Dataset Information

Use of Telemedicine to Screen Patients in the Emergency Department: Matched Cohort Study Evaluating Efficiency and Patient Safety of Telemedicine.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early efforts to incorporate telemedicine into Emergency Medicine focused on connecting remote treatment clinics to larger emergency departments (EDs) and providing remote consultation services to EDs with limited resources. Owing to continued ED overcrowding, some EDs have used telemedicine to increase the number of providers during surges of patient visits and offer scheduled "home" face-to-face, on-screen encounters. In this study, we used remote on-screen telemedicine providers in the "screening-in-triage" role.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the efficiency and patient safety of in-person screening and telescreening.

Methods

This cohort study, matched for days and proximate hours, compared the performance of real-time remote telescreening and in-person screening at a single urban academic ED over 22 weeks in the spring and summer of 2016. The study involved 337 standard screening hours and 315 telescreening hours. The primary outcome measure was patients screened per hour. Additional outcomes were rates of patients who left without being seen, rates of analgesia ordered by the screener, and proportion of patients with chest pain receiving or prescribed a standard set of tests and medications.

Results

In-person screeners evaluated 1933 patients over 337 hours (5.7 patients per hour), whereas telescreeners evaluated 1497 patients over 315 hours (4.9 patients per hour; difference=0.8; 95% CI 0.5-1.2). Split analysis revealed that for the final 3 weeks of the evaluation, the patient-per-hour rate differential was neither clinically relevant nor statistically discernable (difference=0.2; 95% CI -0.7 to 1.2). There were fewer patients who left without being seen during in-person screening than during telescreening (2.6% vs 3.8%; difference=-1.2; 95% CI -2.4 to 0.0). However, compared to prior year-, date-, and time-matched data on weekdays from 1 am to 3 am, a period previously void of provider screening, telescreening decreased the rate of patients LWBS from 25.1% to 4.5% (difference=20.7%; 95% CI 10.1-31.2). Analgesia was ordered more frequently by telescreeners than by in-person screeners (51.2% vs 31.6%; difference=19.6%; 95% CI 12.1-27.1). There was no difference in standard care received by patients with chest pain between telescreening and in-person screening (29.4% vs 22.4%; difference=7.0%; 95% CI -3.4 to 17.4).

Conclusions

Although the efficiency of telescreening, as measured by the rate of patients seen per hour, was lower early in the study period, telescreening achieved the same level of efficiency as in-person screening by the end of the pilot study. Adding telescreening during 1-3 am on weekdays dramatically decreased the number of patients who left without being seen compared to historic data. Telescreening was an effective and safe way for this ED to expand the hours in which patients were screened by a health care provider in triage.

SUBMITTER: Rademacher NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6530260 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of Telemedicine to Screen Patients in the Emergency Department: Matched Cohort Study Evaluating Efficiency and Patient Safety of Telemedicine.

Rademacher Nicholas James NJ Cole Gai G Psoter Kevin J KJ Kelen Gabor G Fan Jamie Wei Zhi JWZ Gordon Dennis D Razzak Junaid J

JMIR medical informatics 20190508 2

<h4>Background</h4>Early efforts to incorporate telemedicine into Emergency Medicine focused on connecting remote treatment clinics to larger emergency departments (EDs) and providing remote consultation services to EDs with limited resources. Owing to continued ED overcrowding, some EDs have used telemedicine to increase the number of providers during surges of patient visits and offer scheduled "home" face-to-face, on-screen encounters. In this study, we used remote on-screen telemedicine prov ...[more]

PMID: 31066698

Similar Datasets

Project description:Emergency department (ED) crowding is an increasing problem associated with adverse patient outcomes. ED expansion is one method advocated to reduce ED crowding. The objective of this analysis was to determine the effect of ED expansion on measures of ED crowding.This was a retrospective study using administrative data from two 11-month periods before and after the expansion of an ED from 33 to 53 adult beds in an academic medical center. ED volume, staffing, and hospital admission and occupancy data were obtained either from the electronic health record (EHR) or from administrative records. The primary outcome was the rate of patients who left without being treated (LWBT), and the secondary outcome was total ED boarding time for admitted patients. A multivariable robust linear regression model was used to determine whether ED expansion was associated with the outcome measures.The mean (±SD) daily adult volume was 128 (±14) patients before expansion and 145 (±17) patients after. The percentage of patients who LWBT was unchanged: 9.0% before expansion versus 8.3% after expansion (difference = 0.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.16% to 1.4%). Total ED boarding time increased from 160 to 180 hours/day (difference = 20 hours, 95% CI = 8 to 32 hours). After daily ED volume, low-acuity area volume, daily wait time, daily boarding hours, and nurse staffing were adjusted for, the percentage of patients who LWBT was not independently associated with ED expansion (p = 0.053). After ED admissions, ED intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, elective surgical admissions, hospital occupancy rate, ICU occupancy rate, and number of operational ICU beds were adjusted for, the increase in ED boarding hours was independently associated with the ED expansion (p = 0.005).An increase in ED bed capacity was associated with no significant change in the percentage of patients who LWBT, but had an unintended consequence of an increase in ED boarding hours. ED expansion alone does not appear to be an adequate solution to ED crowding.

Project description:BackgroundThe Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) funded the Evidence-Based Tele-Emergency Network Grant Program (EB TNGP) to serve the dual purpose of providing telehealth services in rural emergency departments (teleED) and systematically collecting data to inform the telehealth evidence base. This provided a unique opportunity to examine trends across multiple teleED networks and examine heterogeneity in processes and outcomes.Method and findingsSix health systems received funding from HRSA under the EB TNGP to implement teleED services and they did so to 65 hospitals (91% rural) in 11 states. Three of the grantees provided teleED services to a general patient population while the remaining three grantees provided teleED services to specialized patient populations (i.e., stroke, behavioral health, critically ill children). Over a 26-month period (November 1, 2015 -December 31, 2017), each grantee submitted patient-level data for all their teleED encounters on a uniform set of measures to the data coordinating center. The six grantees reported a total of 4,324 teleED visits and 99.86% were technically successful. The teleED patients were predominantly adult, White, not Latinx, and covered by Medicare or private insurance. Across grantees, 7% of teleED patients needed resuscitation services, 58% were rated as emergent, and 30% were rated as urgent. Across grantees, 44.2% of teleED patients were transferred to another inpatient facility, 26.0% had a routine discharge, and 24.5% were admitted to the local inpatient facility. For the three grantees who served a general patient population, the most frequent presenting complaints for which teleED was activated were chest pain (25.7%), injury or trauma (17.1%), stroke symptoms (9.9%), mental/behavioral health (9.8%), and cardiac arrest (9.5%). The teleED consultation began before the local clinician exam in 37.8% of patients for the grantees who served a general patient population, but in only 1.9% of patients for the grantees who provided specialized services.ConclusionsGrantees used teleED services for a representative rural population with urgent or emergent symptoms largely resulting in transfer to a distant hospital or inpatient admission locally. TeleED was often available as the first point of contact before a local provider examination. This finding points to the important role of teleED in improving access for rural ED patients.

Project description:IntroductionFirearm injury prevention discussions with emergency department (ED) patients provide a unique opportunity to prevent death and injury in high-risk patient groups. Building mutual understanding of safe firearm practices between patients and providers will aid the development of effective interventions. Examining ED patient baseline characteristics, perspectives on healthcare-based safety discussions, and experience with and access to firearms, will allow practitioners to craft more effective messaging and interventions.MethodsUsing an institutional review board-approved cross-sectional survey modified from a validated national instrument, we recruited 625 patients from three large, urban, academically affiliated EDs in the South to assess patient baseline characteristics, perspectives regarding firearms and firearm safety discussions, and prior violence history, as well as firearm access and safety habits. We compared the degree to which patients were open to discussions regarding firearms across a variety of provider types and clinical scenarios between those with and without gun access.ResultsOf the 625 patients consented and eligible for the study, 306 had access to firearms. The patients with firearm access were predominantly male, were more likely to have military experience, live in an urban or suburban region, and have experienced prior violence when compared to those without firearm access. Patients with and without gun access view firearm safety discussions with their healthcare provider as acceptable and analogous to other behavioral health interventions (i.e., helmet/seat belt use, alcohol/cigarette use). Patients were also accepting of these firearm safety discussions in many clinical contexts and led by multiple provider types. Of the patients with gun access, storage of each type of firearm was reviewed and the primary reason for ownership was for personal protection across all firearm types.ConclusionPatients in the ED indicate openness to firearm safety discussions delivered by a variety of providers and in diverse clinical scenarios. Healthcare providers engaging firearm owners in appropriate risk-benefit discussions using a trauma-informed approach is a critical next step in research and intervention.

Project description:Many studies have shown the tendency for people without a regular care provider or primary physician to make greater use of emergency departments. We sought to determine the effects of three aspects of care provided by primary physicians (physician specialty, continuity of care and comprehensiveness of care) on their patients' use of the emergency department.Using provincial administrative databases, we created a cohort of 367,315 adults aged 18 years and older. Participants were residents of urban areas of Quebec. Affiliation with a primary physician, the specialty of this physician (i.e., family physician v. specialist), continuity of care (as measured using the Usual Provider Continuity index) and comprehensiveness of care (i.e., number of complete annual examinations) were measured among participants (n = 311,701) who had visited a physician three or more times during a two-year baseline period. We used multivariable negative binomial regression to investigate the relationships between measures of care and the number of visits to emergency departments during a 12-month follow-up period.Among participants under 65 years of age, emergency department use was higher for those not affiliated than for those affiliated with a family physician (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.16) or a specialist (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17). Among patients aged 65 years and older, having a specialist primary physician, as opposed to a family physician, predicted increased use of the emergency department (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09-1.17). Greater continuity of care with a family physician predicted less use of the emergency department only among participants who made 25 or more visits to a physician during the baseline period. Greater continuity of care with a specialist predicted less use of the emergency department overall, particularly among participants with intermediate numbers of multimorbidities and admissions to hospital. Greater comprehensiveness of care by family physicians predicted less use of the emergency department.Efforts to increase the proportion of adults affiliated with a family physician should target older adults, people who visit physicians more frequently and people with multiple comorbidities and admissions to hospital.

Dataset Information

Use of Telemedicine to Screen Patients in the Emergency Department: Matched Cohort Study Evaluating Efficiency and Patient Safety of Telemedicine.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Use of Telemedicine to Screen Patients in the Emergency Department: Matched Cohort Study Evaluating Efficiency and Patient Safety of Telemedicine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets