Citations

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.

Objectives Establishment of code status can be challenging in the acute care setting. The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate whether patients or their surrogate decision-makers were comfortable watching an educational video about resuscitation. Methods This interventional pilot study involved a pre- and a postintervention survey of a convenience sample of emergency department (ED) patients who were admitted to the hospital. The study was conducted at an academic level-1 trauma centre within the normal flow of patient care over 4 months in 2017. Results In total, 50 patients enrolled in the study. Among them, 82% were ‘very comfortable’ and 14% were ‘moderately comfortable’ watching the video. Overall, 61% of respondents were ‘very comfortable’ recommending the video to others. Watching the video resulted in a change in code status for 9 patients. Conclusions Our results indicate that patients felt comfortable watching the video and recommending the video for further use. Watching the video did not result in a change in code status for most patients in this study. The study results indicate that a standardised patient education video on resuscitation code status was acceptable to patients and their family members and has potential for increased use in the ED.

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.

Abstract Background Consolidation of healthcare in the US has resulted in integrated organizations encompassing large geographic areas, with varying services and complex patient flows. Profound changes in patient volumes and behavior have occurred during the SARS Cov2 pandemic, but understanding these changes across organizations is challenging. Network analysis provides a novel approach to address this. Methods We retrospectively evaluated hospital-based encounters with an index emergency department visit in a healthcare system comprising 18 hospitals, using patient transfer as a marker of unmet clinical need. We developed quantitative models of transfers using network analysis incorporating the level of care provided (ward, progressive care, intensive care) during pre-pandemic (May 25, 2018 to March 16, 2020) and mid-pandemic (March 17, 2020 to March 8, 2021) time periods. Results 829,455 encounters were evaluated. The system functioned as a non-small-world, non-scale-free, dissociative network. Our models reflected transfer destination diversification and variations in volume between the two time points – results of intentional efforts during the pandemic. Known hub-spoke architecture correlated with quantitative analysis. Conclusion Applying network analysis in an integrated US healthcare organization demonstrates changing patterns of care and the emergence of bottlenecks in response to the SARS Cov2 pandemic, consistent with clinical experience, providing a degree of face validity. The modeling of multiple influences can identify susceptibility to stress and opportunities to strengthen the system where patient movement is common and voluminous. The technique provides a mechanism to analyze the effects of intentional and contextual changes on system behavior.

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.

AbstractCOVID‐19 has impacted all health care professionals in every aspect of life. Female academic emergency physicians have been uniquely affected and continue to face challenges related to clinical workloads, work–life integration, academic productivity, leadership and visibility within departments, and mental health. This white paper, prepared on behalf of the Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), describes the differential impact of COVID‐19 on female academic emergency physicians explored during a virtual panel discussion at the 2020 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting. AWAEM convened a virtual panel of women to begin a discussion to share experiences and challenges and formulate consensus guidelines regarding best practices and mitigation strategies. The authors describe the unique ways in which female academic physicians have been affected, identify ongoing and intensified gender gaps, and delineate strategies to address the identified problems. Specific recommendations include individual, as well as, institutional and systems‐level approaches to combat the inequities.

Background: Palliative care has been identified as an area of low outpatient referral from our emergency department, yet palliative care has been shown to improve the quality of patient’s lives. Aim: This study investigates both provider and patient perspectives on palliative care for the purpose of identifying barriers to increased palliative care utilization within our healthcare system. Design: Two surveys were developed, one for patients/caregivers and one for healthcare providers. Setting/participants: This was a single-center study completed at a quaternary academic emergency department. A survey was sent to emergency medicine providers with 47% response rate. Research staff approached Emergency Department patients who had been identified to be high risk to fill out paper surveys with 76% response rate. Results: Only 28% of patients had already undergone palliative care, with an additional 25% interested in palliative care. Nearly half of the patients felt that they needed more resources to prevent hospital visits. Patients identified low understanding of palliative care and difficulty accessing appointments as barriers to consultation. Among providers, 98% indicated that they had patients who would benefit from palliative care. A majority of providers highlighted patient understanding of palliative care and access to appointments as barriers to palliative care. Notably, 52% of providers reported that emergency medicine provider knowledge was a barrier to palliative care consultation. Conclusions: Despite emergency department patients’ self-identified need for resources and emergency medicine providers’ recognition of patients who would benefit from palliative care, few patients receive palliative care consultation.

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.