Frank L. Zwemer

The Effect of Emergency Department Crowding on Clinically Oriented Outcomes

BACKGROUNDnAn Institute of Medicine (IOM) report defines six domains of quality of care: safety, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. The effect of emergency department (ED) crowding on these domains of quality has not been comprehensively evaluated.nnnOBJECTIVESnThe objective was to review the medical literature addressing the effects of ED crowding on clinically oriented outcomes (COOs).nnnMETHODSnWe reviewed the English-language literature for the years 1989-2007 for case series, cohort studies, and clinical trials addressing crowdings effects on COOs. Keywords searched included ED crowding,ED overcrowding,mortality,time to treatment,patient satisfaction,quality of care, and others.nnnRESULTSnA total of 369 articles were identified, of which 41 were kept for inclusion. Study quality was modest; most articles reflected observational work performed at a single institution. There were no randomized controlled trials. ED crowding is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality, longer times to treatment for patients with pneumonia or acute pain, and a higher probability of leaving the ED against medical advice or without being seen. Crowding is not associated with delays in reperfusion for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Insufficient data were available to draw conclusions on crowdings effects on patient satisfaction and other quality endpoints.nnnCONCLUSIONSnA growing body of data suggests that ED crowding is associated both with objective clinical endpoints, such as mortality, as well as clinically important processes of care, such as time to treatment for patients with time-sensitive conditions such as pneumonia. At least two domains of quality of care, safety and timeliness, are compromised by ED crowding.

Measures of Crowding in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVESnDespite consensus regarding the conceptual foundation of crowding, and increasing research on factors and outcomes associated with crowding, there is no criterion standard measure of crowding. The objective was to conduct a systematic review of crowding measures and compare them in conceptual foundation and validity.nnnMETHODSnThis was a systematic, comprehensive review of four medical and health care citation databases to identify studies related to crowding in the emergency department (ED). Publications that describe the theory, development, implementation, evaluation, or any other aspect of a crowding measurement/definition instrument (qualitative or quantitative) were included. A measurement/definition instrument is anything that assigns a value to the phenomenon of crowding in the ED. Data collected from papers meeting inclusion criteria were: study design, objective, crowding measure, and evidence of validity. All measures were categorized into five measure types (clinician opinion, input factors, throughput factors, output factors, and multidimensional scales). All measures were then indexed to six validation criteria (clinician opinion, ambulance diversion, left without being seen (LWBS), times to care, forecasting or predictions of future crowding, and other).nnnRESULTSnThere were 2,660 papers identified by databases; 46 of these papers met inclusion criteria, were original research studies, and were abstracted by reviewers. A total of 71 unique crowding measures were identified. The least commonly used type of crowding measure was clinician opinion, and the most commonly used were numerical counts (number or percentage) of patients and process times associated with patient care. Many measures had moderate to good correlation with validation criteria.nnnCONCLUSIONSnTime intervals and patient counts are emerging as the most promising tools for measuring flow and nonflow (i.e., crowding), respectively. Standardized definitions of time intervals (flow) and numerical counts (nonflow) will assist with validation of these metrics across multiple sites and clarify which options emerge as the metrics of choice in this crowded field of measures.

Fatalities associated with therapeutic use and overdose of atypical antipsychotics

Since 1989, several novel antipsychotic drugs have become available for use including clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine and ziprasidone. These agents represent a substantial improvement in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders and are considered to have a favourable adverse effect profile relative to traditional antipsychotics. Nonetheless, in rare cases, people have died as a result of taking atypical antipsychotic drugs at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses. Toxic doses of atypical antipsychotics are highly variable: some patients have died while taking therapeutic doses and others have survived massive overdoses. Toxicity may be increased by coingestion of other agents, particularly drugs with similar metabolic pathways. Atypical antipsychotics are metabolised predominantly by cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes, particularly CYP1A2 (clozapine and olanzapine), CYP3A4 (clozapine, quetiapine and ziprasidone) and CYP2D6 (olanzapine and risperidone). Concurrent prescription of other drugs that inhibit these isoenzymes may increase the probability of adverse events in patients taking atypical antipsychotics. Deaths due to atypical antipsychotic toxicity are often related to cardiovascular complications, but pulmonary, neurological, endocrine and gastrointestinal complications have also caused fatalities. Prevention and management of atypical antipsychotic overdose are of increased clinical relevance as prescription of these drugs increases

Emergency department throughput, crowding, and financial outcomes for hospitals.

Emergency department (ED) crowding has been identified as a major public health problem in the United States by the Institute of Medicine. ED crowding not only is associated with poorer patient outcomes, but it also contributes to lost demand for ED services when patients leave without being seen and hospitals must go on ambulance diversion. However, somewhat paradoxically, ED crowding may financially benefit hospitals. This is because ED crowding allows hospitals to maximize occupancy with well-insured, elective patients while patients wait in the ED. In this article, the authors propose a more holistic model of hospital flow and revenue that contradicts this notion and offer suggestions for improvements in ED and hospital management that may not only reduce crowding and improve quality, but also increase hospital revenues. Also proposed is that increased efficiency and quality in U.S. hospitals will require changes in systematic microeconomic and macroeconomic incentives that drive the delivery of health services in the United States. Finally, the authors address several questions to propose mutually beneficial solutions to ED crowding that include the realignment of hospital incentives, changing culture to promote flow, and several ED-based strategies to improve ED efficiency.

Outcomes After Intravenous Opioids in Emergency Patients: A Prospective Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVESnPain management continues to be suboptimal in emergency departments (EDs). Several studies have documented failures in the processes of care, such as whether opioid analgesics were given. The objectives of this study were to measure the outcomes following administration of intravenous (IV) opioids and to identify clinical factors that may predict poor analgesic outcomes in these patients.nnnMETHODSnIn this prospective cohort study, emergency patients were enrolled if they were prescribed IV morphine or hydromorphone (the most commonly used IV opioids in the study hospital) as their initial analgesic. Patients were surveyed at the time of opioid administration and 1 to 2 hours after the initial opioid dosage. They scored their pain using a verbal 0-10 pain scale. The following binary analgesic variables were primarily used to identify patients with poor analgesic outcomes: 1) a pain score reduction of less than 50%, 2) a postanalgesic pain score of 7 or greater (using the 0-10 numeric rating scale), and 3) the development of opioid-related side effects. Logistic regression analyses were used to study the effects of demographic, clinical, and treatment covariates on the outcome variables.nnnRESULTSnA total of 2,414 were approached for enrollment, of whom 1,312 were ineligible (658 were identified more than 2 hours after IV opioid was administered and 341 received another analgesic before or with the IV opioid) and 369 declined to consent. A total of 691 patients with a median baseline pain score of 9 were included in the final analyses. Following treatment, 57% of the cohort failed to achieve a 50% pain score reduction, 36% had a pain score of 7 or greater, 48% wanted additional analgesics, and 23% developed opioid-related side effects. In the logistic regression analyses, the factors associated with poor analgesia (both <50% pain score reduction and postanalgesic pain score of >or=7) were the use of long-acting opioids at home, administration of additional analgesics, provider concern for drug-seeking behavior, and older age. An initial pain score of 10 was also strongly associated with a postanalgesic pain score of >or=7. African American patients who were not taking opioids at home were less likely to achieve a 50% pain score reduction than other patients, despite receiving similar initial and total equianalgesic dosages. None of the variables we assessed were significantly associated with the development of opioid-related side effects.nnnCONCLUSIONSnPoor analgesic outcomes were common in this cohort of ED patients prescribed IV opioids. Patients taking long-acting opioids, those thought to be drug-seeking, older patients, those with an initial pain score of 10, and possibly African American patients are at especially high risk of poor analgesia following IV opioid administration.

Intravenous opioid dosing and outcomes in emergency patients: a prospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVESnPain management in emergency department (ED) patients is variable and often inadequate. This study sought to (1) describe the variability in intravenous opioid dosing and (2) compare the outcomes that result from the most commonly prescribed opioid doses.nnnMETHODSnThis prospective cohort study enrolled emergency patients who were prescribed intravenous morphine or hydromorphone as their initial analgesic. Subjects were interviewed at the time of opioid administration and 1 to 2 hours after opioid administration. Outcomes included the numeric pain score change (using a 0-10 scale), the proportion achieving a 50% pain score reduction, and the proportion developing side effects. Logistic regression was used to assess the effects of demographic, clinical, and treatment variables on outcomes.nnnRESULTSnSix hundred ninety-one patients were analyzed. Initial equianalgesic dosages varied by a factor of 27 (from 1 mg morphine to 4 mg hydromorphone). Opioid dose titration occurred in only 21% of patients. Outcomes were similar across the range of opioid dosages before and after adjusting for potentially confounding variables. Among patients not taking opioids at home who received a total of 4 mg of morphine or less. 48% achieved at least a 50% pain score reduction and 60% did not want additional analgesics.nnnCONCLUSIONSnWe found marked opioid dosing variability and infrequent opioid dose titration. A substantial number of ED patients with severe pain responded well to relatively low opioid dosages. Improved ability to predict opioid dose requirements and strategies that increase the use of opioid dose titration in ED patients are needed.

Clinical operations in academic emergency medicine.

The operations of an emergency department are increasingly being recognized as vital to the provision of safe, efficient, quality care. The numerous and highly variable processes that characterize our system must be closely examined and investigated to identify those which are effective and those which are not. Original research in this field should be promoted and embraced by our society for both our patients and our profession. Effective operational processes should ultimately be seen as those which preserve and enhance the patient-physician relationship.