Azita G. Hamedani

A pilot study examining undesirable events among emergency department-boarded patients awaiting inpatient beds.

STUDY OBJECTIVE We describe the frequency of undesirable events among patients boarding at a single, urban, tertiary, teaching emergency department (ED) through retrospective chart abstraction. METHODS This was a chart review of all patients admitted during 3 randomly selected days in 2003 (n=162) to track the frequency of undesirable events such as missed relevant home medications, missed laboratory test results, arrhythmias, or other adverse events. RESULTS One hundred fifty-one charts were abstracted (93.2%); 27.8% had an undesirable event, 17.9% missed a relevant home medication, and 3.3% had a preventable adverse event. There was a higher frequency of undesirable events among older patients (35.9%, aged >50 years; 7.3%, aged 20 to 49 years; 28.6%, aged 0 to 19 years) and those with more comorbidities (44.4% among Charlson score >or=3; 30.8% score 2; 36.1% score 1; 14.5% score 0). CONCLUSION A substantial frequency of undesirable events occurs while patients board in the ED. These events are more frequent in older patients or those with more comorbidities. Future studies need to compare the rates of undesirable events among patients boarding in the ED versus inpatient units.

Effectiveness of MR angiography for the primary diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes at 3 months and 1 year.

To determine the effectiveness of MR angiography for pulmonary embolism (MRA‐PE) in symptomatic patients.

An Empirical Assessment of Boarding and Quality of Care: Delays in Care Among Chest Pain, Pneumonia, and Cellulitis Patients

BACKGROUND As hospital crowding has increased, more patients have ended up boarding in the emergency department (ED) awaiting their inpatient beds. To the best of our knowledge, no study has compared the quality of care of boarded and nonboarded patients. OBJECTIVES This study sought to examine whether being a boarded patient and boarding longer were associated with more delays, medication errors, and adverse events among ED patients admitted with chest pain, pneumonia, or cellulitis. METHODS This study was a retrospective cohort design in which data collection was accomplished via medical record review from two urban teaching hospitals. Patients admitted with chest pain, pneumonia, or cellulitis between August 2004 and January 2005 were eligible for inclusion. Our outcomes measures were: 1) delays in administration of home medications, cardiac enzyme tests, partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and antibiotics; 2) medication errors; and 3) adverse events or near misses. Primary independent variables were boarded status, boarding time, and boarded time interval. Multiple logistic regression models controlling for patient, ED, and hospital characteristics were used. RESULTS A total of 1,431 patient charts were included: 811 with chest pain, 387 with pneumonia, and 233 with cellulitis. Boarding time was associated with an increased odds of home medication delays (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.10), as were boarded time intervals of 12, 18, and 24 hours. Boarding time also was associated with lower odds of having a late cardiac enzyme test (AOR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.88 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS Boarding was associated with home medication delays, but fewer cardiac enzyme test delays. Boarding was not associated with delayed PTT checks, antibiotic administration, medication errors, or adverse events/near misses. These findings likely reflect the inherent resources of the ED and the inpatient units.

Established and Novel Initiatives to Reduce Crowding in Emergency Departments

Introduction: The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Task Force on Boarding described high-impact initiatives to decrease crowding. Furthermore, some emergency departments (EDs) have implemented a novel initiative we term “vertical patient flow,” i.e. segmenting patients who can be safely evaluated, managed, admitted or discharged without occupying a traditional ED room. We sought to determine the degree that ACEP-identified high-impact initiatives for ED crowding and vertical patient flow have been implemented in academic EDs in the United States (U.S.). Methods: We surveyed the physician leadership of all U.S. academic EDs from March to May 2010 using a 2-minute online survey. Academic ED was defined by the primary site of an emergency residency program. Results: We had a response rate of 73% (106/145) and a completion rate of 71% (103/145). The most prevalent hospital-based initiative was inpatient discharge coordination (46% [47/103] of respondents) while the least fully initiated was surgical schedule smoothing (11% [11/103]). The most prevalent ED-based initiative was fast track (79% [81/103]) while the least initiated was physician triage (12% [12/103]). Vertical patient flow had been implemented in 29% (30/103) of responding EDs while an additional 41% (42/103) reported partial/in progress implementation. Conclusion: We found great variability in the extent academic EDs have implemented ACEP’s established high-impact ED crowding initiatives, yet most (70%) have adopted to some extent the novel initiative vertical patient flow. Future studies should examine barriers to implementing these crowding initiatives and how they affect outcomes such as patient safety, ED throughput and patient/provider satisfaction.

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 measures validity and accuracy. Outcome measures were defined according to the testing protocol of the American Medical Associations 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 measures 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 measures 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.

Observation and inpatient status: Clinical impact of the 2‐midnight rule

BACKGROUND In response to growing concern over frequency and duration of observation encounters, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enacted a rules change on October 1, 2013, classifying most hospital encounters of <2 midnights as observation, and those ≥2 midnights as inpatient. However, limited data exist to predict the impact of the new rule. OBJECTIVE To answer the following: (1) Will the rule reduce observation encounter frequency? (2) Are short-stay (<2 midnights) inpatient encounters often misclassified observation encounters? (3) Do 2 midnights separate distinct clinical populations, making this rule logical? (4) Do nonclinical factors such as time of day of admission impact classification under the rule? DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS Retrospective descriptive study of all observation and inpatient encounters initiated between January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013 at a Midwestern academic medical center. MEASUREMENTS Demographics, insurance type, and characteristics of hospitalization were abstracted for each encounter. RESULTS Of 36,193 encounters, 4,769 (13.2%) were observation. Applying the new rules predicted a net loss of 14.9% inpatient stays; for Medicare only, a loss of 7.4%. Less than 2-midnight inpatient and observation stays were different, sharing only 1 of 5 top International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes, but for encounters classified as observation, 4 of 5 top ICD-9 codes were the same across the length of stay. Observation encounters starting before 8:00 am less commonly spanned 2 midnights (13.6%) than later encounters (31.2%). CONCLUSIONS The 2-midnight rule adds new challenges to observation and inpatient policy. These findings suggest a need for rules modification.

Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome in the Emergency Department: Case Series and Literature Review

Introduction Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome (PRES) often has variable presentations and causes, with common radiographic features—namely posterior white matter changes on magnetic resonance (MRI). As MRI becomes a more frequently utilized imaging modality in the Emergency Department, PRES will become an entity that the Emergency Physician must be aware of and be able to diagnose. Case Report We report three cases of PRES, all of which presented to the emergency department of a single academic medical center over a short period of time, including a 53-year-old woman with only relative hypertension, a 69-year-old woman who ultimately died, and a 46-year-old woman who had a subsequent intraparenchymal hemorrhage. Conclusion PRES is likely much more common than previously thought and is a diagnosis that should be considered in a wide variety of emergency department patient presentations.

Predicting in-hospital death among patients injured in traffic crashes in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION Traffic-related injuries are a major cause of premature death in developing countries. Saudi Arabia has struggled with high rates of traffic-related deaths for decades, yet little is known about health outcomes of motor vehicle victims seeking medical care. This study aims to develop and validate a model to predict in-hospital death among patients admitted to a large-urban trauma centre in Saudi Arabia for treatment following traffic-related crashes. METHODS The analysis used data from King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. During the study period 2001-2010, 5325 patients met the inclusion criteria of being injured in traffic crashes and seen in the Emergency Department (ED) and/or admitted to the hospital. Backward stepwise logistic regression, with in-hospital death as the outcome, was performed. Variables with p<0.05 were included in the final model. The Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) was employed to identify the most parsimonious model. Model discrimination was evaluated by the C-statistic and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit statistic. Bootstrapping was used to assess overestimation of model performance and obtain a corrected C-statistic. RESULTS 457 (8.5%) patients died at some time during their treatment in the ED or hospital. Older age, the Triage-Revised Trauma Scale (T-RTS), and Injury Severity Score were independent risk factors for in-hospital death: T-RTS was best modelled with linear and quadratic terms to capture a flattening of the relationship to death in the more severe range. The model showed excellent discrimination (C-statistic=0.96) and calibration (H-L statistic 4.29 [p>0.05]). Internal bootstrap validation gave similar results (C-statistic=0.96). CONCLUSIONS The proposed model can predict in-hospital death accurately. It can facilitate the triage process among injured patients, and identify unexpected deaths in order to address potential pitfalls in the care process. Conversely, by identifying high-risk patients, strategies can be developed to improve trauma care for these patients and reduce case-fatality. This is the first study to develop and validate a model to predict traffic-related mortality in a developing country. Future studies from developing countries can use this study as a reference for case fatality achievable for different risk profiles at a well-equipped trauma centre.

Incidence of actionable findings on contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography ordered for pulmonary embolism evaluation.

PURPOSE To determine the incidence of actionable findings on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) scans performed for the primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a HIPAA-compliant and IRB-approved single center, retrospective study of consecutive series of patients evaluated with contrast-enhanced MRA for PE. The final radiology report of each MRA was reviewed. All technically adequate negative exams were included in the analysis. The findings were divided into three types: those requiring further action (actionable-Type 1) those not requiring follow-up (non-actionable-Type 2) and normal exams. We compared our results with the literature regarding the use of computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in this scenario using Fishers exact test. RESULTS 580 MRA scans for PE were performed. There were 561/580 (97%) technically adequate exams. Of these, 514/580 (89%) were negative and 47/580 (8%) were positive for PE. In the PE negative group of 514 exams, Type 1 findings were identified in 85/514 (17%), 188/514 (36%) cases were Type 2 and 241/514 (47.0%) were Type 3. There was no significant difference between the incidence of Type 1 and the combination of Type 2 and Type 3 findings on MRA and the reported incidence of actionable findings derived from CTA negative exams for PE (p<0.5). CONCLUSION MRA as a first-line test for PE can identify actionable findings in those patients without PE, with an incidence similar to that reported in the literature for CTA.

The Impact of an Emergency Department Front-End Redesign on Patient-Reported Satisfaction Survey Results

Introduction For emergency department (ED) patients, delays in care are associated with decreased satisfaction. Our department focused on implementing a front-end vertical patient flow model aimed to decrease delays in care, especially care initiation. The physical space for this new model was termed the Flexible Care Area (FCA). The purpose of this study was to quantify the impact of this intervention on patient satisfaction. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of patients discharged from our academic ED over a one-year period (7/1/2013–6/30/2014). Of the 34,083 patients discharged during that period, 14,075 were sent a Press-Ganey survey and 2,358 (16.8%) returned the survey. We subsequently compared these survey responses with clinical information available through our electronic health record (EHR). Responses from the Press-Ganey surveys were dichotomized as being “Very Good” (VG, the highest rating) or “Other” (for all other ratings). Data abstracted from the EHR included demographic information (age, gender) and operational information (e.g. – emergency severity index, length of stay, whether care was delivered entirely in the FCA, utilization of labs or radiology testing, or administration of opioid pain medications). We used Fisher’s exact test to calculate statistical differences in proportions, while the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to report odds ratios. Results Of the returned surveys, 62% rated overall care for the visit as VG. However, fewer patients reported their care as VG if they were seen in FCA (53.4% versus 63.2%, p=0.027). Patients seen in FCA were less likely to have advanced imaging performed (12% versus 23.8%, p=0.001) or labs drawn (24.8% vs. 59.1%, p=0.001). Length of stay (FCA mean 159 ±103.5 minutes versus non-FCA 223 ±117 minutes) and acuity were lower for FCA patients than non-FCA patients (p=0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between patient-reported ratings of physicians or nurses when comparing patients seen in FCA vs. those not seen in FCA. Conclusion Patients seen through the FCA reported a lower overall rating of care compared to patients not seen in the FCA. This occurred despite a shorter overall length of stay for these patients, suggesting that other factors have a meaningful impact on patient satisfaction.