Nestler, David M.

AbstractObjectivesPatient throughput is an increasingly important cause of emergency department (ED) crowding. The authors previously reported shorter patient length of stay (LOS) when adding a triage liaison provider, which required additional personnel. Here, the objective was to evaluate the effect of moving a fast‐track provider to the triage liaison role.MethodsThis was a prospective observational before‐and‐after study design with predefined outcomes measures. A “standard staffing” situation (where an advanced practice provider staffed treatment rooms in the fast track) was compared with an advanced practice provider performing the triage liaison staffing role, with no additional staff. Eleven intervention (“triage liaison staffing”) days were compared with 11 matched control (“standard staffing”) days immediately preceding the intervention. Total LOS was measured for all adult Emergency Severity Index (ESI) 3, 4, and 5 patients (excluding behavioral health patients), and results were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum and chi‐square tests.ResultsA total of 681 patients registered on control days and 599 on intervention days. There was no significant difference in total patient LOS: median = 273 minutes, interquartile range (IQR) 176 to 384 minutes on intervention days versus median = 253 minutes, IQR = 175 to 365 minutes on control days (p = 0.20). There was no difference in left‐without‐being‐seen (LWBS) rates (n = 48, 7% on control days vs. n = 35, 6% on intervention days; p=0.38). Secondary analysis of only ESI 3 patients showed no difference in total LOS between periods (median = 284 minutes, IQR = 194 to 396 minutes on intervention days vs. median = 290 minutes, IQR = 217 to 397 minutes on control days; p = 0.22). There was, however, significantly greater total LOS for ESI 4 and 5 patients during the intervention period (median = 238 minutes, IQR = 124 to 350 minutes on intervention days vs. median = 192 minutes, IQR = 124 to 256 minutes on control days; p = 0.011).ConclusionsThe previously reported benefits on patient LOS and LWBS rates after adding a triage liaison (resource additive) were lost when that provider was moved from fast track to the triage role (resource neutral). While the triage liaison provider role may be a way to improve ED throughput when additional resources are available, as evidenced by our prior study, the triage liaison model itself does not appear to replace the staffing of treatment rooms, as evidenced by this study.

AbstractObjectivesOvercapacity issues plague emergency departments (EDs). Studies suggest that triage liaison providers (TLPs) may shorten patient length of stay (LOS) and reduce the proportion of patients who leave without being seen (LWBS), but these results are not universal. Previous studies used physicians as TLPs. We evaluated whether a physician assistant (PA), acting as a TLP, would shorten LOS and decrease LWBS rates.MethodsThe authors used an observational cohort controlled before‐and‐after study design with predefined outcome measures, comparing 8 pilot days to 8 control days. The TLP evaluated all Emergency Severity Index (ESI) level 3, 4, and 5 patients, excluding pediatric and behavioral health patients.ResultsA total of 353 patients were included on pilot days and 371 on control days. LOS was shorter on pilot days than control days (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 229 [168 to 303] minutes vs. 270 [187 to 372] minutes, p < 0.001). Waiting room times were similar between pilot and control days (median [IQR] = 69 [20 to 119] minutes vs. 70 [19 to 137] minutes, p = 0.408), but treatment room times were shorter (median [IQR] = 151 [92 to 223] minutes vs. 187 [110 to 254] minutes, p < 0.001). Finally, a lower proportion of patients LWBS on pilot days (1.4% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe addition of a PA as a TLP was associated with a 41‐minute decrease in median total LOS and a lower proportion of patients who LWBS. The decrease in total LOS is likely attributable to the addition of the TLP, with patients having shorter duration in treatment rooms on pilot days compared to control days.

Background— Circadian rhythms with regard to time of symptom onset for patients with acute myocardial infarction have been observed, although their relationship to outcomes has been debated. We evaluated these rhythms in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction as a function of the 24-hour circadian cycle. Methods and Results— The relationship between onset of symptoms during the 24-hour circadian cycle and prehospital delays from symptom onset to hospital arrival, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital death was assessed in 2143 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting from 2004–2008 at 1 of 3 tertiary-care healthcare ST-elevation myocardial infarction systems. There was a significant association between time of onset and the circadian cycle, with the greatest percentage (39%) of patients experiencing onset between 8 am and 3 pm ( P <0.001). Time of onset was associated with prehospital delay and timeliness of reperfusion. Patients with onset from 12 am to 5:59 am had median prehospital delays of 121 minutes versus 70 minutes from 12 pm to 5:59 pm ( P <0.001). Patients with onset time from 12 am to 5:59 am had median door-to-balloon times of 75 minutes versus 60 minutes from 6 am to 11:59 am ( P <0.001). Using multivariable modeling to control for baseline patient characteristics, prehospital delay, and timeliness of reperfusion, there was no significant association between time of symptom onset with in-hospital death. Conclusions— Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction exhibit significant circadian patterns in symptom onset, prehospital delay, and timeliness of reperfusion. Patients who develop symptoms from 12 am to 5:59 am present with longer prehospital delays and have longer door-to-balloon times. After multivariable adjustment, there was no significant association between circadian patterns of time of onset and in-hospital death.

Background— American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend a door-to-balloon time (DTB) <90 minutes for nontransferred patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Systems of care to achieve and sustain this DTB performance over several years have not been previously reported. Methods and Results— The Mayo Clinic STEMI protocol was implemented in April 2004 and included activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory by the emergency medicine physician; a single call system to activate the catheterization laboratory; catheterization laboratory staff arrival within 20 to 30 minutes of activation; and real-time performance feedback within 24 to 48 hours. Data were collected on nontransferred STEMI patients. The preimplementation group (June 2002 to March 2004) comprised 96 patients with a median DTB of 97 (interquartile range, 82, 130) minutes, and 40% had a DTB <90 minutes. The postimplementation group (May 2004 to March 2008) comprised 322 patients with a median DTB of 67 (interquartile range, 55, 82) minutes, and 81% had a DTB <90 minutes. Postimplementation DTB was significantly shorter than preimplementation DTB ( P <0.001). In the 4-year follow-up after protocol implementation, the DTB performance remained stable over time ( P =0.41). Conclusions— The Mayo Clinic STEMI protocol implemented strategies to reduce DTB for nontransferred patients with STEMI. DTB was significantly reduced, and the results were sustained over the 4-year follow-up period. Our experience demonstrates the effectiveness and durability of process changes targeting timeliness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention.