Martin A. Reznek

Door-to-Imaging Time for Acute Stroke Patients Is Adversely Affected by Emergency Department Crowding.

Background and Purpose— National guidelines call for door-to-imaging time (DIT) within 25 minutes for suspected acute stroke patients. Studies examining factors that affect DIT have focused primarily on stroke-specific care processes and patient-specific factors. We hypothesized that emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with longer DIT. Methods— We conducted a retrospective investigation of 1 year of consecutive patients in our prospective Code Stroke registry, which included all ED stroke team activations. The registry and electronic health records were abstracted for 27 potential predictors of DIT, including patient, stroke care process, and ED operational factors. We fit a multivariate logistic regression model and calculated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Second, we constructed a random forest recursive partitioning model to cross-validate our findings and explore the proportional importance of each category of predictor. Our primary outcome was the binary variable of DIT within the 25-minute goal. Results— A total of 463 patients met inclusion criteria. In the regression model, ED occupancy rate emerged as a predictor of DIT, with odds ratio of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.91) of DIT within 25 minutes per 10% absolute increase in ED occupancy rate. The secondary analysis estimated that ED operational factors accounted for nearly 14% of the algorithm’s prediction of DIT. Conclusions— ED crowding is associated with reduced odds of meeting DIT goals for acute stroke. In addition to improving stroke-specific processes of care, efforts to reduce ED overcrowding should be considered central to optimizing the timeliness of acute stroke care.

Contributions of Academic Emergency Medicine Programs to U.S. Health Care: Summary of the AAAEM-AACEM Benchmarking Data

OBJECTIVES The societal contribution of emergency care in the United States has been described. The role and impact of academic emergency departments (EDs) has been less clear. Our report summarizes the results of a benchmarking effort specifically focused on academic emergency medicine (EM) practices. METHODS From October through December 2016, the Academy of Academic Administrators of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM) and the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) jointly administered a benchmarking survey to allopathic, academic departments and divisions of emergency medicine. Participation was voluntary and nonanonymous. The survey queried various aspects of the three components of the tripartite academic mission: clinical care, education and research, and faculty effort and compensation. Responses reflected a calendar year from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. RESULTS Of 107 eligible U.S. allopathic, academic departments and divisions of emergency medicine, 79 (74%) responded to the survey overall, although individual questions were not always answered by all responding programs. The 79 responding programs reported 6,876,189 patient visits at 97 primary and affiliated academic clinical sites. A number of clinical operations metrics related to the care of these patients at these sites are reported in this study. All responding programs had active educational programs for EM residents, with a median of 37 residents per program. Nearly half of the overall respondents reported responsibility for teaching medical students in mandatory EM clerkships. Fifty-two programs reported research and publication activity, with a total of

Code Help: Can This Unique State Regulatory Intervention Improve Emergency Department Crowding

129,494,676 of grant funding and 3,059 publications. Median faculty effort distribution was clinical effort, 66.9%; education effort, 12.7%; administrative effort, 12.0%; and research effort, 6.9%. Median faculty salary was

Mortality Associated With Emergency Department Boarding Exposure: Are There Differences Between Patients Admitted to ICU and Non-ICU Settings

277,045. CONCLUSIONS Academic EM programs are characterized by significant productivity in clinical operations, education, and research. The survey results reported in this investigation provide appropriate benchmarking for academic EM programs because they allow for comparison of academic programs to each other, rather than nonacademic programs that do not necessarily share the additional missions of research and education and may have dissimilar working environments.

System-Level Process Change Improves Communication and Follow-Up for Emergency Department Patients With Incidental Radiology Findings

Introduction Emergency department (ED) crowding adversely affects multiple facets of high-quality care. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts mandates specific, hospital action plans to reduce ED boarding via a mechanism termed “Code Help.” Because implementation appears inconsistent even when hospital conditions should have triggered its activation, we hypothesized that compliance with the Code Help policy would be associated with reduction in ED boarding time and total ED length of stay (LOS) for admitted patients, compared to patients seen when the Code Help policy was not followed. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of data collected from electronic, patient-care, timestamp events and from a prospective Code Help registry for consecutive adult patients admitted from the ED at a single academic center during a 15-month period. For each patient, we determined whether the concurrent hospital status complied with the Code Help policy or violated it at the time of admission decision. We then compared ED boarding time and overall ED LOS for patients cared for during periods of Code Help policy compliance and during periods of Code Help policy violation, both with reference to patients cared for during normal operations. Results Of 89,587 adult patients who presented to the ED during the study period, 24,017 (26.8%) were admitted to an acute care or critical care bed. Boarding time ranged from zero to 67 hours 30 minutes (median 4 hours 31 minutes). Total ED LOS for admitted patients ranged from 11 minutes to 85 hours 25 minutes (median nine hours). Patients admitted during periods of Code Help policy violation experienced significantly longer boarding times (median 20 minutes longer) and total ED LOS (median 46 minutes longer), compared to patients admitted under normal operations. However, patients admitted during Code Help policy compliance did not experience a significant increase in either metric, compared to normal operations. Conclusion In this single-center experience, implementation of the Massachusetts Code Help regulation was associated with reduced ED boarding time and ED LOS when the policy was consistently followed, but there were adverse effects on both metrics during violations of the policy.

Association of hospital contact precaution policies with emergency department admission time

Background: Emergency Department (ED) boarding threatens patient safety. It is unclear whether boarding differentially affects patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) versus non-ICU settings. Research Design and Subjects: We performed a 2-hospital, 18-month, cross-sectional, observational, descriptive study of adult patients admitted from the ED. We used Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox Proportional Hazards regression to describe differences in boarding time among patients who died during hospitalization versus those who survived, controlling for covariates that could affect mortality risk or boarding exposure, and separately evaluating patients admitted to ICUs versus non-ICU settings. Measures: We extracted age, race, sex, time variables, admission unit, hospital disposition, and Elixhauser comorbidity measures and calculated boarding time for each admitted patient. Results: Among 39,781 admissions from the EDs (21.3% to ICUs), non-ICU patients who died in-hospital had a 1.2-fold risk (95% confidence interval, 1.03–1.36; P=0.016) of having experienced longer boarding times than survivors, accounting for covariates. We did not observe a difference among patients admitted to ICUs. Conclusions: Among non-ICU patients, those who died during hospitalization were more likely to have had incrementally longer boarding exposure than those who survived. This difference was not observed for ICU patients. Boarding risk mitigation strategies focused on ICU patients may have accounted for this difference, but we caution against interpreting that boarding can be safe. Segmentation by patients admitted to ICU versus non-ICU settings in boarding research may be valuable in ensuring that the safety of both groups is considered in hospital flow and boarding care improvements.

Electronic control device prongs: a growing cause of bloodborne pathogen exposure?

The appropriate communication and management of incidental findings on emergency department (ED) radiology studies is an important component of patient safety. Guidelines have been issued by the ACR and other medical associations that best define incidental findings across various modalities and imaging studies. However, there are few examples of health care facilities designing ways to manage incidental findings. Our institution aimed to improve communication and follow-up of incidental radiology findings in ED patients through the collaborative development and implementation of system-level process changes including a standardized loop-closure method. We assembled a multidisciplinary team to address the nature of these incidental findings and designed new workflows and operational pathways for both radiology and ED staff to properly communicate incidental findings. Our results are based on all incidental findings received and acknowledged between November 1, 2016, and May 30, 2017. The total number of incidental findings discovered was 1,409. Our systematic compliance fluctuated between 45% and 95% initially after implementation. However, after overcoming various challenges through optimization, our system reached a compliance rate of 93% to 95%. Through the implementation of our new, standardized communication system, a high degree of compliance with loop closure for ED incidental radiology findings was achieved at our institution.

See one, do one, teach one: Advanced technology in medical education

BACKGROUND Contact precautions are a widely accepted strategy to reduce in-hospital transmission of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). However, these practices may have unintended deleterious effects on patients. AIM To evaluate the effect of a modification in hospital-wide contact precaution practices on emergency department (ED) admission times. METHODS During the study period, the hospital changed its contact precaution policy from requiring contact precautions for all patients with a history of MRSA or VRE to only those who presented with clinical conditions likely to contaminate the environment with pathogens. An interrupted time series analysis of ED admission times for adults for one year preceding and one year following this change was performed at a two-campus hospital. The main outcome was admission time, defined as time from decision to admit to arrival in an inpatient bed, for patients with MRSA or VRE compared with all other patients. The in-hospital MRSA and VRE acquisition rates were evaluated over the same period and have been published previously. FINDINGS At one campus, admission time decreased immediately by 161min for MRSA patients (P=0.008) and 135min for VRE patients (P=0.003), and both continued to decrease over the duration of the study. There was no significant change in admission time at the second campus. CONCLUSIONS Modifying contact precaution requirements for MRSA and VRE may be associated with improved ED admission time without significantly altering in-hospital MRSA and VRE acquisition.

Emergency Medicine Crisis Resource Management (EMCRM): Pilot Study of a Simulation-based Crisis Management Course for Emergency Medicine

2. Dawood FS, Iuliano AD, Reed C, Meltzer MI, Shay DK, Cheng PY, et al. Estimated global mortality associated with the first 12 months of 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus circulation: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 2012;12:687-95. 3. Thomas Y, Vogel G, Wunderli W, Suter P, Witschi M, Koch D, et al. Survival of influenza virus on banknotes. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008;74:3002-7. 4. Thomas Y, Boquete-Suter P, Koch D, Pittet D, Kaiser L. Survival of influenza virus on human fingers. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20:O58-64. 5. Bean B, Moore BM, Sterner B, Peterson LR, Gerding DN, Balfour HH. Survival of influenza viruses on environmental surfaces. J Infect Dis 1982;146:47-51. 6. Oxford J, Berezin EN, Courvalin P, Dwyer DE, Exner M, Jana LA, et al. The survival of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus on 4 household surfaces. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:423-5. 7. Grayson ML, Melvani S, Druce J, Barr IG, Ballard SA, Johnson PD, et al. Efficacy of soap and water and alcohol-based hand-rub preparations against live H1N1 influenza virus on the hands of human volunteers. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:285-91.