Search

Introduction: A solution for emergency department (ED) congestion remains elusive. As reliance on imaging grows, computed tomography (CT) turnaround time has been identified as a major bottleneck. In this study we sought to identify factors associated with significantly delayed CT in the ED. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all CT imaging completed at an urban, tertiary care ED from May 1-July 31, 2021. During that period, 5,685 CTs were performed on 4,344 patients, with a median time from CT order to completion of 108 minutes (Quartile 1 [Q1]: 57 minutes, Quartile 3 [Q3]: 182 minutes, interquartile range [IQR]: 125 minutes). Outliers were defined as studies that took longer than 369 minutes to complete (Q3 + 1.5 × IQR). We systematically reviewed outlier charts to determine factors associated with delay and identified five factors: behaviorally non-compliant or medically unstable patients; intravenous (IV) line issues; contrast allergies; glomerular filtration rate (GFR) concerns; and delays related to imaging protocol (eg, need for IV contrast, request for oral and/or rectal contrast). We calculated confidence intervals (CI) using the modified Wald method. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with a kappa analysis. Results: We identified a total of 182 outliers (4.2% of total patients). Fifteen (8.2%) cases were excluded for CT time-stamp inconsistencies. Of the 167 outliers analyzed, 38 delays (22.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.0-29.7) were due to behaviorally non-compliant or medically unstable patients; 30 (18.0%, 95% CI 12.8-24.5) were due to IV issues; 24 (14.4%, 95% CI 9.8-20.6) were due to contrast allergies; 21 (12.6%, 95% CI 8.3-18.5) were due to GFR concerns; and 20 (12.0%, 95% CI 7.8-17.9) were related to imaging study protocols. The cause of the delay was unknown in 55 cases (32.9%, 95% CI 26.3-40.4). Conclusion: Our review identified both modifiable and non-modifiable factors associated with significantly delayed CT in the ED. Patient factors such as behavior, allergies, and medical acuity cannot be controlled. However, institutional policies regarding difficult IV access, contrast administration in low GFR settings, and study protocols may be modified, capturing up to 42.6% of outliers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare contributes 10% of greenhouse gases in the United States and generates two milion tons of waste each year. Reducing healthcare waste can reduce the environmental impact of healthcare and lower hospitals’ waste disposal costs. However, no literature to date has examined US emergency department (ED) waste management. The purpose of this study was to quantify and describe the amount of waste generated by an ED, identify deviations from waste policy, and explore areas for waste reduction. Methods: We conducted a 24-hour (weekday) ED waste audit in an urban, tertiary-care academic medical center. All waste generated in the ED during the study period was collected, manually sorted into separate categories based on its predominant material, and weighed. We tracked deviations from hospital waste policy using the hospital’s Infection Control Manual, state regulations, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act standards. Lastly, we calculated direct pollutant emissions from ED waste disposal activities using the M+Waste Care Calculator. Results: The ED generated 671.8 kilograms (kg) total waste during a 24-hour collection period. On a per-patient basis, the ED generated 1.99 kg of total waste per encounter. The majority was plastic (64.6%), with paper-derived products (18.4%) the next largest category. Only 14.9% of waste disposed of in red bags met the criteria for regulated medical waste. We identified several deviations from waste policy, including loose sharps not placed in sharps containers, as well as re-processable items and protected health information thrown in medical and solid waste. We also identified over 200 unused items. Pollutant emissions resulting per day from ED waste disposal include 3110 kg carbon dioxide equivalent and 576 grams of other criteria pollutants, heavy metals, and toxins. Conclusion: The ED generates significant amounts of waste. Current ED waste disposal practices reveal several opportunities to reduce total waste generated, increase adherence to waste policy, and reduce environmental impact. While our results will likely be similar to other urban tertiary EDs that serve as Level I trauma centers, future studies are needed to compare results across EDs with different patient volumes or waste generation rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Vaccine hesitancy has been a barrier to achieving herd immunity during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Having low socioeconomic status and education levels, and being a person of color, are associated with higher COVID-19 infection risk and worse outcomes. These same groups are associated with higher vaccine hesitancy. The state of Louisiana has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country. In this study we aimed to identify demographic, perspective, and health behavior factors associated with vaccine hesitancy in emergency departments (ED) in Southeast Louisiana. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed at three tertiary-care hospital EDs. Patients >18 years old and not in acute distress were recruited between April--July 2021. The 37-item questionnaire addressed socioeconomic demographics, social determinants of health, COVID-19 safety practices, thoughts and perceptions on COVID-19 and vaccines, sources of COVID-19 and vaccine information, and trust in the healthcare system. Results: Overall, 247 patients completed our survey. Of those, 29.6% reported they were vaccine hesitant. These respondents were significantly more likely, when compared to vaccine-acceptant respondents, to never have married, to have some college education, make less than <$25,000 in household earnings yearly, be unsure whether vaccines prevent disease, not have discussed the COVID-19 vaccine with their primary care doctor, and to prefer to do their own research for COVID-19 vaccine information.Weobserved no statistically significant differences based on gender, race/ethnicity, parental status, area of living, or their perceived risk of needing hospitalization for treatment or dying from the virus. Conclusion: Vaccine hesitancy was associated with multiple socioeconomic factors, perspectives, and beliefs. Vaccine-hesitant individuals were more uncertain about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, the feasibility of obtaining the vaccine, and its efficacy. Public health interventions aimed at these findings and improving public trust in healthcare systems are needed to increase vaccine acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Most emergency departments (ED) use patient experience surveys (i.e., Press Ganey) that include specific physician assessment fields. Our ED group currently staffs two EDs – one at a large, tertiary-care hospital, and the other at a small, affiliated, community site. Both are staffed by the same physicians. The goals of this study were to determine whether Press Ganey ED satisfaction scores for emergency physicians working at two different sites were consistent between sites, and to identify factors contributing to any variation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients seen at either ED between September 2015 and March 2016 who returned a Press Ganey satisfaction survey. We compiled a database linking the patient visit with his or her responses on a 1-5 scale to questions that included “overall rating of emergency room care” and five physician-specific questions. Operational metrics including time to room, time to physician, overall length of stay, labs received, prescriptions received, demographic data, and the attending physician were also linked. We averaged scores for physicians staffing both EDs and compared them between sites using t-tests. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine the impact of visit-specific metrics on survey scores. Results: A total of 1,012 ED patients met the inclusion criteria (site 1=457; site 2=555). The overall rating-of-care metric was significantly lower at the tertiary-care hospital ED compared to our lower volume ED (4.30 vs 4.65). The same trend was observed when the five doctor-specific metrics were summed (22.06 vs 23.32). Factors that correlated with higher scores included arrival-to-firstattending time (p=0.013) and arrival-to-ED-departure time (p=0.038), both of which were longer at the tertiary-care hospital ED. Conclusion: Press Ganey satisfaction scores for the same group of emergency physicians varied significantly between sites. This suggests that these scores are more dependent on site-specific factors, such as wait times, than a true representation of the quality of care provided by the physician. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]