[AKTIN - The German Emergency Department Data Registry - real-time data from emergency medicine : Implementation and first results from 15 emergency departments with focus on Federal Joint Committee's guidelines on acuity assessment].
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Emergency care in Germany is in transition. Emergency departments (EDs) treat their patients based on symptoms and acuity. However, this perspective is not reflected in claims data. The aim of the AKTIN project was to establish an Emergency Department Data Registry as a data privacy-compliant infrastructure for the use of routine medical data.Methods
Data from the respective documentation systems are continuously transmitted to local data warehouses using a standardized interface. They are available for several applications such as internal reports but also multicentre studies, in compliance with data privacy regulations. Based on a 12-months period we evaluate the population with focus on acuity assessment (triage) and vital parameters in combination with presenting complaints.Results
For the period April 2018 to March 2019, 436,149 cases from 15 EDs were available. A triage level is documented in 86.0% of cases, and 70.5% were triaged within 10 min of arrival. Ten EDs collected a presenting complaint regularly (82.3%). The respective documentation of vital signs shows plausible patterns.Conclusions
The AKTIN registry provides an almost real-time insight into German EDs, regardless of the primary documentation system and health insurance claims data. The Federal Joint Committee's requirements are largely met. Standardized presenting complaints allow for symptom-based analyses as well as health surveillance.
SUBMITTER: Brammen D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7750913 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionIt has not yet been possible to ascertain the exact proportion, characterization or impact of low-acuity emergency department (ED) attendances on the German Health Care System since valid and robust definitions to be applied in German ED routine data are missing.MethodsInternationally used methods and parameters to identify low-acuity ED attendances were identified, analyzed and then applied to routine ED data from two EDs of the tertiary care hospitals Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte (CCM) and Campus Virchow (CVK).ResultsBased on the three routinely available parameters `disposition´, `transport to the ED´ and `triage´ 33.2% (n = 30 676) out of 92 477 presentations to the two EDs of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (CVK, CCM) in 2016 could be classified as low-acuity presentations.ConclusionThis study provides a reliable and replicable means of retrospective identification and quantification of low-acuity attendances in German ED routine data. This enables both intra-national and international comparisons of figures across future studies and health care monitoring.
| S-EPMC10243890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCanadian pediatric emergency department visits are increasing, with a disproportionate increase in low-acuity visits locally (33% of volume in 2008-09, 41% in 2011-12). We sought to understand: 1) presentation patterns and resource implications; 2) parents' perceptions and motivations; and 3) alternate health care options considered prior to presenting with low-acuity problems.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study at our tertiary pediatric emergency department serving two provinces to explore differences between patients with and without a primary care provider. During four, 2-week study periods over 1 year, parents of low-acuity visits received an anonymous survey. Presentation times, interventions, diagnoses and dispositions were captured on a data collection form linked to the survey by study number.ResultsParents completed 2,443 surveys (74.1% response rate), with survey-data collection form pairs available for 2,146 visits. Overall, 89.7% of respondents had a primary care provider; 68% were family physicians. Surprisingly, 40% of visits occurred during weekday office hours and 27.3% occurred within 4 hours of symptom onset; 67.5% of those early presenters were for injuries. Few parents sought care from their primary care provider (25%), health information line (20.7%), or urgent care clinic (18.5%); 36% reported that they believed their child's problem required the emergency department. Forty-five percent required only a history, physical exam and reassurance; only 11% required an intervention not available in an office setting. Patients without a primary care provider were significantly more likely to present during weekday office hours (p = 0.003), have longer symptom duration (p<0.001), and not know of other options (p = 0.001).ConclusionsMany parents seek pediatric emergency department care for low-acuity problems despite their child having a primary care provider. Ensuring timely access to these providers may help reduce pediatric emergency department overuse. Educational initiatives should inform parents about low-acuity problems and where appropriate care can/should be accessed.
| S-EPMC4471269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize and validate the landscape of algorithms that use International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes to identify low-acuity emergency department (ED) visits.Data sourcesPublicly available ED data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS).Study designWe systematically searched for studies that specify algorithms consisting of ICD codes that identify preventable or low-acuity ED visits. We classified ED visits in NHAMCS according to these algorithms and compared agreements using the Jaccard index. We then evaluated the performance of each algorithm using positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity, with the reference group specified using low-acuity composite (LAC) criteria consisting of both triage and clinical components. In sensitivity analyses, we repeated our primary analysis using only triage or only clinical criteria for reference.Data collectionWe used the 2011-2017 NHAMCS data, totaling 163,576 observations before survey weighting and after dropping observations missing a primary diagnosis. We translated ICD-9 codes (years 2011-2015) to ICD-10 using a standard crosswalk.Principal findingsWe identified 15 papers with an original list of ICD codes used to identify preventable or low-acuity ED presentations. These papers were published between 1992 and 2020, cited an average of 310 (SD 360) times, and included 968 (SD 1175) codes. Pairwise Jaccard similarity indices (0 = no overlap, 1 = perfect congruence) ranged from 0.01 to 0.82, with mean 0.20 (SD 0.13). When validated against the LAC reference group, the algorithms had an average PPV of 0.308 (95% CI [0.253, 0.364]) and sensitivity of 0.183 (95% CI [0.111, 0.256]). Overall, 2.1% of visits identified as low acuity by the algorithms died prehospital or in the ED, or needed surgery, critical care, or cardiac catheterization.ConclusionsExisting algorithms that identify low-acuity ED visits lack congruence and are imperfect predictors of visit acuity.
| S-EPMC9264468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is substantial interest in identifying low-acuity visits to emergency departments (EDs) that could be treated more appropriately in other settings. Systematic differences in illness severity between ED patients and comparable patients elsewhere could make such strategies unsafe, but little evidence exists to guide policy makers.To compare illness severity between patients visiting EDs and outpatient clinics, by comparing short-term mortality and hospitalization, controlling for patient demographics, comorbidity, and visit acuity.Cross-sectional study of outcomes after medical encounters.Nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged home from ED or clinic visit in 2011, and enrolled continuously for 1 year before the visit.All-cause mortality and hospitalization in the 8, 15, and 30 days after discharge home from ED or clinic visits.After risk-adjusting for patient demographic, comorbidity, disability, and dual-eligibility status, as well as visit acuity as measured by a commonly used algorithm, we found that ED patients were more likely to die (risk-adjusted odds ratio=2.75; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-2.96) or be hospitalized (odds ratio=1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-2.00) after discharge than clinic patients. Differences in short-term outcomes were observed even when comparing patients with the same discharge diagnoses after risk adjustment.Patients presenting to EDs have worse risk-adjusted short-term outcomes than those presenting to outpatient clinics, even after controlling for acuity level of visit or discharge diagnosis. Existing measures of acuity using administrative data may not adequately capture severity of illness, making judgments of the appropriate setting for care difficult.
| S-EPMC4834890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Although cancer patients (CPs) are increasingly likely to visit emergency department (ED), no population-based study has compared the characteristics of CPs and non-cancer patients (NCPs) who visit the ED and examined factors associated with hospitalization via the ED. In this study, we (1) compared characteristics and diagnoses between CPs and NCPs who visited the ED in a cancer center or general hospital; (2) compared characteristics and diagnoses between CPs and NCPs who were hospitalized via the ED in a cancer center or general hospital; and (3) investigated important factors associated with such hospitalization.Methods and findings: We analyzed patient characteristic and diagnosis [based on International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) codes] data from the ED of a comprehensive cancer center (MDACC), 24 general EDs in Harris County, Texas (HCED), and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 1/1/2007-12/31/2009. Approximately 3.4 million ED visits were analyzed: 47,245, 3,248,973, and 104,566 visits for MDACC, HCED, and NHAMCS, respectively, of which 44,143 (93.4%), 44,583 (1.4%), and 632 (0.6%) were CP visits. CPs were older than NCPs and stayed longer in EDs. Lung, gastrointestinal (excluding colorectal), and genitourinary (excluding prostate) cancers were the three most common diagnoses related to ED visits at general EDs. CPs visiting MDACC were more likely than CPs visiting HCED to be privately insured. CPs were more likely than NCPs to be hospitalized. Pneumonia and influenza, fluid and electrolyte disorders, and fever were important predictive factors for CP hospitalization; coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure were important factors for NCP hospitalization.Conclusions: CPs consumed more ED resources than NCPs and had a higher hospitalization rate. Given the differences in characteristics and diagnoses between CPs and NCPs, ED physicians must pay special attention to CPs and be familiar with their unique set of oncologic emergencies.
| S-EPMC5819770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of the emergency department (ED) provider and ED facility in readmissions of recently discharged patients who visit the ED has not been studied.ObjectiveTo determine the variation in readmission rates by ED facility and ED providers caring for patients after discharge.DesignRetrospective cohort study using multilevel, multivariable models of 100% Texas Medicare claims data from the years 2007 to 2011.SettingTexas acute-care hospitals and ED facilities.PatientsMedicare beneficiaries who visited an ED within 30 days of discharge from a hospital.InterventionNone.MeasurementReadmission after an ED visit within 30 days of discharge from an initial hospitalization defined as a hospitalization starting the day of or the day following the ED visit.ResultsThe mean readmission rate following an ED visit was 52.67%. In 2-level models, 14.2% of ED providers readmitted significantly more patients (mean readmission rate of 67.2%) than the mean; 14.7% of ED providers readmitted significantly fewer patients (mean readmission rate of 36.8%) than the mean. After accounting for the ED facility in 3-level models, the variance for the ED providers decreased 65% from 0.2532 to 0.0893.ConclusionsThe risk of readmission varies by ED provider caring for patients after discharge. A large part of this variation is explained by the ED facility in which the ED providers practice. Thus, ED provider practices patterns and ED facility systems of care may be a target for interventions to reduce readmissions.
| S-EPMC4891808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are scant data regarding the change in volume and acuity of patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), compared with the pre-COVID-19 era.ObjectiveTo determine ED volumes and triage acuity prior to and after COVID-19.MethodsWe determined the volume of patients presenting to four large EDs affiliated with general, cardiac, cancer, and obstetrics hospitals, and the acuity of presenting illness (using the Canadian Triage Acuity Scale [CTAS]) for March and April 2020 and compared them with the same months in 2019 and January 2020. Together, these facilities see over 80% of the ED visits in Qatar. The first COVID-19 patient in Qatar was diagnosed on February 29, 2020.ResultsA total of 192,157 ED visits were recorded during the study period. There was a 20-43% overall drop in number of ED visits, with significant variability across hospitals. The Heart Hospital experienced the sharpest decline (33-89%), and the National Center for Cancer Care and Research experienced the least decline in volumes. The decline was observed across all CTAS levels, with the largest decline observed in individuals presenting with CTAS 1 and 2 (26-69% decline month by month). No increase in overall number of deaths or crude mortality rate was observed in the COVID-19 era, according to national statistics.ConclusionsSharp declines in ED visits and the triage acuity seen in both general and specialty hospitals raise the concern that severely ill patients may not be seeking timely care, and a surge may be expected once current restrictions on movement are lifted.
| S-EPMC7413056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThere is evidence that emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with increased mortality, however large multicenter studies of high quality are scarce. In a prior study, we introduced a proxy-measure for crowding that was associated with increased mortality. The national registry SVAR enables us to study the association in a more heterogenous group of EDs with more recent data. The aim is to investigate the association between ED crowding and mortality.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study including visits from 14 EDs in Sweden 2015-2019. Crowding was defined as the mean ED-census divided with expected ED-census during the work-shift that the patient arrived. The crowding exposure was categorized in three groups: low, moderate and high. Hazard ratios (HR) for mortality within 7 and 30 days were estimated with a cox proportional hazards model. The model was adjusted for age, sex, triage priority, arrival hour, weekend, arrival mode and chief complaint. Subgroup analysis by county and for admitted patients by county were performed.Results2,440,392 visits from 1,142,631 unique patients were analysed. A significant association was found between crowding and 7-day mortality but not with 30-day mortality. Subgroup analysis also yielded mixed results with a clear association in only one of the three counties. The estimated HR (95% CI) for 30-day mortality for admitted patients in this county was 1.06 (1.01-1.12) in the moderate crowding category, and 1.11 (1.01-1.22) in the high category.ConclusionsThe association between crowding and mortality may not be universal. Factors that influence the association between crowding and mortality at different EDs are still unknown but a high hospital bed occupancy, impacting admitted patients may play a role.
| S-EPMC7946203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TCM) is an important condition for the emergency physician to consider in patients with cardiovascular symptoms. A 70-year-old woman presented with chest pain and nausea following emotional trauma. She had an elevated troponin and a normal electrocardiogram with no history of previous cardiac disease. Point-of-care focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) showed reduced left ventricular systolic function with mid to apical hypokinesis. Cardiac catheterization revealed clean coronary arteries and confirmed the suspected diagnosis of TCM. Few reports emphasize the importance of FOCUS in the diagnosis and management of TCM in the emergency department. We detail FOCUS findings that assisted with diagnosis of TCM and describe how this quick, noninvasive imaging modality can be used to assess and manage emergent conditions.
| S-EPMC5965118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Patients with low-acuity (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale level IV and V) complaints use the emergency department (ED) to access care. This has often been attributed to lack of a primary care provider. However, simply being registered with a primary care provider may not prevent low acuity ED presentation. There is some evidence that a lack of timely access to primary care may contribute to low acuity ED presentations. The Wait Time Alliance, a group of Canadian physicians and their respective professional associations, has recently set a benchmark of same day access to family doctors. It is unclear if this benchmark has been achieved in all jurisdictions. Methods We performed linked cross sectional surveys to quantify the number of people presenting to the ED for nonurgent problems who felt unable to access primary care. Primary care practices were also surveyed to assess access using the metric of time to third next available appointment. Results In the patient survey, 381 of 580 patients consented to participate. Of the 89 patients who met eligibility criteria, 100% completed the survey. 32 (35.9%) reported that the wait to see their primary care provider was "too long". 45 (50.5%) patients did not contact their primary care provider's office prior to ED presentation. 45 of 72 physician surveys were returned; a response rate of 62.5%. Most (77%) physicians estimated their wait time for a standard appointment to be greater than 48 hours. The mean calculated time to third next available appointment in the region was 6.6 (95% CI 4.6-8.7) days. Conclusions Approximately half of low acuity patients do not attempt to access their primary care provider prior to ED presentation. The benchmark of same day access to primary care has not been achieved in many practices in our region. Further education regarding primary care access would likely be beneficial to both patients and providers.
| S-EPMC5522016 | biostudies-other