Search

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services “meaningful use” incentive programs, in tandem with the boundless additional requirements for detailed reporting of quality metrics, have galvanized hospital efforts to implement hospital-based electronic health records. As such, emergency department information systems (EDISs) are an important and unique component of most hospitals' electronic health records. System functionality varies greatly and affects physician decisionmaking, clinician workflow, communication, and, ultimately, the overall quality of care and patient safety. This article is a joint effort by members of the Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Section and the Informatics Section of the American College of Emergency Physicians. The aim of this effort is to examine the benefits and potential threats to quality and patient safety that could result from the choice of a particular EDIS, its implementation and optimization, and the hospital's or physician group's approach to continuous improvement of the EDIS. Specifically, we explored the following areas of potential EDIS safety concerns: communication failure, wrong order–wrong patient errors, poor data display, and alert fatigue. Case studies are presented that illustrate the potential harm that could befall patients from an inferior EDIS product or suboptimal execution of such a product in the clinical environment. The authors have developed 7 recommendations to improve patient safety with respect to the deployment of EDISs. These include ensuring that emergency providers actively participate in selection of the EDIS product, in the design of processes related to EDIS implementation and optimization, and in the monitoring of the system's ongoing success or failure. Our recommendations apply to emergency departments using any type of EDIS: custom-developed systems, best-of-breed vendor systems, or enterprise systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Patient handoffs at shift change are a ubiquitous and potentially hazardous process in emergency care. As crowding and lengthy evaluations become the standard for an increasing proportion of emergency departments (EDs), the number of patients handed off will likely increase. It is critical now more than ever before to ensure that handoffs supply valid and useful shared understandings between providers at transitions of care. The purpose of this article is to provide the most up-to-date evidence and collective thinking about the process and safety of handoffs between physicians in the ED. It offers perspectives from other disciplines, provides a conceptual framework for handoffs, and categorizes models of existing practices. Legal and risk management issues are also addressed. A proposal for the development of handoff quality measures is outlined. Practical strategies are suggested to improve ED handoffs. Finally, a research agenda is proposed to provide a roadmap to future work that may increase knowledge in this area. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Study objective: Computed tomography (CT) use has increased rapidly, raising concerns about radiation exposure and cost. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed an imaging efficiency measure (Outpatient Measure 15 [OP-15]) to evaluate the use of brain CT in the emergency department (ED) for atraumatic headache. We aim to determine the reliability, validity, and accuracy of OP-15. Methods: This was a retrospective record review at 21 US EDs. We identified 769 patient visits that CMS labeled as including an inappropriate brain CT to identify clinical indications for CT and reviewed the 748 visits with available records. The primary outcome was the reliability of OP-15 as determined by CMS from administrative data compared with medical record review. Secondary outcomes were the measure''s validity and accuracy. Outcome measures were defined according to the testing protocol of the American Medical Association''s Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. Results: On record review, 489 of 748 ED brain CTs identified as inappropriate by CMS had a measure exclusion documented that was not identified by administrative data; the measure was 34.6% reliable (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.2% to 38.0%). Among the 259 patient visits without measure exclusions documented in the record, the measure''s validity was 47.5% (95% CI 41.4% to 53.6%), according to a consensus list of indications for brain CT. Overall, 623 of the 748 ED visits had either a measure exclusion or a consensus indication for CT; the measure''s accuracy was 16.7% (95% CI 14% to 19.4%). Hospital performance as reported by CMS did not correlate with the proportion of CTs with a documented clinical indication (r=–0.11; P=.63). Conclusion: The CMS imaging efficiency measure for brain CTs (OP-15) is not reliable, valid, or accurate and may produce misleading information about hospital ED performance. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: “Lean” is a set of principles and techniques that drive organizations to continually add value to the product they deliver by enhancing process steps that are necessary, relevant, and valuable while eliminating those that fail to add value. Lean has been used in manufacturing for decades and has been associated with enhanced product quality and overall corporate success. Objectives: To evaluate whether the adoption of Lean principles by an Emergency Department (ED) improves the value of emergency care delivered. Methods: Beginning in December 2005, we implemented a variety of Lean techniques in an effort to enhance patient and staff satisfaction. The implementation followed a six-step process of Lean education, ED observation, patient flow analysis, process redesign, new process testing, and full implementation. Process redesign focused on generating improvement ideas from frontline workers across all departmental units. Value-based and operational outcome measures, including patient satisfaction, expense per patient, ED length of stay (LOS), and patient volume were compared for calendar year 2005 (pre-Lean) and periodically after 2006 (post-Lean). Results: Patient visits increased by 9.23% in 2006. Despite this increase, LOS decreased slightly and patient satisfaction increased significantly without raising the inflation adjusted cost per patient. Conclusions: Lean improved the value of the care we delivered to our patients. Generating and instituting ideas from our frontline providers have been the key to the success of our Lean program. Although Lean represents a fundamental change in the way we think of delivering care, the specific process changes we employed tended to be simple, small procedure modifications specific to our unique people, process, and place. We, therefore, believe that institutions or departments aspiring to adopt Lean should focus on the core principles of Lean rather than on emulating specific process changes made at other institutions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Medication errors contribute to significant morbidity, mortality, and costs to the health system. Little is known about the characteristics of Emergency Department (ED) medication errors. Study Objective: To examine the frequency, types, causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported ED medication errors in the United States. Methods: A cross-sectional study of all ED errors reported to the MEDMARX system between 2000 and 2004. MEDMARX is an anonymous, confidential, de-identified, Internet-accessible medication error-reporting program designed to allow hospitals to report, track, and share error data in a standardized format. Results: There were 13,932 medication errors from 496 EDs analyzed. The error rate was 78 reports per 100,000 visits. Physicians were responsible for 24% of errors, nurses for 54%. Errors most commonly occurred in the administration phase (36%). The most common type of error was improper dose/quantity (18%). Leading causes were not following procedure/protocol (17%), and poor communication (11%), whereas contributing factors were distractions (7.5%), emergency situations (4.1%), and workload increase (3.4%). Computerized provider order entry caused 2.5% of errors. Harm resulted in 3% of errors. Actions taken as a result of the error included informing the staff member who committed the error (26%), enhancing communication (26%), and providing additional training (12%). Patients or family members were notified about medication errors 2.7% of the time. Conclusion: ED medication errors may be a result of the acute, crowded, and fast-paced nature of care. Further research is needed to identify interventions to reduce these risks and evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]