Search

Study objective We examine the effect of the Medicaid expansion in 2014 under in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on emergency department (ED) utilization and ED admission rates (fraction of ED visits that lead to hospital admission) during the first 3 postexpansion years (2014 to 2016). Methods We compared ED utilization and ED admission rates in 151 EDs in 14 expansion states with those in 376 EDs in 14 nonexpansion states, using difference-in-differences methods with data from 3 national emergency medicine groups from 2013 to 2016. Results In expansion states, the volume of Medicaid-paid ED visits increased 49% (95% confidence interval 34% to 65%), and the volume of uninsured visits decreased 44% (95% confidence interval –52% to –34%) relative to that of nonexpansion states. Both effects on payer mix leveled off during 2015. There was no significant relative change in overall ED utilization or overall ED admission rates in expansion versus nonexpansion states during the study. However, relative ED admission rates for uninsured patients declined 8% (95% confidence interval –18% to –2%) in expansion states. Conclusion Large changes in payer mix in expansion versus nonexpansion states were observed but leveled off during 2015, with more Medicaid-paid visits and fewer uninsured visits in expansion states. Despite these large changes, during this 3-year period, there was no evidence that expansion affected either overall ED visit volume or ED admission rates. The relative decline in ED admission rates in expansion states among the uninsured may reflect a selection effect in which, among newly Medicaid-eligible persons, sicker persons were more likely to enroll than healthier ones.

Objective End-of-life interventions should be predicated on consensus understanding of patient wishes. Written documents are not always understood; adding a video testimonial/message (VM) might improve clarity. Goals of this study were to (1) determine baseline rates of consensus in assigning code status and resuscitation decisions in critically ill scenarios and (2) determine whether adding a VM increases consensus. Methods We randomly assigned 2 web-based survey links to 1366 faculty and resident physicians at institutions with graduate medical education programs in emergency medicine, family practice, and internal medicine. Each survey asked for code status interpretation of stand-alone Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) and living will (LW) documents in 9 scenarios. Respondents assigned code status and resuscitation decisions to each scenario. For 1 of 2 surveys, a VM was included to help clarify patient wishes. Results Response rate was 54%, and most were male emergency physicians who lacked formal advanced planning document interpretation training. Consensus was not achievable for stand-alone POLST or LW documents (68%-78% noted "DNR"). Two of 9 scenarios attained consensus for code status (97%-98% responses) and treatment decisions (96%-99%). Adding a VM significantly changed code status responses by 9% to 62% (P ≤ 0.026) in 7 of 9 scenarios with 4 achieving consensus. Resuscitation responses changed by 7% to 57% (P ≤ 0.005) with 4 of 9 achieving consensus with VMs. Conclusions For most scenarios, consensus was not attained for code status and resuscitation decisions with stand-alone LW and POLST documents. Adding VMs produced significant impacts toward achieving interpretive consensus.

Purpose To characterize performance among ED sites participating in the Emergency Quality Network (E-QUAL) Avoidable Imaging Initiative for clinical targets on the American College of Emergency Physicians Choosing Wisely list. Methods This was an observational study of quality improvement (QI) data collected from hospital-based ED sites in 2017–2018. Participating EDs reported imaging utilization rates (UR) and common QI practices for three Choosing Wisely targets: Atraumatic Low Back Pain, Syncope, or Minor Head Injury. Results 305 ED sites participated in the initiative. Among all ED sites, the mean imaging UR for Atraumatic Low Back Pain was 34.7% (IQR 26.3%–42.6%) for XR, 19.1% (IQR 11.4%–24.9%) for CT, and 0.09% (IQR 0%–0.9%) for MRI. The mean CT UR for Syncope was 50.0% (IQR 38.0%–61.4%). The mean CT UR for Minor Head Injury was 72.6% (IQR 65.6%–81.7%). ED sites with sustained participation showed significant decreases in CT UR in 2017 compared to 2018 for Syncope (56.4% vs 48.0%; 95% CI: −12.7%, −4.1%) and Minor Head Injury (76.3% vs 72.1%; 95% CI: −7.3%, −1.1%). There was no significant change in imaging UR for Atraumatic Back Pain for XR (36.0% vs 33.3%; 95% CI: −5.9%, −0;5%), CT (20.1% vs 17.7%; 95% CI: −5.1%, −0.4%) or MRI (0.8% vs 0.7%, 95% CI: −0.4%, −0.3%). Conclusions Early data from the E-QUAL Avoidable Imaging Initiative suggests QI interventions could potentially improve imaging stewardship and reduce low-value care. Further efforts to translate the Choosing Wisely recommendations into practice should promote data-driven benchmarking and learning collaboratives to achieve sustained practice improvement.

Study objective Renal colic is common and computed tomography (CT) is frequently used when the diagnosis of kidney stone is suspected. CT is accurate but exposes patients to ionizing radiation and has not been shown to alter either interventional approaches or hospital admission rates. This multiorganizational transdisciplinary collaboration seeks evidence-based, multispecialty consensus on optimal imaging across different clinical scenarios in patients with suspected renal colic in the acute setting. Methods In conjunction with the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Quality Network, we formed a 9-member panel with 3 physician representatives each from ACEP, the American College of Radiology, and the American Urology Association. A systematic literature review was used as the basis for a 3-step modified Delphi process to seek consensus on optimal imaging in 29 specific clinical scenarios. Results From an initial search yielding 6,337 records, there were 232 relevant articles of acceptable evidence quality to guide the literature summary. At the completion of the Delphi process consensus, out of the 29 scenarios agreement was rated as perfect in 15 (52%), excellent in 8 (28%), good in 3 (10%), and moderate in 3 (10%). There were no scenarios in which at least moderate consensus was not reached. CT was recommended in 7 scenarios (24%), with ultrasonography in 9 (31%) and no further imaging needed in 12 (45%). Conclusion Evidence and multispecialty consensus support ultrasonography or no further imaging in specific clinical scenarios, with reduced-radiation-dose CT to be used when CT is needed for patients with suspected renal colic.

In 2014 twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid eligibility while federal and state-based Marketplaces in every state made subsidized private health insurance available to qualified individuals. As a result, about seventeen million previously uninsured Americans gained health insurance in 2014. Many policy makers had predicted that Medicaid expansion would lead to greatly increased use of hospital emergency departments (EDs). We examined the effect of insurance expansion on ED use in 478 hospitals in 36 states during the first year of expansion (2014). In difference-in-differences analyses, Medicaid expansion increased Medicaid-paid ED visits in those states by 27.1 percent, decreased uninsured visits by 31.4 percent, and decreased privately insured visits by 6.7 percent during the first year of expansion compared to nonexpansion states. Overall, however, total ED visits grew by less than 3 percent in 2014 compared to 2012-13, with no significant difference between expansion and nonexpansion states. Thus, the expansion of Medicaid coverage strongly affected payer mix but did not significantly affect overall ED use, even though more people gained insurance coverage in expansion states than in nonexpansion states. This suggests that expanding Medicaid did not significantly increase or decrease overall ED visit volume.

With a persistent trend of increasing emergency department (ED) volumes every year, services are intensifying. Thus, improving the timeliness of delivering emergency care should be a primary focus, both from an operational and from a research perspective. Much has been published on factors associated with delays in emergency care, and the next phase in this area of research will focus on exploring interventions to improve the timeliness of care. On June 1, 2011, Academic Emergency Medicine held a consensus conference titled "Interventions to Assure Quality in the Emergency Department." This article summarizes the findings of the breakout session that investigated interventions to improve the timeliness of emergency care. This article will explore the background on the concept of timeliness of emergency care, the current state of interventions that have been implemented to improve timeliness, and specific questions as a framework for a future research agenda.

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:e110–e129 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Preface All of us who have worked on this curriculum are career emergency physicians (EPs) who have become leaders with a focus on emergency medicine (EM) quality and safety. About 2 years ago, I approached my colleagues of the American College of Emergency Physicians Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (ACEP QIPS) Section and dreamed an idea of creating an EM quality and safety curriculum: an outline that would explain a topic few EPs understand. That outline would be used as a curriculum to teach our EM residents (and even our attendings, physician’s assistants, and nurse leaders) about EM quality and safety. My goal is for this curriculum to become an integral part of every EM residency program and department. We know that quality and safety in patient care does not happen by accident. We must teach these concepts to everyone on our emergency department (ED) team. The safety of our patients depends on this. I would like to thank each of the authors who spent many months on this project, along with the ACEP QIPS Section and ACEP Quality and Performance Committee. Also, I would like to thank ACEP staff Angela Franklin and Idania Lorenti for their help in getting this project to completion. I must also sincerely acknowledge the early work and ideas generated by Drs. Shari Welch and David John: their contributions clearly helped shape this article. —John J. Kelly, DO

NPs and PAs are increasingly common in US and Canadian EDs. Emergency medicine is a unique specialty with a vast knowledge base performed in a high-risk environment; therefore, supervisory models and regulatory requirements developed for lower-risk settings (e.g., primary care) and more circumscribed practices (e.g., diabetes clinic) are unlikely to be sufficient for EDs. As innovative ED staffing models evolve, specific roles and scopes of practice for midlevel providers should be based on an objective analysis of existing care gaps and system needs, local provider availability, operational efficiency, cost-effectiveness, regulatory compliance, risk management, and quality of care. Although it is tempting to reduce cost by using PAs or NPs, de-emphasis of emergency physician involvement should proceed cautiously to avoid negatively impacting patient care. Variability in midlevel provider use and the relative paucity of evidence describing optimal provider roles, scopes of practice, and care outcomes in different patient populations highlight the need for a measured approach, appropriate supervisory models, effective quality assurance programs, and cost-effectiveness analyses looking at both clinical and economic outcomes of this important health system evolution.

With a persistent trend of increasing emergency department (ED) volumes every year, services are intensifying. Thus, improving the timeliness of delivering emergency care should be a primary focus, both from an operational and from a research perspective. Much has been published on factors associated with delays in emergency care, and the next phase in this area of research will focus on exploring interventions to improve the timeliness of care. On June 1, 2011, Academic Emergency Medicine held a consensus conference titled "Interventions to Assure Quality in the Emergency Department." This article summarizes the findings of the breakout session that investigated interventions to improve the timeliness of emergency care. This article will explore the background on the concept of timeliness of emergency care, the current state of interventions that have been implemented to improve timeliness, and specific questions as a framework for a future research agenda.

Article-at-a-Glance Background Time-outs, as one of the elements of the Joint Commission Universal Protocol for Preventing Wrong Site, Wrong Procedure, and Wrong Person Surgery™ has been in effect since July 1, 2004. Time-outs are required by The Joint Commission for all hospital procedures regardless of location, including emergency departments (EDs). Attitudes about ED time-outs were assessed for a sample of senior emergency physicians serving in leadership roles for a national professional society. Methods A survey questionnaire was administered to members of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Council at the October 2009 ACEP Council meeting on the use of time-outs in the ED. A total of 225 (72%) of the 331 councilors present filled out the survey. Results Twenty-nine (13%) of respondents were unaware of a formal time-out policy in their ED, 79 (35%) reported that ED time-outs were warranted, and 5 (2%) reported they knew of an instance where a time-out may have prevented an error. Chest tubes (167 respondents [74%]) and the use of sedation (142 respondents [63%]) were most commonly identified as ED procedures that necessitated a time-out. Episodes of any wrong-site error in their EDs were reported by 16 (7%) of the respondents. Wrong patient (9 respondents [4%]) and wrong procedure (2 respondents [1%]) errors were less common. Conclusions Although the time-out requirement has been in effect since 2004, more than 1 in 10 of ED physicians in this sample of ED physician leaders were unaware of it. According to the respondents, medical errors preventable by time-outs were rare; however, time-outs may be useful for certain procedures, particularly when there is a risk of wrong-site, wrong-patient, or wrong-procedure medical errors.

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.