Arjun K. Venkatesh

The Growing Role of Emergency Departments in Hospital Admissions

Growing use of U.S. emergency departments, cited as a key contributor to rising health care costs, has become a leading target of health care reform. Since 1993, emergency departments have played an increasing role in hospital admissions for almost all conditions.

Emergency department observation units: A clinical and financial benefit for hospitals.

Introduction: There are nearly 120 million visits to emergency departments each year, one for every three people in the United States. Fifty percent of all hospital admissions come from this group, a marked change from the mid-1990s when the emergency department was a source of only a third of admissions. As the population increases and ages, the growth rate for emergency department visits and the resulting admissions will exceed historical trends creating a surge in demand for inpatient beds. Background: Current health care reform efforts are highlighting deficiencies in access, cost, and quality of care in the United States. The need for more inpatient capacity brings attention to short-stay admissions and whether they are necessary. Emergency department observation units provide a suitable alternate venue for many such patients at lower cost without adversely affecting access or quality. Methods: This article serves as a literature synthesis in support of observation units, with special emphasis on the clinical and financial aspects of their use. The observation medicine literature was reviewed using PubMed, and selected sources were used to summarize the current state of practice. In addition, the authors introduce a novel conceptual framework around measures of observation unit efficiency. Findings and Practice Implications: Observation units provide high-quality and efficient care to patients with common complaints seen in the emergency department. More frequent use of observation can increase patient safety and satisfaction while decreasing unnecessary inpatient admissions and improving fiscal performance for both emergency departments and the hospitals in which they operate. For institutions with the volume to justify the fixed costs of operating an observation unit, the dominant strategy for all stakeholders is to create one.

Use of observation care in US emergency departments, 2001 to 2008.

Background Observation care is a core component of emergency care delivery, yet, the prevalence of emergency department (ED) observation units (OUs) and use of observation care after ED visits is unknown. Our objective was to describe the 1) prevalence of OUs in United States (US) hospitals, 2) clinical conditions most frequently evaluated with observation, and 3) patient and hospital characteristics associated with use of observation. Methods Retrospective analysis of the proportion of hospitals with dedicated OUs and patient disposition after ED visit (discharge, inpatient admission or observation evaluation) using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2001 to 2008. NHAMCS is an annual, national probability sample of ED visits to US hospitals conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Logistic regression was used to assess hospital-level predictors of OU presence and polytomous logistic regression was used for patient-level predictors of visit disposition, each adjusted for multi-level sampling data. OU analysis was limited to 2007–2008. Results In 2007–2008, 34.1% of all EDs had a dedicated OU, of which 56.1% were under ED administrative control (EDOU). Between 2001 and 2008, ED visits resulting in a disposition to observation increased from 642,000 (0.60% of ED visits) to 2,318,000 (1.87%, p<.05). Chest pain was the most common reason for ED visit resulting in observation and the most common observation discharge diagnosis (19.1% and 17.1% of observation evaluations, respectively). In hospital-level adjusted analysis, hospital ownership status (non-profit or government), non-teaching status, and longer ED length of visit (>3.6 h) were predictive of OU presence. After patient-level adjustment, EDOU presence was associated with increased disposition to observation (OR 2.19). Conclusions One-third of US hospitals have dedicated OUs and observation care is increasingly used for a range of clinical conditions. Further research is warranted to understand the quality, cost and efficiency of observation care.

The relationship between inpatient discharge timing and emergency department boarding

BACKGROUND Patient crowding and boarding in Emergency Departments (EDs) impair the quality of care as well as patient safety and satisfaction. Improved timing of inpatient discharges could positively affect ED boarding, and this hypothesis can be tested with computer modeling. STUDY OBJECTIVE Modeling enables analysis of the impact of inpatient discharge timing on ED boarding. Three policies were tested: a sensitivity analysis on shifting the timing of current discharge practices earlier; discharging 75% of inpatients by 12:00 noon; and discharging all inpatients between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. METHODS A cross-sectional computer modeling analysis was conducted of inpatient admissions and discharges on weekdays in September 2007. A model of patient flow streams into and out of inpatient beds with an output of ED admitted patient boarding hours was created to analyze the three policies. RESULTS A mean of 38.8 ED patients, 22.7 surgical patients, and 19.5 intensive care unit transfers were admitted to inpatient beds, and 81.1 inpatients were discharged daily on September 2007 weekdays: 70.5%, 85.6%, 82.8%, and 88.0%, respectively, occurred between noon and midnight. In the model base case, total daily admitted patient boarding hours were 77.0 per day; the sensitivity analysis showed that shifting the peak inpatient discharge time 4h earlier eliminated ED boarding, and discharging 75% of inpatients by noon and discharging all inpatients between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. both decreased boarding hours to 3.0. CONCLUSION Timing of inpatient discharges had an impact on the need to board admitted patients. This model demonstrates the potential to reduce or eliminate ED boarding by improving inpatient discharge timing in anticipation of the daily surge in ED demand for inpatient beds.

Hospital Variation in the Use of Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging and Its Association With Downstream Testing, Interventions, and Outcomes

IMPORTANCE Current guidelines allow substantial discretion in use of noninvasive cardiac imaging for patients without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who are being evaluated for ischemia. Imaging use may affect downstream testing and outcomes. OBJECTIVE To characterize hospital variation in use of noninvasive cardiac imaging and the association of imaging use with downstream testing, interventions, and outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional study of hospitals using 2010 administrative data from Premier, Inc, including patients with suspected ischemia on initial evaluation who were seen in the emergency department, observation unit, or inpatient ward; received at least 1 cardiac biomarker test on day 0 or 1; and had a principal discharge diagnosis for a common cause of chest discomfort, a sign or symptom of cardiac ischemia, and/or a comorbidity associated with coronary disease. We excluded patients with AMI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES At each hospital, the proportion of patients who received noninvasive imaging to identify cardiac ischemia and the subsequent rates of admission, coronary angiography, and revascularization procedures. RESULTS We identified 549,078 patients at 224 hospitals. The median (interquartile range) hospital noninvasive imaging rate was 19.8% (10.9%-27.7%); range, 0.2% to 55.7%. Median hospital imaging rates by quartile were Q1, 6.0%; Q2, 15.9%; Q3, 23.5%; Q4, 34.8%. Compared with Q1, Q4 hospitals had higher rates of admission (Q1, 32.1% vs Q4, 40.0%), downstream coronary angiogram (Q1, 1.2% vs Q4, 4.9%), and revascularization procedures (Q1, 0.5% vs Q4, 1.9%). Hospitals in Q4 had a lower yield of revascularization for noninvasive imaging (Q1, 7.6% vs Q4, 5.4%) and for angiograms (Q1, 41.2% vs Q4, 38.8%). P <.001 for all comparisons. Readmission rates to the same hospital for AMI within 2 months were not different by quartiles (P = .51). Approximately 23% of variation in imaging use was attributable to the behavior of individual hospitals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hospitals vary in their use of noninvasive cardiac imaging in patients with suspected ischemia who do not have AMI. Hospitals with higher imaging rates did not have substantially different rates of therapeutic interventions or lower readmission rates for AMI but were more likely to admit patients and perform angiography.

Evaluation of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department and Consistency With a National Quality Measure: Quantifying the opportunity for improvement

BACKGROUND The National Quality Forum (NQF) has endorsed a performance measure designed to increase imaging efficiency for the evaluation of pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED). To our knowledge, no published data have examined the effect of patient-level predictors on performance. METHODS To quantify the prevalence of avoidable imaging in ED patients with suspected PE, we performed a prospective, multicenter observational study of ED patients evaluated for PE from 2004 through 2007 at 11 US EDs. Adult patients tested for PE were enrolled, with data collected in a standardized instrument. The primary outcome was the proportion of imaging that was potentially avoidable according to the NQF measure. Avoidable imaging was defined as imaging in a patient with low pretest probability for PE, who either did not have a D-dimer test ordered or who had a negative D-dimer test result. We performed subanalyses testing alternative pretest probability cutoffs and imaging definitions on measure performance as well as a secondary analysis to identify factors associated with inappropriate imaging. χ(2) Test was used for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and multivariable logistic regression for the secondary analysis. RESULTS We enrolled 5940 patients, of whom 4113 (69%) had low pretest probability of PE. Imaging was performed in 2238 low-risk patients (38%), of whom 811 had no D-dimer testing, and 394 had negative D-dimer test results. Imaging was avoidable, according to the NQF measure, in 1205 patients (32%; 95% CI, 31%-34%). Avoidable imaging owing to not ordering a D-dimer test was associated with age (odds ratio [OR], 1.15 per decade; 95% CI, 1.10-1.21). Avoidable imaging owing to imaging after a negative D-dimer test result was associated with inactive malignant disease (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.11-2.49). CONCLUSIONS One-third of imaging performed for suspected PE may be categorized as avoidable. Improving adherence to established diagnostic protocols is likely to result in significantly fewer patients receiving unnecessary irradiation and substantial savings.

Association between payments from manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians and regional prescribing: cross sectional ecological study.

Objective To examine the association between payments made by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians and prescribing by physicians within hospital referral regions. Design Cross sectional analysis of 2013 and 2014 Open Payments and Medicare Part D prescribing data for two classes of commonly prescribed, commonly marketed drugs: oral anticoagulants and non-insulin diabetes drugs, overall and stratified by physician and payment type. Setting 306 hospital referral regions, United States. Participants 45 949 454 Medicare Part D prescriptions written by 623 886 physicians to 10 513 173 patients for two drug classes: oral anticoagulants and non-insulin diabetes drugs. Main outcome measures Proportion, or market share, of marketed oral anticoagulants and non-insulin diabetes drugs prescribed by physicians among all drugs in each class and within hospital referral regions. Results Among 306 hospital referral regions, there were 977 407 payments to physicians totaling

Prediction of In-hospital Mortality in Emergency Department Patients With Sepsis: A Local Big Data-Driven, Machine Learning Approach.

61 026 140 (£46 174 600; €54 632 500) related to oral anticoagulants, and 1 787 884 payments totaling

Variation in US hospital emergency department admission rates by clinical condition.

108 417 616 related to non-insulin diabetes drugs. The median market share of the hospital referral regions was 21.6% for marketed oral anticoagulants and 12.6% for marketed non-insulin diabetes drugs. Among hospital referral regions, one additional payment (median value

Predictors of Hand Hygiene in the Emergency Department

13, interquartile range,