Walker, Laura E

Objective Understanding patients’ wishes and preferences during hospitalisation is a crucial component of care. We identified a gap related to documentation of advance directives and patient preferences for care and focused on ensuring appropriate goals of care discussions were occurring and documented. Our aim was to improve the documentation of advance care planning notes to include 80% of targeted hospitalised patients. Patients and methods Hospitalised patients in two community hospitals were included. We performed serial Plan-Do-Measure-Act cycles. The first intervention introduced the ‘surprise question’ during an afternoon huddle. Intervention 2 emphasised documentation of the advance care planning note. The third intervention used a structured approach led by administrators at daily multidisciplinary huddles and identified patients with an Elderly Risk Assessment score of 16 or greater as targets for advance care planning documentation. Results From a baseline performance under 10%, we increased to greater than 80% of patients with Elderly Risk Assessment scores of 16 or higher having documented advance care planning. We were able to sustain this performance over subsequent years. Conclusion A structured approach that identifies a targeted population at higher risk of mortality, and implementation of a checklist at a daily multidisciplinary huddle provided sustained improvement in advance care planning documentation. This provides the opportunity for improved patient care that is aligned with their values and preferences.

While congenital heart disease historically was a pathology primarily restricted to specialized pediatric centers, advances in technology have dramatically increased the number of people living into adulthood, the number of complications faced by these patients, and the number of patients visiting non-specialized emergency departments for these concerns. Clinicians need to be aware of the issues specific to patients’ individual congenital defects but also have an understanding of how typical cardiac pathology may manifest in this special group of patients. This manuscript attempts to provide an overview of this diverse but increasingly common group of adult patients with congenital heart diseases, including a review of their anatomical variants, the complications they face at the highest rates, and ways that emergency physicians may need to manage these patients differently to avoid causing harm.

Background Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work. Design A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. Results A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. Limitations Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. Conclusions Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients’ values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.

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.

Background: Patient satisfaction surveys are vital to measuring a patient’s experience of care. How scores of patients managed by emergency medicine (EM) residents change as residents progress through training is not known. Objectives: To evaluate whether EM residents’ patient satisfaction scores improve as residency training progresses, similar to clinical skill improvement. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated the correlation of patient satisfaction scores with EM resident year of training from 2015 through 2017. We evaluated for a change in score over time for the 4 “physician questions” and the “overall” score. Results: We evaluated 1684 Press Ganey surveys linked to 40 EM resident physicians during the study period. The mean top box scores for the 4 physician questions (concern for comfort [ P = .72], courtesy [ P = .55], informative about treatment [ P = .46], and listening [ P = .91]) and overall assessment of emergency department care ( P = .51) were not significantly improved over the course of resident. Conclusion: We did not observe a difference in EM residents’ patient experience scores as their level of training progressed. Comprehensive patient experience training for residents might be needed.