Kevin M. Terrell

Quality Indicators for Geriatric Emergency Care

OBJECTIVES Emergency departments (EDs), similar to other health care environments, are concerned with improving the quality of patient care. Older patients comprise a large, growing, and particularly vulnerable subset of ED users. The project objective was to develop ED-specific quality indicators for older patients to help practitioners identify quality gaps and focus quality improvement efforts. METHODS The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Geriatric Task Force, including members representing the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), selected three conditions where there are quality gaps in the care of older patients: cognitive assessment, pain management, and transitional care in both directions between nursing homes and EDs. For each condition, a content expert created potential quality indicators based on a systematic review of the literature, supplemented with expert opinion when necessary. The original candidate quality indicators were modified in response to evaluation by four groups: the Task Force, the SAEM Geriatric Interest Group, and audiences at the 2007 SAEM Annual Meeting and the 2008 American Geriatrics Society Annual Meeting. RESULTS The authors offer 6 quality indicators for cognitive assessment, 6 for pain management, and 11 for transitions between nursing homes and EDs. CONCLUSIONS These quality indicators will help researchers and clinicians target quality improvement efforts. The next steps will be to test the feasibility of capturing the quality indicators in existing medical records and to measure the extent to which each quality indicator is successfully met in current emergency practice.

Computerized decision support to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing to older emergency department patients: a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of computer‐assisted decision support in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing to older adults.

Computerized Decision Support for Medication Dosing in Renal Insufficiency: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE Emergency physicians prescribe several discharge medications that require dosage adjustment for patients with renal disease. The hypothesis for this research was that decision support in a computerized physician order entry system would reduce the rate of excessive medication dosing for patients with renal impairment. METHODS This was a randomized, controlled trial in an academic emergency department (ED), in which computerized physician order entry was used to write all prescriptions for patients being discharged from the ED. The sample included 42 physicians who were randomized to the intervention (21 physicians) or control (21 physicians) group. The intervention was decision support that provided dosing recommendations for targeted medications for patients aged 18 years and older when the patients estimated creatinine clearance level was below the threshold for dosage adjustment. The primary outcome was the proportion of targeted medications that were excessively dosed. RESULTS For 2,783 (46%) of the 6,015 patient visits, the decision support had sufficient information to estimate the patients creatinine clearance level. The average age of these patients was 46 years, 1,768 (64%) were women, and 1,523 (55%) were black. Decision support was provided 73 times to physicians in the intervention group, who excessively dosed 31 (43%) prescriptions. In comparison, control physicians excessively dosed a significantly larger proportion of medications: 34 of 46, 74% (effect size=31%; 95% confidence interval 14% to 49%; P=.001). CONCLUSION Emergency physicians often prescribed excessive doses of medications that require dosage adjustment for renal impairment. Computerized physician order entry with decision support significantly reduced excessive dosing of targeted medications.

Strategies to Improve Care Transitions between Nursing Homes and Emergency Departments

OBJECTIVE To identify testable solutions that may improve the quality and safety of care transitions between nursing homes (NHs) and emergency departments (EDs). DESIGN Structured focus group interviews. SETTING Group interviews took place in Indianapolis, Indiana. PARTICIPANTS NH administrators, nurses, and physicians; emergency medical services directors, paramedics, and emergency medicine technicians; ED nurses and physicians; and a representative from the Indiana State Department of Health. MEASUREMENTS Opinions, perceptions, and insights of participants. RESULTS Eighteen participants were included. The central theme was the need for additional structure to support care transitions between NHs and EDs. Participants agreed that the structure afforded by hospital-to-hospital transfers would benefit patients and providers during transitions between NHs and EDs. Because transfer forms currently vary from NH to NH, participants recommended that the entire state use the same form. They recommended that the transfer form be useful in both directions by including a section for the ED provider to complete to support the ED-to-NH transition. Participants suggested that systems use a transfer checklist to help ensure that all processes occur as expected. They strongly recommended verbal communication across care settings to complement written communication and to improve on deficiencies that occur with transfer form-only strategies. Notably, participants suggested that the different care sites engage in relationship-building efforts to improve compliance with recommendations (eg, form completion) and collaborative problem solving. CONCLUSION Participants advised additional structure to NH-ED care transitions, similar to hospital-to-hospital transfers, that includes a 2-way, statewide transfer form; a checklist; and verbal communication.

ED Patient Falls and Resulting Injuries

INTRODUCTION Patient falls are the most common adverse events reported in hospitals. There is a growing body of literature on inpatient falls but a lack of data on ED falls. We applied the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model to patients who fell during their ED stays and provided a description of the patients and their injuries. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who fell in the emergency department during a 2-year period. We collected the 8 assessment parameters for high-risk fall identification in the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model. We also collected subject characteristics, circumstances surrounding the falls, fall-related injuries, and ED disposition. RESULTS Fifty-seven falls were recorded, representing a rate of 0.288 falls per 1000 patient visits. The average age was 50 years, and a median of 48. 67% were men. Twenty-one subjects had a Hendrich II Model score of 5 of greater, which represents a sensitivity of 37.5%. Eleven subjects (19.6%) were intoxicated with alcohol. Eleven subjects (19.6%) received a potentially sedating medication prior to the fall. Thirty-six subjects (64.3%) fell in their ED rooms. Six subjects (10.7%) fell in the restroom. Three falls (5.4%) resulted in lacerations and 2 falls (3.6%) resulted in hematomas. DISCUSSION The Hendrich II Fall Risk Model may not reliably identify patients at high risk of falling in the ED setting. It may be necessary to develop an emergency department-specific fall model considering additional factors, such as intoxication and receipt of potentially sedating medications.

ED procedural sedation of elderly patients: is it safe?

OBJECTIVE Emergency physicians routinely perform emergency department procedural sedation (EDPS), and its safety is well established. We are unaware of any published reports directly evaluating the safety of EDPS in older patients (≥65 years old). Many EDPS experts consider seniors to be at higher risk. The objective was to evaluate the complication rate of EDPS in elderly adults. METHODS This was a prospective, observational study of EDPS patients at least 65 years old, as compared with patients aged 18 to 49 and 50 to 64 years. Physicians were blind to the objectives of this research. The study protocol required an ED nurse trained in data collection to be present to record vital signs and assess for any prospectively defined complications. We used American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification for systemic disease to evaluate and account for the comorbidities of patients. We used the Fisher exact test for the difference in proportions across age groups and analysis of variance for the differences in dosing across age and ASA categories. RESULTS During the 4-year study, we enrolled 50 patients at least 65 years old, 149 patients aged 50 to 64 years, and 665 patients aged 18 to 49 years. Adverse event rates were 8%, 5.4%, and 5.2%, respectively (P = .563). The at least 65 years age group represented a greater percentage of those with higher ASA scores (P < .001). The average total sedative dose in the at least 65 years group was significantly lower than the comparisons (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated no statistically significant difference in complication rate for patients 65 years or older. There was a significant decrease in mean sedation dosing with increased age and ASA score.