Faculty Bibliography

The effect of emergency department (ED) crowding on equitable care is the least studied of the domains of quality as defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Inequities in access and treatment throughout the health care system are well documented in all fields of medicine. While there is little evidence demonstrating that inequity is worsened by crowding, theory and evidence from social science disciplines, as well as known barriers to care for vulnerable populations, would suggest that crowding will worsen inequities. To design successful interventions, however, it is important to first understand how crowding can result in disparities and base interventions on these mechanisms. A research agenda is proposed to understand mechanisms that may threaten equity during periods of crowding and design and test potential interventions that may ensure the equitable aspect of quality of care.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The primary study aim was to examine the variations in crowding when an emergency department (ED) initiates ambulance diversion. METHODS:This retrospective, multicenter study included nine geographically disparate EDs. Daily ED operational variables were collected during a 12-month period (January 2009 to December 2009), including total number of ED visits, mean overall length of stay (LOS), number of ED beds, and hours on ambulance diversion. The primary outcome variable was the "ED workload rate," a surrogate marker for daily ED crowding. It was calculated as the total number of daily ED visits multiplied by the overall mean LOS (in hours) and divided by the number of ED beds available for acute treatment in a given day. The primary predictor variables were ambulance diversion, as a dichotomous variable of whether or not an ED went on diversion at least once during a 24-hour period, diversion hour quintiles, and sites. RESULTS:The annual ED census ranged from 43,000 to 101,000 patients. The percentage of days that an ED went on diversion at least once varied from 4.9% to 86.6%. On days with ambulance diversion, the mean ED workload rate varied from 17.1 to 62.1 patient LOS hours per ED bed among sites. The magnitude of variation in ED workload rate was similar on days without ambulance diversion. Differences in ED workload rate varied among sites, ranging from 1.0 to 6.0 patient LOS hours per ED bed. ED workload rate was higher on average on diversion days compared to nondiversion days. The mean difference between diversion and nondiversion was statistically significant for the majority of sites. CONCLUSIONS:There was marked variation in ED workload rates and whether or not ambulance diversion occurred during a 24-hour period. This variability in initiating ambulance diversion suggests different or inconsistently applied decision-making criteria for initiating diversion.

Palliative care focuses on the physical, spiritual, psychological, and social care from diagnosis to cure or death of a potentially life-threatening illness. When cure is not attainable and end of life approaches, the intensity of palliative care is enhanced to deliver the highest quality care experience. The emergency department (ED) frequently cares for patients and families during the end-of-life phase of the palliative care continuum. The intersection between palliative care and emergency care continues to be more clearly defined. Currently, there is a mounting body of evidence to guide the most effective strategies for improving palliative and end-of-life care in the ED. In a workgroup session at the 2009 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)/American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) conference "Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Emergency Care Across the Continuum: A Systems Approach," four key research questions arose: 1) which patients are in greatest need of palliative care services in the ED, 2) what is the optimal role of emergency clinicians in caring for patients along a chronic trajectory of illness, 3) how does the integration and initiation of palliative care training and services in the ED setting affect health care utilization, and 4) what are the educational priorities for emergency clinical providers in the domain of palliative care? Workgroup leaders suggest that these four key questions may be answered by strengthening the evidence using six categories of inquiry: descriptive, attitudinal, screening, outcomes, resource allocation, and education of clinicians.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To characterize the level of formal training and perceived educational needs in palliative care of emergency medicine (EM) residents. METHODS:This descriptive study used a 16-question survey administered at weekly resident didactic sessions in 2008 to EM residency programs in New York City. Survey items asked residents to: (1) respond to Likert-scaled statements about the role of palliative care in the emergency department (ED); (2) quantify their level of formal training and personal comfort in symptom management, discussion of bad news and prognosis, legal issues, and withdrawing/withholding therapy; and (3) express their interest in future palliative care training. RESULTS:Of 228 total residents, 159 (70%) completed the survey. Of those surveyed, 50% completed some palliative care training before residency; 71.1% agreed or strongly agreed that palliative care was an important competence for an EM physician. However, only 24.3% reported having a "clear idea of the role of palliative care in EM." The highest self-reported level of formal training was in the area of advanced directives or legal issues at the end of life; the lowest levels were in areas of patient management at the end of life. The highest level of self-reported comfort was in giving bad news and the lowest was in withholding/withdrawing therapy. A slight majority of residents (54%) showed positive interest in receiving future training in palliative care. CONCLUSIONS:New York City EM residents reported palliative care as an important competency for emergency medicine physicians, yet also reported low levels of formal training in palliative care. The majority of residents surveyed favored additional training.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Despite consensus regarding the conceptual foundation of crowding, and increasing research on factors and outcomes associated with crowding, there is no criterion standard measure of crowding. The objective was to conduct a systematic review of crowding measures and compare them in conceptual foundation and validity. METHODS:This was a systematic, comprehensive review of four medical and health care citation databases to identify studies related to crowding in the emergency department (ED). Publications that "describe the theory, development, implementation, evaluation, or any other aspect of a 'crowding measurement/definition' instrument (qualitative or quantitative)" were included. A "measurement/definition" instrument is anything that assigns a value to the phenomenon of crowding in the ED. Data collected from papers meeting inclusion criteria were: study design, objective, crowding measure, and evidence of validity. All measures were categorized into five measure types (clinician opinion, input factors, throughput factors, output factors, and multidimensional scales). All measures were then indexed to six validation criteria (clinician opinion, ambulance diversion, left without being seen (LWBS), times to care, forecasting or predictions of future crowding, and other). RESULTS:There were 2,660 papers identified by databases; 46 of these papers met inclusion criteria, were original research studies, and were abstracted by reviewers. A total of 71 unique crowding measures were identified. The least commonly used type of crowding measure was clinician opinion, and the most commonly used were numerical counts (number or percentage) of patients and process times associated with patient care. Many measures had moderate to good correlation with validation criteria. CONCLUSIONS:Time intervals and patient counts are emerging as the most promising tools for measuring flow and nonflow (i.e., crowding), respectively. Standardized definitions of time intervals (flow) and numerical counts (nonflow) will assist with validation of these metrics across multiple sites and clarify which options emerge as the metrics of choice in this "crowded" field of measures.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To determine whether there are differences in emergency department (ED) pain assessment and treatment for older and younger adults. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective observational cohort. SETTING/METHODS:Urban, academic tertiary care ED during July and December 2005. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Adult patients with conditions warranting ED pain care. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Age, Charlson comorbidity score, number of prior medications, sex, race and ethnicity, triage severity, degree of pain, treating clinician, and final ED diagnosis. Pain care process measures were pain assessment and treatment and time of activities. RESULTS:One thousand thirty-one ED visits met inclusion criteria; 92% of these had a documented pain assessment. Of those reporting pain, 41% had follow-up pain assessments, and 59% received analgesic medication (58% of these as opioids, 24% as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)). In adjusted analyses, there were no differences according to age in pain assessment and receiving any analgesic. Older patients (65-84) were less likely than younger patients (18-64) to receive opioid analgesics for moderate to severe (odds ratio (OR) = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.22-0.88) and were more likely to more likely to receive NSAIDs for mild pain (OR = 3.72, 95% CI = 0.97-14.24). Older adults had a lower reduction of initial to final recorded pain scores (P = .002). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There appear to be differences in acute ED pain care for older and younger adults. Lower overall reduction of pain scores and less opioid use for the treatment of painful conditions in older patients highlight disparities of concern. Future studies should determine whether these differences represent inadequate ED pain care.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Increases in emergency department (ED) visits may place a substantial burden on both the ED and hospital-based laboratories. Studies have identified laboratory turnaround time (TAT) as a barrier to patient process times and lengths of stay. Prolonged laboratory study results may also result in delayed recognition of critically ill patients and initiation of appropriate therapies. The objective of this study was to determine how ED patient volume itself is associated with laboratory TAT. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort review of patients at five academic, tertiary care EDs in the United States. Data were collected on all adult patients seen in each ED with troponin laboratory testing during the months of January, April, July, and October 2007. Primary predictor variables were two ED patient volume measures at the time the troponin test was ordered: 1) number of all patients in the ED/number of beds (occupancy) and 2) number of admitted patients waiting for beds/beds (boarder occupancy). The outcome variable was troponin turnaround time (TTAT). Adjusted covariates included patient characteristics, triage severity, season (month of the laboratory test), and site. Multivariable adjusted quantile regression was carried out to assess the association of ED volume measures with TTAT. RESULTS:At total of 9,492 troponin tests were reviewed. Median TTAT for this cohort was 107 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] = 73-148 minutes). Median occupancy for this cohort was 1.05 patients (IQR = 0.78-1.38 patients) and median boarder occupancy was 0.21 (IQR = 0.11-0.32). Adjusted quantile regression demonstrated a significant association between increased ED patient volume and longer times to TTAT. For every 100% increase in census, or number of boarders over the number of ED beds, respectively, there was a 12 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9 to 14) or 33 (95% CI = 24 to 42)-minute increase in TTAT. CONCLUSIONS:Increased ED patient volume is associated with longer hospital laboratory processing times. Prolonged laboratory TAT may delay recognition of conditions in the acutely ill, potentially affecting clinician decision-making and the initiation of timely treatment. Use of laboratory TAT as a patient throughput measure and the study of factors associated with its prolonging should be further investigated.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Emergency departments (EDs), similar to other health care environments, are concerned with improving the quality of patient care. Older patients comprise a large, growing, and particularly vulnerable subset of ED users. The project objective was to develop ED-specific quality indicators for older patients to help practitioners identify quality gaps and focus quality improvement efforts. METHODS:The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Geriatric Task Force, including members representing the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), selected three conditions where there are quality gaps in the care of older patients: cognitive assessment, pain management, and transitional care in both directions between nursing homes and EDs. For each condition, a content expert created potential quality indicators based on a systematic review of the literature, supplemented with expert opinion when necessary. The original candidate quality indicators were modified in response to evaluation by four groups: the Task Force, the SAEM Geriatric Interest Group, and audiences at the 2007 SAEM Annual Meeting and the 2008 American Geriatrics Society Annual Meeting. RESULTS:The authors offer 6 quality indicators for cognitive assessment, 6 for pain management, and 11 for transitions between nursing homes and EDs. CONCLUSIONS:These quality indicators will help researchers and clinicians target quality improvement efforts. The next steps will be to test the feasibility of capturing the quality indicators in existing medical records and to measure the extent to which each quality indicator is successfully met in current emergency practice.

OBJECTIVE:Headache is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department (ED). Physicians may choose to screen for causes of headache using computed tomography (CT). It is not known whether patient characteristics influence this decision. This study sought to identify patient demographic factors associated with CT evaluation for adult patients with headache. METHODS:This study used a retrospective cohort review at an academic, urban ED. Study eligibility was based on chief complaint of headache and final diagnosis of the same. Detailed demographic (age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance) and clinical (Emergency Severity Index [ESI], Charlson comorbidity score, pain score) data were abstracted from the ED medical record. The main outcome studied was whether a head CT was part of clinical evaluation. RESULTS:One hundred fifty-five patients were reviewed. Mean age was 42 years (SD, +/-18 years); 75% female, 17% white, 41% black, and 33% Hispanic; 73% were insured; mean ESI was 3.06 (SD, +/-0.64); and Charlson score was 0.60 (SD, +/-1.55). Thirty-seven percent of patients underwent head CT. In multivariable analyses, patients were more likely to undergo head CT if they had greater acuity (ESI < or = 3; odds ratio [OR], 5.11; P < .01) but were less likely to undergo head CT if they were black (OR, 0.21; P < .01) when adjusting for each other as well as older age, sex, comorbidity, insurance status, and history of migraine. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this study, patients who were black were significantly less likely to undergo head CT during their ED evaluation for headache, independent of clinical and demographic factors.