Anthony Bell

The National Emergency Access Target (NEAT) and the 4-hour rule: time to review the target.

Objective: We explored the relationship between the National Emergency Access Target (NEAT) compliance rate, defined as the proportion of patients admitted or discharged from emergency departments (EDs) within 4 hours of presentation, and the risk‐adjusted in‐hospital mortality of patients admitted to hospital acutely from EDs.

Profiling adverse respiratory events and vomiting when using propofol for emergency department procedural sedation

Objectives:  To evaluate the rate of adverse respiratory events and vomiting among ED patients undergoing procedural sedation with propofol.

What is the nature of the emergence phenomenon when using intravenous or intramuscular ketamine for paediatric procedural sedation

Objective:  Ketamine has become the drug most favoured by emergency physicians for sedation of children in the ED. Some emergency physicians do not use ketamine for paediatric procedural sedation (PPS) because of concern about emergence delirium on recovery. The present study set out to determine the true incidence and nature of this phenomenon.

Report on the 4-h rule and National Emergency Access Target (NEAT) in Australia: time to review

Objective The aim of the present study was to provide a summary of a systematic review of literature reporting benefits and limitations of implementing National Emergency Access Target (NEAT), a target stipulating that a certain proportion of patients presenting to hospital emergency departments are admitted or discharged within 4h of presentation. Methods A systematic review of published literature using specific search terms, snowballing techniques applied to retrieved references and Google searches was performed. Results are presented as a narrative synthesis given the heterogeneity of included studies. Results Benefits of a time-based target for emergency care are improved timeliness of emergency care and reduced in-hospital mortality for emergency admissions to hospital. Limitations centre on using a process measure (time) alone devoid of any monitoring of patient outcomes, the threshold nature of a time target and the fact that currently NEAT combines the measurement of clinical management of two very different patient cohorts seeking emergency care: less acute patients discharged home and more acute patients admitted to hospital. Conclusions Time-based access targets for emergency presentations are associated with significant improvements in in-hospital mortality for emergency admissions. However, other patient-important outcomes are deserving of attention, choice of targets needs to be validated by empirical evidence of patient benefit and single targets need to be partitioned into separate targets pertaining to admitted and discharged patients. What is known about the topic? Time targets for emergency care originated in the UK. The introduction of NEAT in Australia has been controversial. NEAT directs that a certain proportion of patients will be admitted or discharged from an emergency department (ED) within 4h. Recent dissolution of the Australian National Partnership Agreement (which provided hospitals with financial incentives for achieving NEAT compliance) has prompted a re-examination of the 4-h rule, the evidence underpinning its introduction and its benefits and risks to patients What does this paper add? This paper is executive summary of key findings from a systematic literature review on the benefits and limitations of NEAT (the 4-h rule) commissioned by the Queensland Clinical Senate to inform future policy and targets. What are the implications for practitioners? There is evidence that a time-based target has been associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality for emergency admissions to Australian hospitals. Concerns remain regarding a time-based target alone being used to drive redesign efforts at improving access to emergency care. A time-based target should be coupled with close monitoring of patient outcomes of emergency care. Target thresholds need to be evidence based and separate targets should be reported for admitted, discharged and all patients presenting to the ED.

Optimization of propofol dose shortens procedural sedation time, prevents resedation and removes the requirement for post-procedure physiologic monitoring.

Objective:  To examine the effect of propofol dosing (total dose and number of doses) on patient sedation time and likelihood of resedation.

Analysing the emergency department patient journey: Discovery of bottlenecks to emergency department patient flow.

Despite significant workflow reform to comply with the federally mandated National Emergency Access Target (NEAT), Australian public hospitals continue to face significant barriers in achieving good ED patient flow. This study was undertaken to identify and analyse the impact of individual waypoints on an ED patients journey and identify which waypoints act as bottlenecks to a hospitals 4 h ED disposition performance.

Review article: Emergency department models of care in the context of care quality and cost: A systematic review

To identify current ED models of care and their impact on care quality, care effectiveness, and cost. A systematic search of key health databases (Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMbase) was conducted to identify literature on ED models of care. Additionally, a focused review of the contents of 11 international and national emergency medicine, nursing and health economic journals (published between 2010 and 2013) was undertaken with snowball identification of references of the most recent and relevant papers. Articles published between 1998 and 2013 in the English language were included for initial review by three of the authors. Studies in underdeveloped countries and not addressing the objectives of the present study were excluded. Relevant details were extracted from the retrieved literature, and analysed for relevance and impact. The literature was synthesised around the studys main themes. Models described within the literature mainly focused on addressing issues at the input, throughput or output stages of ED care delivery. Models often varied to account for site specific characteristics (e.g. onsite inpatient units) or to suit staffing profiles (e.g. extended scope physiotherapist), ED geographical location (e.g. metropolitan or rural site), and patient demographic profile (e.g. paediatrics, older persons, ethnicity). Only a few studies conducted cost‐effectiveness analysis of service models. Although various models of delivering emergency healthcare exist, further research is required in order to make accurate and reliable assessments of their safety, clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness.

Two hour evaluation and referral model for shorter turnaround times in the emergency department

The objective of this study was to assess the implementation of a novel ED model of care, which combines clinical streaming, team‐based assessment and early senior consultation to reduce length of stay.

A randomized controlled trial comparing patient-controlled and physician-controlled sedation in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE We compare patient-controlled sedation (PCS) and emergency physician-controlled sedation (EPCS) with respect to propofol requirements, depth of sedation, adverse events, recovery time, physician satisfaction, and patient satisfaction in emergency department (ED) patients requiring brief but painful procedures. METHODS One hundred sixty-six patients in this randomized controlled trial received propofol sedation according to one of 2 regimens: infusion of propofol at doses determined by the treating physician (EPCS group) or infusion of propofol with a patient-controlled infusion pump (PCS group). The PCS group received an initial physician-controlled bolus following by self-administered doses. Depth of sedation was assessed at 3-minute intervals. Adverse events were recorded as they occurred. Physician and patient satisfaction were recorded with 100-mm visual analog scales. RESULTS There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower total propofol doses with PCS relative to EPCS (medians 1.36 versus 1.60 mg/kg, respectively; median difference -0.15 mg/kg; 95% confidence interval of the difference -0.33 to 0.05 mg/kg; P=.14). Adverse events, requirement for treatment of adverse events, and recovery time did not differ in the 2 groups. Depth of sedation was lower in the PCS group. Procedural success, ease of procedure, and patient satisfaction were similar in both groups despite nearly twice as many patients recalling the procedure in the PCS group and 15% of patients requiring additional physician-administered doses in the PCS group. CONCLUSION Compared with EPCS, PCS demonstrated similar propofol dosing, safety, recovery, and satisfaction but resulted in lighter sedation. Propofol PCS appears safe and effective for ED procedures requiring moderate rather than deep sedation.

Review article: Methodology for the ‘rapid review’ series on musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department: Musculoskeletal rapid review series: methodology

Musculoskeletal injuries are a common presentation to the ED, with significant costs involved in the management of these injuries, variances in care within the ED and associated morbidity. A series of rapid review papers were completed to guide best practice for the assessment and management of common musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED. This paper presents the methodology used across the rapid reviews. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites, were searched in 2015. The search was repeated consistently for each topic area (injuries of the foot and ankle, knee, hand and wrist, elbow, shoulder, lumbar spine and cervical spine). English‐language primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines that were published in the last 10 years and addressed acute musculoskeletal injury management were considered for inclusion. Data extraction of each included article was conducted, followed by a quality appraisal. The extracted data from each article was synthesised to group similar evidence together. For each rapid review, the evidence has been organised in a way that a clinician can direct their attention to a specific component of the clinical cycle of care in the ED, such as the assessment, diagnostic tests, management and follow‐up considerations from ED. The series of rapid reviews are designed to foster evidence‐based practice within the ED, targeting the injuries most commonly presenting. The reviews provide clinicians in EDs with rapid access to the best current evidence, which has been synthesised and organised to assist decision‐making.