Search

Introduction: Effective communication to develop a shared understanding of patient expectations is critical to a positive encounter in the Emergency Department (ED). However, there is limited research examining Patient/Caregiver (P/C ) expectations in the ED and what factors lead to P/C presentation. This study aims to address this gap by answering the following questions: 1) What are common P/C reported factors affecting ED presentation? 2) What are common P/C expectations of an ED visit? 3) How do P/C expectations vary based on ED site or factors affecting presentation in the ED? Methods: The Preparing Emergency Patients and Providers (PrEPP) tool was designed to collect P/C expectations, worries, perceived causes of symptoms, and factors affecting presentation from a convenience sample of patient visits to the emergency department (ED). The PrEPP tool was provided to all P/Cs with CTAS 2-5 when they registered at one of 4 EDs in the Halifax area from January to June 2016. Completed tools were collected in a REDCap database where qualitative data was coded into categories (i.e. presenting illness, injury). Descriptive and chi-squared statistical analyses were performed. Results: In total, 11,418 PrEPP tools were collected; representing 12% of the total ED visits to the 4 ED sites during the study period. The main factors affecting ED presentation were: self-referral 68%, family/friends 20%, telehealth 8%, unable to see their GP 7%, GP referral 6%, or walk-in-clinic 5%. P/Cs main causes of worry were: presenting illness 19%, injury 15%, or pain 14%. The main expectations for the ED visit were to get a: physician's opinion 73%, x-ray 40%, or blood test 20%. Most P/Cs indicated they did not expect medication during (63%), or after (66%), their ED visit. There were significant differences in P/C expectations between adult and pediatric EDs (χ2 = 720.949, df = 14, P = 0.000) and those P/Cs unable or able to access primary care prior to ED presentation (χ2 = 38.980, df = 1, P = 0.000). The rate of expecting a physician's opinion at the pediatric ED was higher than the adult ED (77.6% vs 70.9%), while lower for expecting CT/MRIs (4.6% vs 11.4%). P/Cs who were unable to access primary care prior to ED presentation expected services which were available at primary care at a higher rate than those who accessed primary care (58.5% vs 36.7%). Conclusion: Our findings identify some of the factors that influence P/C's decision to present to the ED and their expectations of the ED visit.

Introduction: Effective communication to develop a shared understanding of patient/caregiver (P/C) expectations is critical during emergency department (ED) encounters. However, there is limited research examining the use of communication tools of P/C expectations to improve communication in the ED. The objective of this study was to examine satisfaction with a patient expectations questionnaire, known as the PrEPP tool, and its impact on communication and management of patients in the ED. Methods: The PrEPP tool collected P/C expectations over 3 phases of the study. In phase1, the PrEPP tool was distributed to all P/Cs (CTAS score of 2 to 5) in four EDs in Nova Scotia. In phase 2 the PrEPP tool was refined to a 5-item questionnaire. In phase 3 the PrEPP tool was re-implemented over a six-month period. Follow-up surveys were distributed to P/Cs via email (phase 1, 3) and HCPs on iPads in the ED (phase 3) to determine the impact of the tool on communication and management of patients. Entries were compiled on a REDCap database and descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses related to satisfaction.The PrEPP tool collected P/C expectations over 3 phases of the study. In phase1, the PrEPP tool was distributed to all P/Cs (CTAS score of 2 to 5) in four EDs in Nova Scotia. In phase 2 the PrEPP tool was refined to a 5-item questionnaire. In phase 3 the PrEPP tool was re-implemented over a six-month period. Follow-up surveys were distributed to P/Cs via email (phase 1, 3) and HCPs on iPads in the ED (phase 3) to determine the impact of the tool on communication and management of patients. Entries were compiled on a REDCap database and descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses related to satisfaction. Results: In Phase 1, 11418 PrEPP tools and 147 surveys (29% response rate) were collected from January-June 2016. The majority of P/Cs found the PrEPP questionnaire easy to complete (95.9%) and felt HCPs met their expectations (87.1%). In Phase 3, 951 P/C (31.1% response rate) and 128 HCP surveys were collected. Of P/C respondents 45.9% felt PrEPP helped to communicate expectations, while 49.7% said that they would like to use it on future ED visits. The majority of P/C respondents (75.4%) indicated their expectations were met during their visit to the ED. Of those whose expectations were not met, 69% felt their expectations were not discussed. The majority of HCP respondents (90.4%) indicated they used the PrEPP tool at least sometimes. Also, 78.4% said it influenced patient communication and 42% indicated the tool influenced management of patients at least sometimes. Conclusion: Obtaining expectations early in the patient encounter may provide opportunities for improved communication in the ED. P/Cs found the PrEPP tool easy to use to communicate their expectations and HCPs felt it influenced communication and management of patients in the ED. Further qualitative thematic analysis is needed to explore how the PrEPP tool impacted ED visits.

Introduction: Effective communication to develop a shared understanding of patient expectations is critical in establishing a positive medical encounter in the emergency department (ED). However, there is limited research examining patient/caregiver expectations in the ED, and their impact on the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours during and after an ED visit. The objective of this study is to examine patient/caregiver expectations and satisfaction with care in the ED using a patient expectation questionnaire and a follow up survey. Methods: As a part of a larger 3-phase study on patient/caregiver expectations in adult and pediatric EDs, a 7-item, paper-based questionnaire was distributed to all patients and/or caregivers who presented to one of four EDs in Nova Scotia with a Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score of 2 to 5. A follow-up survey was distributed to all willing participants via email to determine their satisfaction with care received in ED. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses. Results: Phase 1 was conducted from January to September 2016. In total, 24,788 expectation questionnaires were distributed to ED patients/caregivers, 11,571 were collected (47% response rate), and 509 patients were contacted for a follow-up survey. Preliminary analysis of 4,533 questionnaires shows the majority of patients (67.1%) made the decision by themselves to present to the ED, while others were advised by a family/friend (22%). Respondents were most worried about an injury (17.8%) followed by illness (15.6%) and expected to talk to a physician (69.9%) and receive an x-ray (39.3%). The majority of physicians (53.3%) reported the expectation tool helped in caring for the patient and 87.5% felt they met patient expectations. There were 147 patient/caregiver responses to a follow-up survey (29% response rate) and 87.1% of responders reported that ED clinicians met their expectations. Conclusion: Patient/caregivers have a variety of concerns, questions, and expectations when presenting to the ED. Obtaining expectations early in the patient encounter may provide opportunities for improved communication between clinicians and patients while enhancing satisfaction with care received. Further analysis is needed to determine the impact of the expectation questionnaire on productivity in the ED.