Search

Objectives: Pediatric emergency department (PED) patients often present with non-urgent complaints. We attempted to estimate the perceived degree of urgency of the visit and to identify reasons for seeking non-urgent care in the PED by patients and parents. Methods: A prospective survey was completed by parents (for children 17 and younger) and patients (18-21) presenting to a suburban academic PED that sees approximately 15,000 patients per year. A convenience sample of participants was enrolled. Results: Three hundred and five of 334 surveys were completed (91% response rate) over a 3-month period. Twenty-four percent of the chief complaints were perceived by those surveyed as emergent or possibly life-threatening, 23% were felt to be very urgent, and 52% were deemed somewhat urgent or minor. Twenty-five percent of those with minor or somewhat urgent complaints arrived by ambulance. Weekend visits and minority race correlated with a lower degree of perceived urgency. Overall, 79% of those surveyed identified a primary care provider (PCP) for themselves or their child. Of those, 54% had attempted to contact the PCP prior to coming to the PED. Six percent of those who attempted to reach their primary care providers were able to contact them and 52% were told to come to the PED. Conclusions: More than half of patients and parents presenting to the PED believed they had minor or somewhat urgent complaints. While the majority of patients have a regular provider, limited access to timely primary care and convenience may make the PED a more attractive care option than primary care for many parents and patients.

For a variety of reasons including cheap computing, widespread adoption of electronic medical records, digitalization of imaging and biosignals, and rapid development of novel technologies, the amount of health care data being collected, recorded, and stored is increasing at an exponential rate. Yet despite these advances, methods for the valid, efficient, and ethical utilization of these data remain underdeveloped. Emergency care research, in particular, poses several unique challenges in this rapidly evolving field. A group of content experts was recently convened to identify research priorities related to barriers to the application of data science to emergency care research. These recommendations included: 1) developing methods for cross-platform identification and linkage of patients; 2) creating central, deidentified, open-access databases; 3) improving methodologies for visualization and analysis of intensively sampled data; 4) developing methods to identify and standardize electronic medical record data quality; 5) improving and utilizing natural language processing; 6) developing and utilizing syndrome or complaint-based based taxonomies of disease; 7) developing practical and ethical framework to leverage electronic systems for controlled trials; 8) exploring technologies to help enable clinical trials in the emergency setting; and 9) training emergency care clinicians in data science and data scientists in emergency care medicine. The background, rationale, and conclusions of these recommendations are included in the present article.

Introduction: We assess trends in opioid administration and prescribing from 2005-2015 in older adults in U.S. emergency departments (ED).Methods: We analyzed data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) survey from 2005 to 2015. ED visits for painful conditions were selected and stratified by age (18-64, 65-74, 75-84, ≥ 85 years). We analyzed trends in opioid administration in the ED and prescribing at discharge to encounters ≥ 65 and assessed predictors of use using survey-weighted chi-square tests and logistic regression. Trends in the use of five commonly prescribed opioids were also explored.Results: Opioid administration in the ED and prescribing at discharge for encounters with patients ≥ 65 years fell overall, but not significantly.  By contrast, opioid administration in the ED and prescribing at discharge significantly declined for adult encounters 18-64 by 20% and 32%, respectively. A similar proportion of adult encounters ≥ 65 were administered opioids in the ED as 18-64, but adult encounters ≥ 85 had the lowest rates of administration. A smaller proportion of adult encounters ≥ 65 years with painful conditions were prescribed opioids at discharge compared to

The opioid epidemic is the most significant modern-day, public health crisis. Physicians and lawmakers have developed methods and practices to curb opioid use. This article describes one method, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP), through the lens of how to optimize use for emergency departments (ED). EDs have rapidly become a central location to combat opioid abuse and drug diversion. PDMPs can provide emergency physicians with comprehensive prescribing information to improve clinical decisions around opioids. However, PDMPs vary tremendously in their accessibility and usability in the ED, which limits their effectiveness at the point of care. Problems are complicated by varying state-to-state requirements for data availability and accessibility. Several potential solutions to improving the utility of PDMPs in EDs include integrating PDMPs with electronic health records, implementing unsolicited reporting and prescription context, improving PDMP accessibility, data analytics, and expanding the scope of PDMPs. These improvements may help improve clinical decision-making for emergency physicians through better data, data presentation, and accessibility.

Introduction: Prolonged waiting times during episodes of emergency department (ED) crowding are associated with poor outcomes. Point-of-care testing (POCT) at ED triage prior to physician evaluation may help identify critically ill patients. We studied the impact of ED POCT in a single ED with a high degree of crowding for patients with high-risk complaints who were triaged as non-critically ill.  Methods: We conducted the study from April–July 2017 at King Abdulaziz University (KAU) Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Patients with one of seven complaints received triage POCT. The primary outcome was whether POCT results at triage resulted in immediate transfer of the patient from the waiting room into the ED. Secondary outcomes were whether the triage nurse felt that the POCT results were useful, and whether triage POCT changed triage acuity. We used simple descriptive statistics to summarize the data.  Results: A total of 94 patients were enrolled and received i-STAT® POCT. The most common symptoms and triage protocols were for chest pain (42%), abdominal pain (31%), and shortness of breath (22%). In 11 cases (12%), care was changed as a result of triage POCT. In 12 cases (13%), triage level was changed. The triage nurse found POCT helpful in 93% of cases. Conclusion: In this ED, triage POCT was a helpful adjunct at ED triage and resulted in immediate care (transfer to an ED room) in one in eight cases. Therefore, POCT at triage may be a useful adjunct to improve patient safety, particularly in crowded EDs.

Introduction: Older, chronically ill patients with limited health literacy are often under-engagedin managing their health and turn to the emergency department (ED) for healthcare needs. Wetested the impact of an ED-initiated coaching intervention on patient engagement and follow-updoctor visits in this high-risk population. We also explored patients’ care-seeking decisions.Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study including a randomized controlled trial andin-depth interviews in two EDs in northern Florida. Participants were chronically ill older EDpatients with limited health literacy and Medicare as a payer source. Patients were assignedto an evidence-based coaching intervention (n= 35) or usual post-ED care (n= 34). Qualitativeinterviews (n=9) explored patients’ reasons for ED use. We assessed average between-groupdifferences in patient engagement over time with the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) tool,using logistic regression and a difference-in-difference approach. Between-group differences infollow-up doctor visits were determined. We analyzed qualitative data using open coding andthematic analysis.Results: PAM scores fell in both groups after the ED visit but fell signi ficantly more in “usualcare” (average decline -4.64) than “intervention” participants (average decline -2.77) (β=1.87,p=0.043). There were no between-group differences in doctor visits. Patients described wellinformedreasons for ED visits including onset and severity of symptoms, lack of timely provideraccess, and immediate and comprehensive ED care.Conclusion: The coaching intervention significantly reduced declines in pati ent engagementobserved after usual post-ED care. Patients reported well-informed reasons for ED use andwill likely continue to make ED visits unless strategies, such as ED-initiated coaching, areimplemented to help vulnerable patients better manage their health and healthcare.

Despite its relatively common occurrence and life-threatening potential, the management of angioedema in the emergency department (ED) is lacking in terms of a structured approach. It is paramount to distinguish the different etiologies of angioedema from one another and more specifically differentiate histaminergic-mediated angioedema from bradykinin-mediated angioedema, especially in lieu of the more novel treatments that have recently become available for bradykinin-mediated angioedema. With this background in mind, this consensus parameter for the evaluation and management of angioedema attempts to provide a working framework for emergency physicians (EPs) in approaching the patient with angioedema in terms of diagnosis and management in the ED. This consensus parameter was developed from a collaborative effort among a group of EPs and leading allergists with expertise in angioedema. After rigorous debate, review of the literature, and expert opinion, the following consensus guideline document was created. The document has been endorsed by the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM).

As the United States seeks to improve the value of health care, there is an urgent need to develop quality measurement for emergency departments (EDs). EDs provide 130 million patient visits per year and are involved in half of all hospital admissions. Efforts to measure ED quality are in their infancy, focusing on a small set of conditions and timeliness measures, such as waiting times and length-of-stay. We review the history of ED quality measurement, identify policy levers for implementing performance measures, and propose a measurement agenda. Initial priorities include measures of effective care for serious conditions that are commonly seen in EDs, such as trauma; measures of efficient use of resources, such as high-cost imaging and hospital admission; and measures of diagnostic accuracy. More research is needed to support the development of measures of care coordination and regionalization and the episode cost of ED care. Policy makers can advance quality improvement in ED care by asking ED researchers and organizations to accelerate the development of quality measures of ED care and incorporating the measures into programs that publicly report on quality of care and incentive-based payment systems.

Introduction: In emergency department (ED) patients with upper abdominal pain, management includes ruling out serious diseases and providing symptomatic relief. One of the major causes of upper abdominal pain is an ulcer caused by Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), which can be treated and cured with antibiotics. We sought to estimate the prevalence of H. pylori infection in symptomatic patients using a convenience sample at a single urban academic ED and demonstrate the feasibility of ED-based testing. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with a chief complaint of pain or discomfort in the upper abdomen for 1 year from February 2011 until February 2012 at a single academic urban ED. Enrolled subjects were tested for H. pylori using a rapid point of care 13C Urea Breath Test (UBT) [Exalenz Bioscience]. We compared patient characteristics between those who tested positive versus negative for the disease.Results: A total of 205 patients with upper abdominal pain were tested over 12 months, and 24% (95% confidence interval: 19% to 30%) tested positive for H. pylori.  Black subjects were more likely to test positive than white subjects (28% v. 6%, P < 0.001). Other factors, such as age and sex, were not different between the 2 groups.Conclusion: In our ED, H. pylori infection was present in 1 in 4 patients with epigastric pain, and testing with a UBT was feasible. Further study is needed to determine the risk factors associated with infection, the prevalence of H. pylori in other EDs, the effect of the test on ED length of stay and the cost-effectiveness of an ED-based test-and-treat strategy. [West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(3):278–282.]

Introduction: The state of emergency department (ED) crowding in Pennsylvania has not previously been reported.Methods: We assessed perceptions of ED crowding by surveying medical directors/chairs from Pennsylvania EDs in the spring of 2008.Results: A total of 106 completed the questionnaire (68% response rate). A total of 83% (86/104) agreed that ED crowding was a problem; 26% (27/105) reported that at least half of admitted patients boarded for more than 4 hours. Ninety-eight percent (102/104) agreed that patient satisfaction suffers during crowding and 79% (84/106) stated that quality suffers. Sixty-five percent (68/105) reported that crowding had worsened during the past 2 years. Several hospital interventions were used to alleviate crowding: expediting discharges, 81% (86/106); prioritizing ED patients for inpatient beds, 79% (84/ 106); and ambulance diversion, 55% (57/105). Almost all respondents who had improved ED operations reported that it had reduced crowding.Conclusion: ED crowding is a common problem in Pennsylvania and is worsening in the majority of hospitals, despite the implementation of a variety of interventions. [West J EmergMed. 2013;14(1):1–10.]

Introduction: Optimal solutions for reducing diversion without worsening emergency department (ED) crowding are unclear. We performed a systematic review of published simulation studies to identify: 1) the tradeoff between ambulance diversion and ED wait times; 2) the predicted impact of patient flow interventions on reducing diversion; and 3) the optimal regional strategy for reducing diversion.Methods: Data Sources: Systematic review of articles using MEDLINE, Inspec, Scopus. Additional studies identified through bibliography review, Google Scholar, and scientific conference proceedings. Study Selection: Only simulations modeling ambulance diversion as a result of ED crowding or inpatient capacity problems were included. Data extraction: Independent extraction by two authors using predefined data fields.Results: We identified 5,116 potentially relevant records; 10 studies met inclusion criteria. In models that quantified the relationship between ED throughput times and diversion, diversion was found to only minimally improve ED waiting room times. Adding holding units for inpatient boarders and ED-based fast tracks, improving lab turnaround times, and smoothing elective surgery caseloads were found to reduce diversion considerably. While two models found a cooperative agreement between hospitals is necessary to prevent defensive diversion behavior by a hospital when a nearby hospital goes on diversion, one model found there may be more optimal solutions for reducing region wide wait times than a regional ban on diversion.Conclusion: Smoothing elective surgery caseloads, adding ED fast tracks as well as holding units for inpatient boarders, improving ED lab turnaround times, and implementing regional cooperative agreements among hospitals. [West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(5):489-498.]

Background: Within the next 30 years, the number of visits older adults will make to emergency departments (EDs) is expected to double from 16 million, or 14% of all visits, to 34 million and comprise nearly a quarter of all visits.Objective: The objectives of this study were to determine prevalence rates of cognitive impairment among older adults in the ED and to identify associations, if any, between environmental factors unique to the ED and rates of cognitive impairment.Methods: A cross-sectional observational study of adults 65 and older admitted to the ED of a large, urban, tertiary academic health center was conducted between September 2007 and May 2008. Patients were screened for cognitive impairment in orientation, recall and executive function using the Six-Item Screen (SIS) and the CLOX1, clock drawing task. Cognitive impairment among this ED population was assessed and both patient demographics and ED characteristics (crowding, triage time, location of assessment, triage class) were compared through adjusted generalized linear models.Results: Forty-two percent (350/829) of elderly patients presented with deficits in orientation and recall as assessed by the SIS. An additional 36% of elderly patients with no impairment in orientation or recall had deficits in executive function as assessed by the CLOX1. In full model adjusted analyses patients were more likely to screen deficits in orientation and recall (SIS) if they were 85 years or older (Relative Risk [RR]=1.63, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI]=1.3-2.07), black (RR=1.85, 95% CI=1.5-2.4) and male (RR=1.42, 95% CI=1.2-1.7). Only age was significantly associated with executive functioning deficits in the ED screened using the clock drawing task (CLOX1) (75-84 years: RR=1.35, 95% CI= 1.2-1.6; 85+ years: RR=1.69, 95% CI= 1.5-2.0).Conclusion: These findings have several implications for patients seen in the ED. The SIS coupled with a clock drawing task (CLOX1) provide a rapid and simple method for assessing and documenting cognition when lengthier assessment tools are not feasible and add to the literature on the use of these tools in the ED. Further research on provider use of these tools and potential implication for quality improvement is needed. [West J Emerg Med. 2011; 12(1):56-62.]