Dataset Information

"Why Is This Patient Being Sent Here?": Communication from Urgent Care to the Emergency Department.

ABSTRACT: Despite patients' increasing use of urgent care centers (UCC), little is known about how urgent care clinicians communicate with the emergency department (ED).To assess ED clinicians' perceptions of the quality and consistency of communication when patients are referred from UCCs to EDs.Emergency medicine department chairs distributed a brief, electronic survey to a statewide sample of ED clinicians via e-mail. The survey included multiple-choice and free-text questions focused on types of communication desired and received from UCCs, types of test results available on transfer, and suggestions for improvement.Of 199 ED clinicians, 102 (51.3%) responded. More than four out of five respondents "somewhat" or "strongly agreed" that each of the following would be helpful: a telephone call, the reason for referral, specific concern, a copy of the chart, and UCC contact information. However, ED clinicians reported not consistently receiving these: only a fifth (21.6%) of clinicians reported receiving the specific concern for their last 5 patients transferred from a UCC, and 34.3% recalled receiving a copy of the chart. Overall, 54.9% reported receiving laboratory test results "often or almost always," 49.0% electrocardiograms, and 44.1% imaging reports. Qualitative analysis revealed several themes: incomplete data when patients are referred; barriers to discussion between ED and urgent care clinicians; and possible solutions to improve communication.Our findings highlight variation in communication from UCCs to EDs, indicating a need to improve communication standards and practices. We identify several potential ways to improve this clinical information hand-off.

SUBMITTER: Gardner R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5718340 | biostudies-other | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Why Is This Patient Being Sent Here?": Communication from Urgent Care to the Emergency Department.

Gardner Rebekah R Choo Esther K EK Gravenstein Stefan S Baier Rosa R RR

The Journal of emergency medicine 20150815 3

<h4>Background</h4>Despite patients' increasing use of urgent care centers (UCC), little is known about how urgent care clinicians communicate with the emergency department (ED).<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess ED clinicians' perceptions of the quality and consistency of communication when patients are referred from UCCs to EDs.<h4>Methods</h4>Emergency medicine department chairs distributed a brief, electronic survey to a statewide sample of ED clinicians via e-mail. The survey included multiple-ch ...[more]

PMID: 26281813

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the association between a large-scale, multi-payer primary care redesign-the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) Initiative-on outpatient emergency department (ED) and urgent care center (UCC) use and to identify the types of visits that drive the overall trends observed.Data sourcesMedicare claims data capturing characteristics and outcomes of 565 674 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries attributed to 497 CPC practices and 1 165 284 beneficiaries attributed to 908 comparison practices.Study designWe used an adjusted difference-in-differences framework to test the association between CPC and beneficiaries' ED and UCC use from October 2012 through December 2016. Regression models controlled for baseline practice and patient characteristics and practice-level clustering of standard errors. Our key outcomes were all-cause and primary care substitutable (PC substitutable) outpatient ED and UCC visits, and potentially primary care preventable (PPC preventable) ED visits, categorized by the New York University Emergency Department Algorithm. We used a propensity score-matched comparison group of practices that were similar to CPC practices before CPC on multiple dimensions. Both groups of practices had similar growth in ED and UCC visits in the two-year period before CPC.Principal findingsComprehensive Primary Care practices had 2% (P = .06) lower growth in all-cause ED visits than comparison practices. They had 3% (P = .02) lower growth in PC substitutable ED visits, driven by lower growth in weekday PC substitutable visits (4%, P = .002). There was 3% (P = .04) lower growth in PPC preventable ED visits with no weekday/nonweekday differential. As expected, our falsification test showed no difference in ED visits for injuries. UCC visits had 9% lower growth for both all-cause (P = .08) and PC substitutable visits (P = .07).ConclusionsOur results suggest that greater access to the practice and more effective primary care both contributed to the lower growth in ED and UCC visits during the initiative.

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.ResultsOver 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.ConclusionsAmong unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Project description:Clinical handovers of patient care among healthcare professionals is vulnerable to the loss of important clinical information. A verbal report is typically provided by paramedics and documented by emergency department (ED) triage nurses. Paramedics subsequently complete a patient care report which is submitted electronically. This emergency medical system (EMS) patient care report often contains details of paramedic assessment and management that is not all captured in the nursing triage note. EMS patient care reports are often unavailable for review by emergency physicians and nurses. Two processes occur in the distribution of EMS patient care reports. The first is an external process to the ED that is influenced by the prehospital emergency medical system and results in the report being faxed to the ED. The second process is internal to the ED that requires clerical staff to distribute the fax report to accompany patient charts. A baseline audit measured the percentage of EMS patient care reports that were available to emergency physicians at the time of initial patient assessments and showed a wide variation in the availability of EMS reports. Also measured were the time intervals from patient transfer from EMS to ED stretcher until the EMS report was received by fax (external process measure) and the time from receiving the EMS fax report until distribution to patient chart (internal process measure). These baseline measures showed a wide variation in the time it takes to receive the EMS reports by fax and to distribute reports. Improvement strategies consisted of: 1. Educating ED clerical staff about the importance of EMS reports 2. Implementing a new process to minimize ED clerical staff handling of EMS reports for nonactive ED patients 3. Elimination of the automatic retrieval of old hospital charts and their distribution for ED patients 4. Introduction of an electronic dashboard for patients arriving by ambulance to facilitate more efficient distribution of EMS reports. Implementation of change strategies did not result in a significant improvement in the percentage of EMS reports available to emergency physicians at the time of initial patient assessment. However, tracking both external and internal processes that influence EMS report availability showed the internal process time from fax report receipt to distribution significantly improved. This improvement reflected the change strategies that were all directed at improving the internal process. EMS patient care reports are more efficiently processed and distributed in the ED due to change strategies implemented that targeted the ED's internal process of EMS report distribution. The external process responsible for transmitting EMS reports to the ED is the limiting factor that prevents consistent timely access of EMS reports by emergency physicians and will require dedicated improvement strategies.

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:Clear communication with patients upon emergency department (ED) discharge is important for patient safety during the transition to outpatient care. Over one-third of patients are discharged from the ED with diagnostic uncertainty, yet there is no established approach for effective discharge communication in this scenario. From 2017 to 2019, the authors developed the Uncertainty Communication Checklist for use in simulation-based training and assessment of emergency physician communication skills when discharging patients with diagnostic uncertainty. This development process followed the established 12-step Checklist Development Checklist framework and integrated patient feedback into 6 of the 12 steps. Patient input was included as it has potential to improve patient-centeredness of checklists related to assessment of clinical performance. Focus group patient participants from 2 clinical sites were included: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, and Northwestern University Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.The authors developed a preliminary instrument based on existing checklists, clinical experience, literature review, and input from an expert panel comprising health care professionals and patient advocates. They then refined the instrument based on feedback from 2 waves of patient focus groups, resulting in a final 21-item checklist. The checklist items assess if uncertainty was addressed in each step of the discharge communication, including the following major categories: introduction, test results/ED summary, no/uncertain diagnosis, next steps/follow-up, home care, reasons to return, and general communication skills. Patient input influenced both what items were included and the wording of items in the final checklist. This patient-centered, systematic approach to checklist development is built upon the rigor of the Checklist Development Checklist and provides an illustration of how to integrate patient feedback into the design of assessment tools when appropriate.

Dataset Information

"Why Is This Patient Being Sent Here?": Communication from Urgent Care to the Emergency Department.

Publications

"Why Is This Patient Being Sent Here?": Communication from Urgent Care to the Emergency Department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets