Search

Introduction: Voters facing illness or disability are disproportionately under-represented in terms of voter turnout. Earlier research has indicated that enfranchisement of these populations may reinforce the implementation of policies improving health outcomes and equity. Due to the confluence of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the 2020 election, we aimed to assess emergency absentee voting processes, which allow voters hospitalized after regular absentee deadlines to still obtain an absentee ballot, and election changes due to COVID-19 in all 50 states. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study collecting 34 variables pertaining to emergency voting processes and COVID-19-related election changes, including deadlines, methods of submission for applications and ballots, and specialized services for patients. Data were obtained from, in order of priority, state boards of elections websites, poll worker manuals, application forms, and state legislation. We verified all data through direct correspondence with state boards of elections. Results: Emergency absentee voting processes are in place in 39 states, with the remaining states having universal vote-by-mail (n = 5) or extended regular absentee voting deadlines (n = 6). The emergency absentee period most commonly began within 24 hours following the normal absentee application deadline, which was often seven days before an election (n = 11). Unique aspects of emergency voting processes included patients designating an “authorized agent” to deliver their applications and ballots (n = 38), electronic ballot delivery (n = 5), and in-person teams that deliver ballots directly to patients (n = 18). Documented barriers in these processes nationwide include unavailable online information (n = 11), restrictions mandating agents to be family members (n = 7), physician affidavits or signatures (n = 9), and notary or witness signature requirements (n = 15). For the November 2020 presidential election, 12 states expanded absentee eligibility to allow COVID-19 as a reason to request an absentee ballot, and 18 states mailed absentee ballot applications or absentee ballots to all registered voters. Conclusion: While 39 states operate emergency absentee voting processes for hospitalized voters, there are considerable areas for improvement and heterogeneity in guidelines for these protocols. For future election cycles, information on emergency voting and broader election reforms due to COVID-19 may be useful for emergency providers and patients alike to improve the democratic participation of voters experiencing illness.

Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) in the United States (US) have increasingly taken the central role for the expedited diagnosis and treatment of acute episodic illnesses and exacerbations of chronic diseases, allowing outpatient management to be possible for many conditions that traditionally required hospitalization and inpatient care. The goal of this analysis was to examine the changes in ED care intensity in this context through the changes in ED patient population and ED care provided.Methods: We analyzed the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2007-2016. Incorporating survey design and weight, we calculated the changes in ED patient characteristics and ED care provided between 2007 and 2016. We also calculated changes in the proportion of visits with low-severity illnesses that may be safely managed at alternative settings. Lastly, we compared ED care received and final ED dispositions by calculating adjusted relative risk (aRR) comparing ED visits in 2007 to 2016, using survey weighted multivariable logistic regression.Results: NHAMCS included 35,490 visits in 2007 and 19,467 visits in 2016, representing 117 million and 146 million ED visits, respectively. Between 2007 and 2016, there was an increase in the proportion of ED patients aged 45-64 (21.0% to 23.6%) and 65-74 (5.9% to 7.5%), while visits with low-severity illnesses decreased from 37.3% to 30.4%. There was a substantial increase in the proportion of Medicaid patients (22.2% to 34.0%) with corresponding decline in the privately insured (36.2% to 28.3%) and the uninsured (15.4% to 8.6%) patients. After adjusting for patient and visit characteristics, there was an increase in the utilization of advanced imaging (aRR 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.41), blood tests (aRR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22), urinalysis (aRR 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31), and visits where the patient received four or more medications (aRR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.88-2.46). Lastly, adjusted hospitalization rates declined (aRR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84) while adjusted discharge rates increased (aRR 1.06; 95%CI 1.03-1.08). Conclusion: From 2007 to 2016, ED care intensity appears to have increased modestly, including aging of patient population, increased illness severity, and increased resources utilization. The role of increased care intensity in the decline of ED hospitalization rate requires further study.

During the last 6 months of life, 75% of older adults with preexisting serious illness, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease, and cancer, visit the emergency department (ED). ED visits often mark an inflection point in these patients' illness trajectories, signaling a more rapid rate of decline. Although most patients are there seeking care for acute issues, many of them have priorities other than to simply live as long as possible; yet without discussion of preferences for treatment, they are at risk of receiving care not aligned with their goals. An ED visit may offer a unique "teachable moment" to empower patients to consider their ability to influence future medical care decisions. However, the constraints of the ED setting pose specific challenges, and little research exists to guide clinicians treating patients in this setting. We describe the current state of goals-of-care conversations in the ED, outline the challenges to conducting these conversations, and recommend a research agenda to better equip emergency physicians to guide shared decisionmaking for end-of-life care. Applying best practices for serious illness communication may help emergency physicians empower such patients to align their future medical care with their values and goals.

BackgroundMost seriously ill older adults visit the emergency department (ED) near the end of life, yet no feasible method exists to empower them to formulate their care goals in this setting.ObjectiveTo develop an intervention to empower seriously ill older adults to formulate their future care goals in the ED.DesignProspective intervention development study.SettingIn a single, urban, academic ED, we refined the prototype intervention with ED clinicians and patient advisors. We tested the intervention for its acceptability in English-speaking patients ≥65 years old with serious illness or patients whose treating ED clinician answered "No" to the "surprise question" ("would not be surprised if died in the next 12 months"). We excluded patients with advance directives or whose treating ED clinician determined the patient to be inappropriate.MeasurementsOur primary outcome was perceived acceptability of our intervention. Secondary outcomes included perceived main intent and stated attitude toward future care planning.ResultsWe refined the intervention with 16 mock clinical encounters of ED clinicians and patient advisors. Then, we administered the refined intervention to 23 patients and conducted semistructured interviews afterward. Mean age of patients was 76 years, 65% were women, and 43% of patients had metastatic cancer. Most participants (n = 17) positively assessed our intervention, identified questions for their doctors, and reflected on how they feel about their future care.ConclusionAn intervention to empower seriously ill older adults to understand the importance of future care planning in the ED was developed, and they found it acceptable.

Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) are an important source of care for underserved populations and represent a significant part of the social safety net. In order to explore the effect of freestanding emergency departments (FSED) on access to care for urban underserved populations, we performed a geospatial analysis comparing the proximity of FSEDs and hospital EDs to public transit lines in three United States (U.S.) metropolitan areas: Houston, Denver, and Cleveland.Methods: We used publicly available U.S. Census data, public transportation maps obtained from regional transit authorities, and geocoded FSED and hospital ED locations. Euclidean distance from each FSED and hospital ED to the nearest public transit line was calculated in ArcGIS. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) of an FSED, relative to a hospital ED, being located within 0.5 miles (mi) of a public transit line using logistic regression, adjusting for population density and median household income and with error clustered at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level.Results: The median distance from FSEDs to public transit lines was significantly greater than from hospital EDs across all three markets. In Houston, Denver, and Cleveland, the median distance between FSEDs and public transit lines was greater than from hospital EDs by 1.0 mi, 0.2 mi, and 1.6 mi, respectively. The OR of a public transit line being located within 0.5 mi of an FSED, as compared with a hospital ED, across all three MSAs was 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13–0.34) unadjusted and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.11–0.40) adjusted for population density and median household income.Conclusion: In comparison with hospital EDs, FSEDs are located farther from public transit lines and are less likely to be within walking distance of public transportation. These findings suggest that FSEDs are unlikely to directly increase access to care for patients without private means of transportation. Further research is necessary to explore both the direct and indirect impact of FSEDs on access to care, potentially through effects on hospital ED crowding and overall healthcare expenditures, as well as the ultimate role and responsibility of FSEDs in improving access to care for underserved populations.

ObjectivesTo inform the shared decision-making process between clinicians and older adults and their surrogates regarding emergency intubation.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingMulticenter, emergency department (ED)-based cohort.ParticipantsAdults aged 65 and older intubated in the ED from 2008 to 2015 from 262 hospitals across the United States (>95% of U.S. nonprofit academic medical centers).MeasurementsOur primary outcome was age-specific in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were age-specific odds of death after adjusting for race, comorbid conditions, admission diagnosis, hospital disposition, and geographic region.ResultsWe identified 41,463 ED intubation encounters and included 35,036 in the final analysis. Sixty-four percent were in non-Hispanic whites and 54% in women. Overall in-hospital mortality was 33% (95% confidence interval (CI)=34-35%). Twenty-four percent (95% CI=24-25%) of subjects were discharged to home, and 41% (95% CI=40-42%) were discharged to a location other than home. Mortality was 29% (95% CI=28-29%) for individuals aged 65 to 74, 34% (95% CI=33-35%) for those aged 75 to 79, 40% (95% CI=39-41%) for those aged 80 to 84, 43% (95% CI=41-44%) for those aged 85 to 89, and 50% (95% CI=48-51%) for those aged 90 and older.ConclusionAfter emergency intubation, 33% percent of older adults die during the index hospitalization. Only 24% of survivors are discharged to home. Simple, graphic representations of this information, in combination with an experienced clinician's overall clinical assessment, will support shared decision-making regarding unplanned intubation.

BackgroundIdentification of older adults with serious illness (life expectancy less than one year) who may benefit from serious illness conversations or other palliative care interventions in the emergency department (ED) is difficult.ObjectivesTo assess the performance of the "surprise question (SQ)" asked of emergency physicians to predict 12-month mortality.DesignWe asked attending emergency physician "Would you be surprised whether this patient died in the next 12 months?" regarding patients ≥65 years old that they had cared for that shift. We prospectively obtained death records from Massachusetts Department of Health Vital Records.SettingAn urban, university-affiliated ED.MeasurementTwelve-month mortality.ResultsWe approached 38 physicians to answer the SQ, and 86% participated. The mean age of our cohort was 76 years, 51% were male, and 45% had at least one serious illness. Out of 207 patients, the physicians stated that they "would not be surprised" if the patient died in the next 12 months for 102 of the patients (49%); 44 of the 207 patients (21%) died within 12 months. The SQ demonstrated sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 56%, positive predictive value of 32%, and negative predictive value of 90%. When combined with other predictors, the model sorted the patient who lived from the patient who died correctly 72% of the time (c-statistic = 0.72).ConclusionUse of the SQ by emergency physicians may predict 12-month mortality in older ED patients and may help emergency physicians identify older adults in need of palliative care interventions.

Introduction: Our goal was to develop and validate an index to predict in-hospital mortality in olderadults after non-traumatic emergency department (ED) intubations.Methods: We used Vizient administrative data from hospitalizations of 22,374 adults >75 years whounderwent non-traumatic ED intubation from 2008-2015 at nearly 300 U.S. hospitals to develop andvalidate an index to predict in-hospital mortality. We randomly selected one half of participants for thedevelopment cohort and one half for the validation cohort. Considering 25 potential predictors, wedeveloped a multivariable logistic regression model using least absolute shrinkage and selection operatormethod to determine factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We calculated risk scores using pointsderived from the final model’s beta coefficients. To evaluate calibration and discrimination of the finalmodel, we used Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square test and receiver-operating characteristic analysis andcompared mortality by risk groups in the development and validation cohorts.Results: Death during the index hospitalization occurred in 40% of cases. The final model included sixvariables: history of myocardial infarction, history of cerebrovascular disease, history of metastatic cancer,age, admission diagnosis of sepsis, and admission diagnosis of stroke/ intracranial hemorrhage. Thosewith low-risk scores (10) had58% risk of in-hospital mortality. The Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square of the model was 6.47 (p=0.09), andthe c-statistic was 0.62 in the validation cohort.Conclusion: The model may be useful in identifying older adults at high risk of death after ED intubation.

ObjectivesTo compare patterns of emergency department (ED) use and inpatient admission rates for elderly adults with cancer with a poor prognosis who enrolled in hospice to those of similar individuals who did not.DesignMatched case-control study.SettingNationally representative sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer with a poor prognosis who died in 2011.ParticipantsBeneficiaries in hospice matched to individuals not in hospice on time from diagnosis of cancer with a poor prognosis to death, region, age, and sex.MeasurementsComparison of ED use and inpatient admission rates before and after hospice enrollment for beneficiaries in hospice and controls.ResultsOf 272,832 matched beneficiaries, 81% visited the ED in the last 6 months of life. At baseline, daily ED use and admission rates were not significantly different between beneficiaries in and not in hospice. By the week before death, nonhospice controls averaged 69.6 ED visits/1,000 beneficiary-days, versus 7.6 for beneficiaries in hospice (rate ratio (RR) = 9.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 9.3-10.0). Inpatient admission rates in the last week of life were 63% for nonhospice controls and 42% for beneficiaries in hospice (RR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.45-1.57). Of all beneficiaries in hospice, 28% enrolled during inpatient stays originating in EDs; they accounted for 35.7% (95% CI = 35.4-36.0%) of all hospice stays of less than 1 month and 13.9% (95% CI = 13.6-14.2%) of stays longer than 1 month.ConclusionMost Medicare beneficiaries with cancer with a poor prognosis visited EDs at the end of life. Hospice enrollment was associated with lower ED use and admission rates. Many individuals enrolled in hospice during inpatient stays that followed ED visits, a phenomenon linked to shorter hospice stays. These findings must be interpreted carefully given potential unmeasured confounders in matching.

Introduction: Under regulations established by the Affordable Care Act, insurance plans must meet minimum standards in order to be sold through the federal Marketplace. These standards to become a qualified health plan (QHP) include maintaining a provider network sufficient to assure access to services. However, the complexity of emergency physician (EP) employment practices – in which the EPs frequently serve as independent contractors of emergency departments, independently establish insurance contracts, etc… – and regulations governing insurance repayment may hinder the application of network adequacy standards to emergency medicine. As such, we hypothesized the existence of QHPs without in-network access to EPs. The objective is to identify whether there are QHPs without in-network access to EPs using information available through the federal Marketplace and publicly available provider directories.Results: In a national sample of Marketplace plans, we found that one in five provider networks lacks identifiable in-network EPs. QHPs lacking EPs spanned nearly half (44%) of the 34 states using the federal Marketplace.Conclusion: Our data suggest that the present regulatory framework governing network adequacy is not generalizable to emergency care, representing a missed opportunity to protect patient access to in-network physicians. These findings and the current regulations governing insurance payment to EPs dis-incentivize the creation of adequate physician networks, incentivize the practice of balance billing, and shift the cost burden to patients.

In 2007, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) created a novel payment program to create incentives for physician’s to focus on quality of care measures and report quality performance for the first time. Initially termed “The Physician Voluntary Reporting Program,” various Congressional actions, including the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA) and Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) further strengthened and ensconced this program, eventually leading to the quality program termed today as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). As a result of passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the PQRS program has expanded to include both the “traditional PQRS” reporting program and the newer “Value Modifier” program (VM). For the first time, these programs were designed to include pay-for-performance incentives for all physicians providing care to Medicare beneficiaries and to measure the cost of care. The recent passage of the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act in March of 2015 includes changes to these payment programs that will have an even more profound impact on emergency care providers. We describe the implications of these important federal policy changes for emergency physicians.

Introduction: Diverticulitis is a common diagnosis in the emergency department (ED). Outpatient management of diverticulitis is safe in selected patients, yet the rates of admission and surgical procedures following ED visits for diverticulitis are unknown, as are the predictive patient characteristics. Our goal is to describe trends in admission and surgical procedures following ED visits for diverticulitis, and to determine which patient characteristics predict admission.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional descriptive analysis using data on ED visits from 2006-2011 to determine change in admission and surgical patterns over time. The Nationwide Emergency DepartmentSample database, a nationally representative administrative claims dataset, was used to analyze ED visits for diverticulitis. We included patients with a principal diagnosis of diverticulitis (ICD-9 codes562.11, 562.13). We analyzed the rate of admission and surgery in all admitted patients and in low-risk patients, defined as age

Introduction: Morbidity and mortality conferences (M+M) are a traditional part of residency training and mandated by the Accreditation Counsel of Graduate Medical Education. This study’s objective was to determine the goals, structure, and the prevalence of practices that foster strong safety cultures in the M+Ms of U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. Methods: The authors conducted a national survey of U.S. EM residency program directors. The survey instrument evaluated five domains of M+M (Organization and Infrastructure; Case Finding; Case Selection; Presentation; and Follow up) based on the validated Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality Safety Culture survey.  Results: There was an 80% (151/188) response rate. The primary objectives of M+M were discussing adverse outcomes (53/151, 35%), identifying systems errors (47/151, 31%) and identifying cognitive errors (26/151, 17%). Fifty-six percent (84/151) of institutions have anonymous case submission, with 10% (15/151) maintaining complete anonymity during the presentation and 21% (31/151) maintaining partial anonymity. Forty-seven percent (71/151) of programs report a formal process to follow up on systems issues identified at M+M. Forty-four percent (67/151) of programs report regular debriefing with residents who have had their cases presented.Conclusion: The structure and goals of M+Ms in EM residencies vary widely. Many programs lack features of M+M that promote a non-punitive response to error, such as anonymity. Other programs lack features that support strong safety cultures, such as following up on systems issues or reporting back to residents on improvements. Further research is warranted to determine if M+M structure is related to patient safety culture in residency programs.

Introduction: With the majority of U.S. hospitals not having primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) capabilities, the time spent at transferring emergency departments (EDs) is predictive of clinical outcomes for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Compounding the challenges of delivering timely emergency care are the known delays caused by ED crowding. However, the association of ED crowding with timeliness for patients with STEMI is unknown. We sought to examine the relationship between ED crowding and time spent at transferring EDs for patients with STEMI.Methods: We analyzed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) quality data. The outcome was time spent at a transferring ED (i.e., door-in-door-out [DIDO]), was CMS measure OP-3b for hospitals with ≥10 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) cases requiring transfer (i.e., STEMI) annually: Time to Transfer an AMI Patient for Acute Coronary Intervention. We used four CMS ED timeliness measures as surrogate measures of ED crowding: admitted length of stay (LOS), discharged LOS, boarding time, and waiting time. We analyzed bivariate associations between DIDO and ED timeliness measures. We used a linear multivariable regression to evaluate the contribution of hospital characteristics (academic, trauma, rural, ED volume) to DIDO.Results: Data were available for 405 out of 4,129 hospitals for the CMS DIDO measure. These facilities were primarily non-academic (99.0%), non-trauma centers (65.4%), and in urban locations (68.5%). Median DIDO was 54.0 minutes (IQR 42.0,68.0). Increased DIDO time was associated with longer admitted LOS and boarding times. After adjusting for hospital characteristics, a one-minute increase in ED LOS at transferring facilities was associated with DIDO (coefficient, 0.084 [95% CI [0.049,0.119]]; p

Introduction: National guidelines suggest that most skin abscesses do not require antibiotics, and that cellulitis antibiotics should target streptococci, not community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA). The objective of this study is to describe antimicrobial treatment of skin infections in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) and analyze potential quality measures.Methods: The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) is a 4-stage probability sample of all non-federal U.S. ED visits. In 2007 NHAMCS started recording whether incision and drainage was performed at ED visits. We conducted a retrospective analysis, pooling 2007-2010 data, identified skin infections using diagnostic codes, and identified abscesses by performance of incision and drainage. We generated national estimates and 95% confidence intervals using weighted analyses; quantified frequencies and proportions; and evaluated antibiotic prescribing practices. We evaluated 4 parameters that might serve as quality measures of antibiotic stewardship, and present 2 of them as potentially robust enough for implementation.Results: Of all ED visits, 3.2% (95% confidence interval 3.1-3.4%) were for skin infection, and 2.7% (2.6-2.9%) were first visits for skin infection, with no increase over time (p=0.80). However, anti-CA-MRSA antibiotic use increased, from 61% (56-66%) to 74% (71-78%) of antibiotic regimens (p

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.

Background: Advanced practice providers (APPs) comprise an increasing proportion of the emergency medicine (EM) workforce, particularly in rural geographies. With little known regarding potential expanding practice patterns, we sought to evaluate trends in independent emergency care services billed by APPs from 2013 to 2019. Methods: We performed a repeated cross‐sectional analysis of emergency clinicians independently reimbursed for at least 50 evaluation and management (E/M) services (99281–99285, 99291) from Medicare Part B, with high‐acuity services including Codes 99285 and 99291. We describe the outcome proportion of E/M services by acuity level and report at (1) the encounter level and (2) at the clinician level. We stratified analyses by clinician type and geography. Results: A total of 47,323 EM physicians, 10,555 non‐EM physicians, and 26,599 APPs were included in analyses. APPs billed emergency care services independently for 5.1% (rural 7.3%, urban 4.8%) of all high‐acuity encounters in 2013, increasing to 9.7% (rural 16.4%, urban 8.8%) by 2019. At the clinician level, in 2013, the average rural‐practicing APP independently billed 22.8% of services as high acuity, 72.6% as moderate acuity, and 4.5% as low acuity. By 2019, the average rural‐practicing APP independently billed 36.2% of services as high acuity, representing a +58.8% relative increase from 2013. Relative increases in high‐acuity visits independently billed by APPs were substantially greater when compared to EM physicians across both rural and urban geographies. Conclusions: In 2019, APPs billed independent services for approximately one in six high‐acuity ED encounters in rural geographies and one in 11 high‐acuity ED encounters in urban geographies, and well over one‐third of the average APPs' encounters were for high‐acuity E/M services. Given differences in training and reimbursement between clinician types, these estimates suggest further work is needed evaluating emergency care staffing decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]