Hess, Erik P.

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.

Background— Decision aids (DAs) increase patient knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and promote shared decision making (SDM). The extent to which they do so across diverse sociodemographic patient groups is unknown. Methods and Results— We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials of DA versus usual care comprising 771 encounters between patients and clinicians discussing treatment options for chest pain, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and osteoporosis. Using a random effects model, we examined the impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics (age, sex, education, income, and insurance status) on the outcomes of knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. Because of small numbers of people of color in the study population, we were not powered to investigate the role of race. Most patients were aged ≥65 years (61%), white (94%), and women (59%); two thirds had greater than a high school education. Compared with usual care, DA patients gained knowledge, were more likely to know their risk, and had less decisional conflict along with greater involvement in SDM. These gains were largely consistent across sociodemographic patient groups, with DAs demonstrating similar efficacy when used with vulnerable patients such as the elderly and those with less income and less formal education. Differences in efficacy were found only in knowledge of risk in 1 subgroup, with greater efficacy among those with higher education (35% versus 18%; P =0.02). Conclusions— In this patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, DAs were efficacious across diverse sociodemographic groups as measured by knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. To the extent that DAs increase patient knowledge and participation in SDM, they have potential to impact health disparities related to these factors.

Abstract Objective Risk scores and accelerated diagnostic protocols can identify chest pain patients with low risk of major adverse cardiac event who could be discharged early from the ED , saving time and costs. We aimed to derive and validate a chest pain score and accelerated diagnostic protocol ( ADP ) that could safely increase the proportion of patients suitable for early discharge. Methods Logistic regression identified statistical predictors for major adverse cardiac events in a derivation cohort. Statistical coefficients were converted to whole numbers to create a score. Clinician feedback was used to improve the clinical plausibility and the usability of the final score (Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score [ EDACS ]). EDACS was combined with electrocardiogram results and troponin results at 0 and 2 h to develop an ADP ( EDACS‐ADP ). The score and EDACS‐ADP were validated and tested for reproducibility in separate cohorts of patients. Results In the derivation ( n = 1974) and validation ( n = 608) cohorts, the EDACS‐ADP classified 42.2% (sensitivity 99.0%, specificity 49.9%) and 51.3% (sensitivity 100.0%, specificity 59.0%) as low risk of major adverse cardiac events, respectively. The intra‐class correlation coefficient for categorisation of patients as low risk was 0.87. Conclusion The EDACS‐ADP identified approximately half of the patients presenting to the ED with possible cardiac chest pain as having low risk of short‐term major adverse cardiac events, with high sensitivity. This is a significant improvement on similar, previously reported protocols. The EDACS‐ADP is reproducible and has the potential to make considerable cost reductions to health systems.