Search

Advanced practice providers (APPs) comprise an increasing proportion of the emergency medicine (EM) workforce, particularly in rural geographies. With little known regarding potential expanding practice patterns, we sought to evaluate trends in independent emergency care services billed by APPs from 2013 to 2019.We performed a repeated cross-sectional analysis of emergency clinicians independently reimbursed for at least 50 evaluation and management (E/M) services (99281-99285, 99291) from Medicare Part B, with high-acuity services including Codes 99285 and 99291. We describe the outcome proportion of E/M services by acuity level and report at (1) the encounter level and (2) at the clinician level. We stratified analyses by clinician type and geography.A total of 47,323 EM physicians, 10,555 non-EM physicians, and 26,599 APPs were included in analyses. APPs billed emergency care services independently for 5.1% (rural 7.3%, urban 4.8%) of all high-acuity encounters in 2013, increasing to 9.7% (rural 16.4%, urban 8.8%) by 2019. At the clinician level, in 2013, the average rural-practicing APP independently billed 22.8% of services as high acuity, 72.6% as moderate acuity, and 4.5% as low acuity. By 2019, the average rural-practicing APP independently billed 36.2% of services as high acuity, representing a +58.8% relative increase from 2013. Relative increases in high-acuity visits independently billed by APPs were substantially greater when compared to EM physicians across both rural and urban geographies.In 2019, APPs billed independent services for approximately one in six high-acuity ED encounters in rural geographies and one in 11 high-acuity ED encounters in urban geographies, and well over one-third of the average APPs' encounters were for high-acuity E/M services. Given differences in training and reimbursement between clinician types, these estimates suggest further work is needed evaluating emergency care staffing decision making.

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) focus on correlation between treatment and outcomes in real-world clinical practice, yet a guide highlighting key study considerations and design types for emergency medicine investigators pursuing this important study type is not available. Investigators conducting emergency department (ED)-based PCTs face multiple decisions within the planning phase to ensure robust and meaningful study findings. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2) tool allows trialists to consider both pragmatic and explanatory components across nine domains, shaping the trial design to the purpose intended by the investigators. Aside from the PRECIS-2 tool domains, ED-based investigators conducting PCTs should also consider randomization techniques, human subjects concerns, and integration of trial components within the electronic health record. The authors additionally highlight the advantages, disadvantages, and rationale for the use of four common randomized study design types to be considered in PCTs: parallel, crossover, factorial, and stepped-wedge. With increasing emphasis on the conduct of PCTs, emergency medicine investigators will benefit from a rigorous approach to clinical trial design.

Objective Falls are a leading cause of injury-related emergency department (ED) visits and may serve as a sentinel event for older adults, leading to physical and psychological injury. Our primary objective was to characterize patient- and caregiver-specific perspectives about care transitions after a fall. Methods Using a semistructured interview guide, we conducted in-depth, qualitative interviews using grounded theory methodology. We included patients enrolled in the Geriatric Acute and Post-acute Fall Prevention Intervention (GAPcare) trial aged 65 years and older who had an ED visit for a fall and their caregivers. Patients with cognitive impairment (CI) were interviewed in patient-caregiver dyads. Domains assessed included the postfall recovery period, the skilled nursing facility (SNF) placement decision-making process, and the ease of obtaining outpatient follow-up. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded and analyzed for a priori and emergent themes. Results A total of 22 interviews were completed with 10 patients, eight caregivers, and four patient-caregiver dyads within the 6-month period after initial ED visits. Patients were on average 83 years old, nine of 14 were female, and two of 14 had CI. Six of 12 caregivers were interviewed in reference to a patient with CI. We identified four overarching themes: 1) the fall as a trigger for psychological and physiological change, 2) SNF placement decision-making process, 3) direct effect of fall on caregivers, and 4) barriers to receipt of recommended follow-up. Conclusions Older adults presenting to the ED after a fall report physical limitations and a prominent fear of falling after their injury. Caregivers play a vital role in securing the home environment; the SNF placement decision-making process; and navigating the transition of care between the ED, SNF, and outpatient visits after a fall. Clinicians should anticipate and address feelings of isolation, changes in mobility, and fear of falling in older adults seeking ED care after a fall.