Search

The demands on emergency services have grown relentlessly, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has asserted the need for "regionalized, coordinated, and accountable emergency care systems throughout the country." There are large gaps in the evidence base needed to fix the problem of how emergency care is organized and delivered, and science is urgently needed to define and measure success in the emerging network of emergency care. In 2010, Academic Emergency Medicine convened a consensus conference entitled "Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care." This article is a product of the conference breakout session on "Defining and Measuring Successful Networks"; it explores the concept of integrated emergency care delivery and prioritizes a research agenda for how to best define and measure successful networks of emergency care. The authors discuss five key areas: 1) the fundamental metrics that are needed to measure networks across time-sensitive and non-time-sensitive conditions; 2) how networks can be scalable and nimble and can be creative in terms of best practices; 3) the potential unintended consequences of networks of emergency care; 4) the development of large-scale, yet feasible, network data systems; and 5) the linkage of data systems across the disease course. These knowledge gaps must be filled to improve the quality and efficiency of emergency care and to fulfill the IOM's vision of regionalized, coordinated, and accountable emergency care systems.

Objectives: To examine variability in responses from institutional review boards (IRBs) to submission of a proposed minimal-risk survey. Methods: Identical research proposals to obtain information concerning beliefs about the needs of victims of intimate partner violence via surveys were submitted for IRB approval to three institutions in the Baltimore metropolitan area. One institution is an academic center, one is an inner-city hospital affiliated with the academic center, and the third is a suburban community hospital. The study population consisted of emergency department health care providers and individuals in emergency department waiting areas. Results: Inconsistencies emerged among the three IRBs in the review process itself, the need for participant consent, and the need for revision of the consent form and study protocol. One institution approved the proposal in 15 business days after expedited review. The second institution approved the proposal in 12 business days and waived the requirement for informed consent. The third institution approved the research in 77 business days after three revisions. Questions raised included: methodology for selecting participants; appropriateness of surveying individuals in emergency department waiting areas; a request for background literature to assure that the research questions had not already been answered; and concerns about study methodology and sample size justification. Conclusions: In this sample, there is considerable variability in IRB processes even for minimal-risk studies.

Objective: To examine the impact primary care referral has on subsequent emergency department (ED) utilization. Methods: Uninsured ED patients who reported not having a primary care (PC) provider were referred to PC services at a community health center (CHC). The number of CHC visits completed was documented and the utilization rates of hospital-based services (i.e., ED visits, outpatient clinic visits, and admissions) were compared for patients who completed a CHC visit and those who did not before and after referral. Results: Of the 655 referred patients, 22% completed at least one CHC visit. Patients who completed a visit were more likely to be older, to be female, and to have a chronic medical problem (p = 0.001). The number of visits to the CHC was significantly related to the payment method. Only 19% of those who were self-pay completed three or more CHC visits, compared with 63% of those who qualified for a sliding fee or insurance (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pre- or post-ED utilization between those who completed a CHC visit and those who did not. The only significant difference in utilization between the two study groups was for subsequent outpatient visits. Patients who completed a CHC visit were more likely to receive outpatient specialty care (23%) compared with patients who did not (12%) (p = 0.001). Conclusions: For uninsured patients with no regular health care provider, improving access to primary care services is not enough to reduce their visits to the ED.

This article presents information on considerations involved in setting up and conducting fellowship training programs in emergency medicine (EM) for physicians from other countries. General goals for these programs are to assist in providing physicians from other countries with the knowledge and skills needed to further develop EM in their home countries. The authors report their opinions, based on their cumulative extensive experiences, on the necessary and optional structural elements to consider for international EM fellowship programs. Because of U.S. medical licensing restrictions, much of the proposed programs' content would be "observational" rather than involving direct "hands-on" clinical EM training. Due to the very recent initiation of these programs in the United States, there has not yet been reported any scientific evaluation of their structure or efficacy. International EM fellowship programs involving mainly observational EM experience can serve as one method to assist in EM development in other countries. Future studies should assess the impact and efficacy of these programs.

There is a rapidly growing interest in emergency medicine (EM) and emergency out-of-hospital care throughout the world. In most countries, the specialty of EM is either nonexistent or in an early stage of development. Many countries have recognized the need for, and value of, establishing a quality emergency health care system and are striving to create the specialty. These systems do not have to be high tech and expense but can focus on providing appropriate emergency training to physicians and other health care workers. Rather than repeatedly "reinventing the wheel" with the start of each new emergency care system, the preexisting knowledge base of EM can be shared with these countries. Since the United States has an advanced emergency health care system and the longest history of recognizing EM as a distinct medical specialty, lessons learned in the United States may benefit other countries. In order to provide appropriate advice to countries in the early phase of emergency health care development, careful assessment of national resources, governmental structure, population demographics, culture, and health care needs is necessary. This paper lists specific recommendations for EM organizations and physicians seeking to assist the development of the specialty of EM internationally.