Project description:OBJECTIVES:Special investigations (e.g. blood tests, electrocardiograms, x-rays) play an integral role in patient management in the emergency department (ED). Having results immediately available prior to assessing a patient may lead to improved efficiency. This could be instituted by utilizing point-of-care (POC) testing with an alternative ED workflow, but the implementation would be dependent on acceptance by the end-users. The aim of this study was to assess doctors' perceptions of POC testing in the ED when the normal treatment pathway was modified to use upfront POC tests performed prior to doctor evaluation in an effort to decrease treatment times. METHODS:A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was performed in the ED where medical patients received either the normal ED workflow pathway or one of the enhanced workflow pathways with POC tests in various combinations prior to doctor evaluation. At the end of the study period, doctors were invited to participate in an anonymous survey to gauge their opinions on the implementation of the early POC testing. RESULTS:Overall, the doctors surveyed were very satisfied with use of upfront POC in the ED. One hundred per cent of the 28 doctors surveyed found it helpful to assess patients who already had test results available and would want it to be permanently available. Normalized satisfaction scores were more favorable for combinations of 3 or more tests (0.7-1.0) as opposed to combinations with 2 or less tests (0.3-0.7). There was a preference for combinations that included comprehensive blood results. CONCLUSION:The implementation of workflow changes to assist doctors in the ED can potentially make them more productive. End-user buy-in is essential in order for the change to be successful. Upfront, protocolised, POC testing is a low-input, high-yield intervention that decreased treatment time and satisfied doctors.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Time-saving is constantly sought after in the Emergency Department (ED), and Point-of-Care (POC) testing has been shown to be an effective time-saving intervention. However, when direct costs are compared, these tests commonly appear to be cost-prohibitive. Economic viability may become apparent when the time-saving is translated into financial benefits from staffing, time- and cost-saving. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic investigations utilised prior to medical contact for ED patients with common medical complaints. METHODS:This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of upfront, POC testing. Eleven combinations of POC equivalents of commonly-used special investigations (blood tests (i-STAT and complete blood count (CBC)), electrocardiograms (ECGs) and x-rays (LODOX® (Low Dose X-ray)) were evaluated compared to the standard ED pathway with traditional diagnostic tests. The economic viability of each permutation was assessed using the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves. Expenses related to the POC test implementation were compared to the control group while taking staffing costs and time-saving into account. RESULTS:There were 897 medical patients randomised to receive various combinations of POC tests. The most cost-effective combination was the i-STAT+CBC permutation which, based on the time saving, would ultimately save money if implemented. All LODOX®-containing permutations were costlier but still saved time. Non-LODOX® permutations were virtually 100% cost-effective if an additional cost of US$50 per patient was considered acceptable. Higher staffing costs would make using POC testing even more economical. CONCLUSIONS:In certain combinations, upfront, POC testing is more cost-effective than standard diagnostic testing for common ED undifferentiated medical presentations - the most economical POC test combination being the i-STAT + CBC. Upfront POC testing in the ED has the potential to not only save time but also to save money. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03102216.
Project description:BACKGROUND: The Australian Medical Association is strongly opposed to the nurse practitioner (NP) role with concerns that NPs may become doctor substitutes without the requisite training and education that the medical role demands. Despite this, NPs have been heralded by some as a potential solution to the access block, workforce shortage and increased demand affecting emergency departments (EDs). AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine the perception of NPs by medical staff working in Australian EDs. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with closed and open-ended questions. Participants were drawn from a representative stratified sample of two city, two metropolitan and two provincial hospitals of each State/Territory. RESULTS: A total of 95 doctors from 35 EDs participated in this study including 36 Departmental Directors; 36% of participating Directors indicated having an NP on staff. Doctors were strongly opposed to the statement that NPs could replace either nurses or other prevocational doctors; 71 interviewees commented on the role of NPs in the ED. Thematic analyses revealed polarised views held by doctors. Eight major themes were identified, the most common being that there is a lack of clarity of the NP role definition, their scope of practice and differentiation from the medical role. CONCLUSION: Although ED NPs represent a highly skilled professional group their role is poorly understood by ED doctors. Opposition to the NP role is a significant barrier to the introduction of great numbers of ED NPs as a strategy to overcome the medical workforce shortage. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12245-010-0214-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Project description:Background. Many proponents for healthcare reform suggest increased cost-sharing by patients as a method to reduce overall expenditures. Prior studies on the effects of co-payments for ED visits have generally not been directed toward understanding patient attitudes/behavior at point of care. Objectives. We conducted a survey at point of care to test our hypothesis that a significant number of patients with urgent chief complaints might have avoided the ED if asked to provide a co-payment. Methods. Cross-sectional study design. Stable, oriented, consenting patients at an inner-city, academic ED were consecutively enrolled at hours in which trained research associates were available to assist with data collection. Enrolled patients completed a written survey providing demographic/chief complaint information, and then were asked whether 13 interval amounts of co-payment ranging from 0 to >500 would have impacted their decision to visit the ED. Categorical data are presented as frequency of occurrence and analyzed by chi-square; continuous data presented as means ± standard deviation, analyzed by t-tests. ORs and 95% confidence intervals provided. Primary outcome parameter was the % of patients who would have avoided the ED if asked to pay any co-payment for several urgent chief complaints: chest pain, SOB, and abdominal pain. Results. A total of 581 patients were enrolled; 63.1% female, mean age 42.4 ± 15.1 years, 65% Hispanic, 71.2% income less than 20,000, 28.6% less than high school graduate, 81.3% had primary care physician, 57.6% had 2 or more ED visits/past year. Overall, 30.2% of patients chose 0 as the maximum they would have been willing to pay if it was required to be seen in the ED. 16/58 (28%; 95% CI [18-40%]) of chest pain patients, 9/43 (20.9%; 95% CI [11-35%]) of SOB patients, and 24/127 (26.8%; 95% CI [13-27%]) of abdominal pain patients would have been unwilling to pay a co-pay. Patients with income >20,000 were more willing to pay a co-payment (OR = 2.55; 95% CI [1.59-4.10]). No significant relationship was identified between willingness to pay for: gender, race, education, established primary care provider, and frequency of ED visits. Conclusion. Overall, 30.2% of our patients would not have accepted a co-pay in order to be seen, including more than 20% of the patients with chest pain, shortness of breath, and abdominal pain respectively.
Project description:Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has the potential to diagnose papilledema, a sign of increased intracranial pressure, through optic disc elevation as well as optic nerve sheath diameter measurements. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a syndrome resulting in increased intracranial pressure. We present a case of IIH where the emergency physician diagnosed papilledema by POCUS via presence of both optic disc elevation and a widened optic nerve sheath diameter.
Project description:ObjectivesIn many resource-limited health systems, point-of-care tests (POCTs) are the only means for clinical patient sample analyses. However, the speed and simplicity of POCTs also makes their use appealing to clinicians in high-income countries (HICs), despite greater laboratory accessibility. Although also part of the clinical routine in HICs, clinician perceptions of the utility of POCTs are relatively unknown in such settings as compared with others. In a Swedish paediatric emergency department (PED) where POCT use is routine, we aimed to characterise healthcare providers' perspectives on the clinical utility of POCTs and explore their implementation in the local setting; to discuss and compare such perspectives, to those reported in other settings; and finally, to gather requests for ideal novel POCTs.DesignQualitative focus group discussions study. A data-driven content analysis approach was used for analysis.SettingThe PED of a secondary paediatric hospital in Stockholm, Sweden.ParticipantsTwenty-four healthcare providers clinically active at the PED were enrolled in six focus groups.ResultsA range of POCTs was routinely used. The emerging theme Utility of our POCT use is double-edged illustrated the perceived utility of POCTs. While POCT services were considered to have clinical and social value, the local routine for their use was named to distract clinicians from the care for patients. Requests were made for ideal POCTs and their implementation.ConclusionDespite their clinical integration, deficient implementation routines limit the benefits of POCT services to this well-resourced paediatric clinic. As such deficiencies are shared with other settings, it is suggested that some characteristics of POCTs and of their utility are less related to resource level and more to policy deficiency. To address this, we propose the appointment of skilled laboratory personnel as ambassadors to hospital clinics offering POCT services, to ensure higher utility of such services.
Project description:Study objectiveRapid point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 detection with Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 test has been implemented in our Emergency Department (ED) for several months. We aimed to evaluate the operational impact and potential benefits of this innovative clinical pathway.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, descriptive, interventional, non-randomized study, before-after trial with the comparison of patient cohorts from two consecutive periods of seven weeks (observational pre-POC period vs interventional POC period).ResultsIn 2020, throughout weeks 37 to 50, 3333 patients were assessed for eligibility and among them 331 (9.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Among the included patients, 136 (9.2%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the pre-POC period and 195 (10.5%) in the POC period. Among positive patients for SARS-CoV-2 related infection in-hospital mortality rate was similar between the two groups but the hospitalization rate was higher in the POC group (81.6% vs. 65.4%; p < 0.001). More patients in the POC period were able to leave the ED within 6 h. We examined rates of antibiotic, anticoagulant, and corticosteroid prescriptions among patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED. Only the rate of prescribed anticoagulants was found to be higher in the POC period (40% vs. 24.2%; p < 0.003).ConclusionWe demonstrated that COVID-19 point-of-care testing speeds up clinical decision-making, improving use of recommended treatments for COVID-19, such as anticoagulants. Moreover, it improves the boarding time and significantly shortened the length of stay in the ED for patients requiring outpatient care.
Project description:Outcomes data on point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in critically ill patients are lacking. This study examines the association between POCUS in the emergency department and outcomes in critically ill patients.DesignRetrospective cohort study of critically ill emergency department patients in two academic emergency departments. All emergency department patients admitted to the intensive care unit or that die in the emergency department were entered prospectively into a registry.SettingTwo academic emergency departments.PatientsAll adult (> 18 years old) non-trauma patients with hemodynamic instability [shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) > 0.6] between November 1, 2013-October 31, 2016, were included.InterventionsCohorts were assigned as follows: no POCUS (cohort 1), POCUS prior to a key intervention (cohort 2), and POCUS after a key intervention (cohort 3). A key intervention was either a fluid bolus or vasoactive drug initiation.Measurements and main resultsMultivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between POCUS use and the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. We conducted several sensitivity analyses including propensity score matching and inverse-probability-weighted regression-adjustment along with multiple imputation to account for non-random assignment of POCUS as well as bias due to missing data. Of the 7,734 eligible patients, 2,293 patients were excluded. The remaining 5,441 patients were included in the analysis: 4165 in Cohort 1, 614 in Cohort 2, and 662 in Cohort 3. Mortality was 22%, 29%, and 26%, respectively (p < 0.001). POCUS prior to an intervention was associated with an adjusted odds ratio for death of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) compared to no POCUS. The sensitivity analyses showed an absolute increased mortality of +0.05 (95% CI, 0.02-0.09) for cohort 2 compared to 1.ConclusionsPOCUS use prior to interventions appears to be associated with care delays and increased in-hospital mortality compared to critically ill patients with no POCUS. Further explorations of the impact of POCUS in the emergency department appear warranted.
Project description:ObjectiveIn the emergency department, hyperglycemic patients are screened for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) via a urine dipstick. In this prospective study, we compared the test characteristics of point-of-care β-hydroxybutyrate (β-OHB) analysis with the urine dipstick.Research design and methodsEmergency-department patients with blood glucose ≥250 mg/dL had urine dipstick, chemistry panel, venous blood gas, and capillary β-OHB measurements. DKA was diagnosed according to American Diabetes Association criteria.ResultsOf 516 hyperglycemic subjects, 54 had DKA. The urine dipstick had a sensitivity of 98.1% (95% CI 90.1-100), a specificity of 35.1% (30.7-39.6), a positive predictive value of 15% (11.5-19.2), and a negative predictive value of 99.4% (96.6-100) for DKA. Using the manufacturer-suggested cutoff of >1.5 mmol/L, β-OHB had a sensitivity of 98.1% (90.1-100), a specificity of 78.6% (74.5-82.2), a positive predictive value of 34.9% (27.3-43), and a negative predictive value of 99.7% (98.5-100) for DKA.ConclusionsPoint-of-care β-OHB and the urine dipstick are equally sensitive for detecting DKA (98.1%). However, β-OHB is more specific (78.6 vs. 35.1%), offering the potential to significantly reduce unnecessary DKA work-ups among hyperglycemic patients in the emergency department.
Project description:BackgroundTechnologic advances, free open-access medical education (FOAM or #FOAMed), and social media have increased access to clinician-oriented medical education resources and interactions at the point of care (POC); yet, how, when, and why medical providers use these resources remains unclear. To facilitate the development and design of intuitive POC resources, it is imperative that we expand our understanding of physician knowledge-seeking behavior at the POC.MethodsIndividual semistructured interviews were conducted and analyzed using a qualitative, grounded theory approach. Twelve emergency medicine providers (three medical students, three residents, and six attending physicians) were interviewed in person or via video chat to explore how POC resources are used in the emergency department (ED). A coding system was developed by two investigators and merged by consensus. A third investigator audited the analysis.ResultsA conceptual framework emerged from the data describing the four main uses of POC resources (deep-dive, advanced clinical decision making, teaching patients, and teaching learners) and how practitioners' main use varied based on medical expertise. Junior learners prioritize their own broad learning. Experienced learners and physicians prefer to 1) seek answers to specific focused clinical questions and 2) disseminate POC information to teach patients and learners, allowing them to devote more of their time to other clinical and teaching tasks.ConclusionThe conceptual framework describes how physician knowledge-seeking behavior using POC resources in the ED evolves predictably throughout training and practice. Knowledge of this evolution can be used to enhance POC resource design and guide bedside teaching strategies.