studies address the care of critically ill non-traumatic patients in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess the epidemiology, management, and outcome of these patients. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we identified and analyzed data from all consecutive adult critically ill non-traumatic ED patients treated from March 2018 to February 2019. Patient characteristics, major complaint leading to admission, out-of-hospital, and in-hospital interventions and 30-day mortality were extracted from medical records of the electronic patient data management system. RESULTS: During the study period, we analyzed 40,764 patients admitted to the ED. Of these, 621 (1.5%) critically ill non-traumatic patients were admitted for life-threatening emergencies to the resuscitation room (age: 70 ± 16 years, 52% male). Leading problem on admission was disability/unconsciousness (D), shock (C), respiratory failure (B), airway obstruction (A), and environment problems (E) in 41%, 31%, 25%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. Out-of-hospital and in-hospital measures included: intravenous access (61% vs. 99%), 12-lead ECG (55% vs. 87%), invasive airway management (21% vs. 34%) invasive ventilation (21% vs. 34%), catecholamines (9% vs. 30%), arterial access (0% vs. 52%), and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (11% vs. 6%). The underlying diagnoses were mainly neurological (29%), followed by cardiological (28%), and pulmonological (20%) emergencies. The mean length of stay (LOS) in the resuscitation room and ED was 123 ± 122 and 415 ± 479 min, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 18.5%. CONCLUSION: The data describe the care of critically ill non-traumatic patients in the resuscitation room. Based on these data, algorithms for the structured care of critically ill non-traumatic patients need to be developed.

Combination of National Quality Assurance Data Collection With a Standard Operating Procedure in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Win-Win Strategy?

PURPOSE: The primary contact for German physicians with national quality assurance in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is frequently experienced as time-consuming obligatory documentation. Since the regular feedback loop stretches up to 18 months, the immediate impact on quality is perceived as rather low. Ultimately, a method leading to increase in the quality of data collection, clarification on expected clinical treatment standards, and improvement in the acceptance and feedback mechanism is needed. METHODS: We developed a form merging data collection for quality indicators with a standard operating procedure (SOP) in CAP and implemented it in the daily routine of a university's department for internal medicine. Fulfillment of quality indicators before and after the implementation of the new form was measured. RESULTS: Critical parameters such as the documentation of breathing rate and clinical parameters at discharge strongly improved after implementation of the intervention. Uncritical parameters showed slight improvement or stable results at a high level. CONCLUSION: The combination of collection of quality data with a clinical SOP and context information may improve the impact of quality measures by increasing acceptance, quality of data capture, short-loop feedback, and possibly quality of care.