Dataset Information

Emergency department interventions that could be conducted in subacute care settings for patients with nonemergent conditions transported by paramedics: a modified Delphi study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As the number of patients with nonemergent conditions who are transported by paramedics continues to increase in Ontario, redirecting specific patients to subacute settings may be more beneficial and suitable for both patients and emergency departments. We aimed to evaluate whether emergency department interventions conducted on patients with nonemergent conditions who are transported by paramedics could be conducted in subacute health centres.

Methods

We conducted a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi study in Ontario between Oct. 13 and Dec. 19, 2020. We used purposive sampling to recruit practising emergency and primary care physicians for an expert panel. We abstracted interventions given to adult patients with nonemergent conditions (18 yr of age or older) who were transported by paramedics to an emergency department from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) database (Jan. 1, 2014, to Mar. 31, 2018). Participants in the expert panel rated the suitability of the 150 most frequently recorded emergency department interventions from the NACRS database, for completion in subacute health care centres. We set consensus at 70% agreement.

Results

We invited 25 physician experts, 21 of whom consented to participate; 20 physicians completed round 1, and 18 physicians completed both rounds. After 2 rounds, consensus was reached on 146 (97.3%) interventions; 103 interventions (68.7%) were suitable for subacute centres, 43 (28.7%) for only the emergency department and 4 (2.6%) did not receive consensus. For subacute centres, all 103 interventions were rated for urgent care centres; walk-in medical centres were applicable for 46 (30.6%) interventions and clinics led by nurse practitioners for 47 (31.3%) interventions.

Interpretation

Most interventions provided to patients with nonemergent conditions transported by paramedics to emergency departments were identified as suitable for urgent care clinics, with one-third being suitable for either walk-in medical centres or clinics led by nurse practitioners. This study has potential to inform a patient classification model for paramedic-initiated redirection of patients from emergency departments, although further contextualization is required for this to be implemented in clinical practice.

Study registration

ID ISRCTN22901977.

SUBMITTER: Strum RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8758169 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMost patients transported by Ontario paramedics to the emergency department have non-emergent conditions and may be more appropriately served by subacute community-based care centres. We sought to determine consensus on a set of patient characteristics that could be useful to classify retrospective emergency department visits that had a high probability of being primary care-like and potentially redirectable to a subacute care centre by paramedics.MethodsWe conducted a modified Delphi study to assess expert consensus on characteristics of patients transported by paramedics to the emergency department from August to October 2021. An expert Delphi committee was constructed of emergency and family physicians in Ontario using purposive sampling. Experts rated whether each characteristic was useful to be included in a classification to identify potentially redirectable visits retrospectively, as well as characteristic details (e.g., upper and lower bounds). Consensus was considered 75% agreement.ResultsSixteen experts participated in the study; the experts were mostly male (75%) and evenly divided between emergency and family medicine. After 2 rounds, consensus was achieved on 8 of 9 characteristics (89%). Four characteristics were determined as useful to classify potentially redirectable emergency department visits: age (81%), triage acuity (100%), specialist consult in the emergency department (94%) and emergency department visit outcome (81%). Specifications of each characteristic were refined as follows: young and middle-aged adults with a non-emergent triage acuity, did not receive a specialist physician consult in the emergency department and discharged from the emergency department.InterpretationStrong consensus was achieved to specify a classification system for potentially redirectable emergency department visits. These results will be combined with knowledge of which subacute care centres could conduct the main physician interventions to retrospectively identify emergency department visits that could have been suitable for paramedic redirection for further research.Study registrationID ISRCTN22901977.

Project description:ImportanceInsurers have increasingly adopted policies to reduce emergency department (ED) visits that they consider unnecessary. One common approach is to retrospectively deny coverage if the ED discharge diagnosis is determined by the insurer to be nonemergent.ObjectiveTo characterize ED visits that may be denied coverage if the ED coverage denial policy of a large national insurer, Anthem, Inc, is widely adopted.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis of probability-sampled ED visits from the nationally representative National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey ED subsample occurring from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015, was conducted. Visits by commercially insured patients aged 15 to 64 years were examined. Those with ED discharge diagnoses defined by Anthem's policy as nonemergent and therefore subject to possible denial of coverage were classified as denial diagnosis visits. The primary presenting symptoms among denial diagnosis visits were identified, and all visits by commercially insured adults presenting with these primary symptoms were classified as denial symptom visits.Main outcomes and measuresEach visit cohort as a weighted proportion of commercially insured adult ED visits. The proportion of each visit cohort that received ED-level care, defined as visits where patients were triaged as urgent or emergent, received 2 or more diagnostic tests, or were admitted or transferred, was also examined.ResultsFrom 2011 to 2015, 15.7% (95% CI, 15.0%-16.4%) of commercially insured adult ED visits (4440 of 28 304) were denial diagnosis visits (mean [SD] patient age, 36.6 [14.0] years; 2592 [58.7%] female and 2962 [63.5%] white). Among these visits, 39.7% (95% CI, 37.1%-42.3%) received ED-level care: 24.5% (95% CI, 21.7%-27.4%) were initially triaged as urgent or emergent and 26.0% (95% CI, 23.8%-28.3%) received 2 or more diagnostic tests. These denial diagnosis visits shared the same presenting symptoms as 87.9% (95% CI, 87.3%-88.4%) of commercially insured adult ED visits (24 882 of 28 304) (mean [SD] patient age, 38.5 [14.1] years; 14 362 [57.9%] female and 17 483 [68.7%] white). Among these denial symptom visits, 65.1% (95% CI, 63.4%-66.9%) received ED-level care: 43.2% (95% CI, 40.2%-46.4%) were triaged as urgent or emergent, 51.9% (95% CI, 50.0%-53.9%) received 2 or more diagnostic tests, and 9.7% (95% CI, 8.8%-10.6%) were admitted or transferred.Conclusions and relevanceAnthem's nonemergent ED discharge diagnoses were not associated with identification of unnecessary ED visits when assessed from the patient's perspective. This cost-reduction policy could place many patients who reasonably seek ED care at risk of coverage denial.

Project description:BackgroundEarly warning score systems have been widely recommended for use to detect clinical deterioration in patients. The Irish National Emergency Medicine Programme has developed and piloted an emergency department specific early warning score system. The objective of this study was to develop a consensus among frontline healthcare staff, quality and safety staff and health systems researchers regarding evaluation measures for an early warning score system in the Emergency Department.MethodsParticipatory action research including a modified Delphi consensus building technique with frontline hospital staff, quality and safety staff, health systems researchers, local and national emergency medicine stakeholders was the method employed in this study. In Stage One, a workshop was held with the participatory action research team including frontline hospital staff, quality and safety staff and health systems researchers to gather suggestions regarding the evaluation measures. In Stage Two, an electronic modified-Delphi study was undertaken with a panel consisting of the workshop participants, key local and national emergency medicine stakeholders. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the characteristics of the panellists who completed the questionnaires in each round. The mean Likert rating, standard deviation and 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval for each variable was calculated. Bonferroni corrections were applied to take account of multiple testing. Data were analysed using Stata 14.0 SE.ResultsUsing the Institute for Healthcare Improvement framework, 12 process, outcome and balancing metrics for measuring the effectiveness of an ED-specific early warning score system were developed.ConclusionThere are currently no published measures for evaluating the effectiveness of an ED early warning score system. It was possible in this study to develop a suite of evaluation measures using a modified Delphi consensus approach. Using the collective expertise of frontline hospital staff, quality and safety staff and health systems researchers to develop and categorise the initial set of potential measures was an innovative and unique element of this study.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency department (ED) crowding leads to prolonged emergency department length of stay (ED-LOS) and adverse patient outcomes. No uniform definition of ED crowding exists. Several scores have been developed to quantify ED crowding; the best known is the Emergency Department Work Index (EDWIN). Research on the EDWIN is often applied to limited settings and conducted over a short period of time.ObjectivesTo explore whether the EDWIN as a measure can track occupancy at a Dutch ED over the course of one year and to identify fluctuations in ED occupancy per hour, day, and month. Secondary objective is to investigate the discriminatory value of the EDWIN in detecting crowding, as compared with the occupancy rate and prolonged ED-LOS.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of all ED visits during the period from September 2010 to August 2011 was performed in one hospital in the Netherlands. The EDWIN incorporates the number of patients per triage level, physicians, treatment beds and admitted patients to quantify ED crowding. The EDWIN was adjusted to emergency care in the Netherlands: modified EDWIN (mEDWIN). ED crowding was defined as the 75th percentile of mEDWIN per hour, which was ≥0.28.ResultsIn total, 28,220 ED visits were included in the analysis. The median mEDWIN per hour was 0.15 (Interquartile range (IQR) 0.05-0.28); median mEDWIN per patient was 0.25 (IQR 0.15-0.39). The EDWIN was higher on Wednesday (0.16) than on other days (0.14-0.16, p<0.001), and a peak in both mEDWIN (0.30-0.33) and ED crowding (52.9-63.4%) was found between 13:00-18:00 h. A comparison of the mEDWIN with the occupancy rate revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 (95%CI 0.85-0.87). The AUC of mEDWIN compared with a prolonged ED-LOS (≥4 hours) was 0.50 (95%CI 0.40-0.60).ConclusionThe mEDWIN was applicable at a Dutch ED. The mEDWIN was able to identify fluctuations in ED occupancy. In addition, the mEDWIN had high discriminatory power for identification of a busy ED, when compared with the occupancy rate.

Project description:IntroductionOntario ambulances are restricted from patient transportation to sub-acute levels of care when these facilities may be more suitable than emergency departments for non-emergent conditions. There is no known patient classification specifically constructed to inform ED diversion protocols and guidance for sub-acute centre transportation for primary care-like patient conditions.ObjectiveTo construct a novel patient classification of potentially preventable emergency department visits following transport by ambulance, and analyse patient-level characteristic associations with this classification based in Ontario secondary data.Methods and analysisThe Primary Care-like Ambulance transports following Response for 911-Emergencies (PriCARE) patient classification will be constructed using a two-phase RAND/UCLA modified Delphi design. All experts included are physicians with relevant experience in emergency and/or primary care in Ontario. The first phase of the study will determine consensus of the expert committee on which ED interventions performed on patients with non-emergent acuities could be conducted in sub-acute healthcare centres. The second phase will assess consensus of which patient, hospital and acuity factors are most appropriate to be incorporated into a PriCARE classification. We will also investigate secondary outcomes on consensus of which ED interventions could be transferred to a paramedic context given an expanded scope of practice and patient-level characteristics of PriCARE classified individuals.Ethics and disseminationThis study received a research ethics board exemption waiver from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; review reference 2020-11451-GRA. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. The results will be shared with Ontario paramedic services and governing institutions. This study will be used to inform patient classification protocols and clinical decision tools for ambulances to transport to sub-acute healthcare centres.Trial registration numberISRCTN22901977.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults are at high risk of developing delirium in the emergency department (ED); however, it is under-recognized in routine clinical care. Lack of detection and treatment is associated with poor outcomes, such as mortality. Performance measures (PMs) are needed to identify variations in quality care to help guide improvement strategies. The purpose of this study is to gain consensus on a set of quality statements and PMs that can be used to evaluate delirium care quality for older ED patients.MethodsA 3-round modified e-Delphi study was conducted with ED clinical experts. In each round, participants rated quality statements according to the concepts of importance and actionability, then their associated PMs according to the concept of necessity (1-9 Likert scales), with the ability to comment on each. Consensus and stability were evaluated using a priori criteria using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data was examined to identify themes within and across quality statements and PMs, which went through a participant validation exercise in the final round.ResultsTwenty-two experts participated, 95.5% were from west or central Canada. From 10 quality statements and 24 PMs, consensus was achieved for six quality statements and 22 PMs. Qualitative data supported justification for including three quality statements and one PM that achieved consensus slightly below a priori criteria. Three overarching themes emerged from the qualitative data related to quality statement actionability. Nine quality statements, nine structure PMs, and 14 process PMs are included in the final set, addressing four areas of delirium care: screening, diagnosis, risk reduction and management.ConclusionResults provide a set of quality statements and PMs that are important, actionable, and necessary to a diverse group of clinical experts. To our knowledge, this is the first known study to develop a de novo set of guideline-based quality statements and PMs to evaluate the quality of delirium care older adults receive in the ED setting.