Phelan, Michael

Abstract Objectives To compare clinical characteristics among outpatient headache clinic patients who do and do not self‐report visiting the emergency department for headache. Background Headache is the fourth most common reason for emergency department visits, compromising 1%–3% of visits. Limited data exist about patients who are seen in an outpatient headache clinic but still opt to frequent the emergency department. Clinical characteristics may differ between patients who self‐report emergency department use and those who do not. Understanding these differences may help identify which patients are at greatest risk for emergency department overutilization. Methods This observational cohort study included adults treated at the Cleveland Clinic Headache Center between October 12, 2015 and September 11, 2019, who completed self‐reported questionnaires. Associations between self‐reported emergency department utilization and demographics, clinical characteristics, and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs: Headache Impact Test [HIT‐6], headache days per month, current headache/face pain, Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 [PHQ‐9], Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global Health [GH]) were evaluated. Results Of the 10,073 patients (mean age 44.7 ± 14.9, 78.1% [7872/10,073] female, 80.3% [8087/10,073] White patients) included in the study, 34.5% (3478/10,073) reported visiting the emergency department at least once during the study period. Characteristics significantly associated with self‐reported emergency department utilization included younger age (odds ratio = 0.81 [95% CI = 0.78–0.85] per decade), Black patients (vs. White patients) (1.47 [1.26–1.71]), Medicaid (vs. private insurance) (1.50 [1.29–1.74]), and worse area deprivation index (1.04 [1.02–1.07]). Additionally, worse PROMs were associated with greater odds of emergency department utilization: higher (worse) HIT‐6 (1.35 [1.30–1.41] per 5‐point increase), higher (worse) PHQ‐9 (1.14 [1.09–1.20] per 5‐point increase), and lower (worse) PROMIS‐GH Physical Health T‐scores (0.93 [0.88–0.97]) per 5‐point increase. Conclusion Our study identified several characteristics associated with self‐reported emergency department utilization for headache. Worse PROM scores may be helpful in identifying which patients are at greater risk for utilizing the emergency department.

Abstract Background On average, patients with hemolyzed potassium samples spend about 1 h longer in the emergency department (ED), regardless of acuity level or disposition. We aimed to quantify the direct expenses associated with poor-quality preanalytic blood samples collected in the ED. Methods We created a simple table with a range of direct expenses (i.e., costs) and rates of hemolyzed sample draws, allowing for identification of potential high-level cost-of-care impact analysis. We included a range of costs informed by review of literature on the topic. Those costs range from $600 to $3000 per bed-hour. This amount was inflation adjusted from 1996 to 2020 (1.68 × [direct cost per visit] × [100 000 visits per year/365 days/24 h]). We provided a range of hemolysis incidence based on previously reported data. Results We showed that for an ED with 100 000 annual visits, a 40% draw rate for routine chemistries (including potassium), and a 10% hemolysis incidence, the direct cost impact of hemolysis waste is approximately $4 million/year as a result of the 1 h of added length of stay on average for a patient with a hemolyzed blood sample. This amount represents an annualized estimated cost of caring for a patient in the ED with an avoidable extended length of stay. Conclusions The financial burden of poor-quality blood samples can be estimated using cost per bed-hour and rate of sample failure. Similar methodology may identify additional QC issues with previously invisible financial implications.

The Joint Commission requires ongoing and focused provider performance evaluations (OPPEs/FPPEs). The authors aim to describe current approaches in emergency medicine (EM) and identify consensus-based best practice recommendations. An online survey was distributed to leaders in EM to gain insight into current practices. A modified Delphi approach was then used to develop consensus to recommend best practice. A variety of strategies are currently in use for OPPE/FPPE. “Peer reviewed cases with opportunity for improvement” was identified as a preferred metric for OPPE. Although the preference was for use of peer review in OPPE, a consistent and standard adoption of robust internal care review processes is needed to establish expected norms. National benchmarking is not available currently. This was a limited survey of self-identified leaders, and there is an opportunity for additional engagement of leaders in EM to identify a unified approach that appropriately relates to patient outcomes.