Project description:ObjectivesEmergency department boarding is the practice of caring for admitted patients in the emergency department after hospital admission, and boarding has been a growing problem in the United States. Boarding of the critically ill has achieved specific attention because of its association with poor clinical outcomes. Accordingly, the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians convened a Task Force to understand the implications of emergency department boarding of the critically ill. The objective of this article is to review the U.S. literature on (1) the frequency of emergency department boarding among the critically ill, (2) the outcomes associated with critical care patient boarding, and (3) local strategies developed to mitigate the impact of emergency department critical care boarding on patient outcomes.Data sources and study selectionReview article.Data extraction and data synthesisEmergency department-based boarding of the critically ill patient is common, but no nationally representative frequency estimates has been reported. Boarding literature is limited by variation in the definitions used for boarding and variation in the facilities studied (boarding ranges from 2% to 88% of ICU admissions). Prolonged boarding in the emergency department has been associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital length of stay, and higher mortality. Health systems have developed multiple mitigation strategies to address emergency department boarding of critically ill patients, including emergency department-based interventions, hospital-based interventions, and emergency department-based resuscitation care units.ConclusionsEmergency department boarding of critically ill patients was common and was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Health systems have generated a number of strategies to mitigate these effects. A definition for emergency department boarding is proposed. Future work should establish formal criteria for analysis and benchmarking of emergency department-based boarding overall, with subsequent efforts focused on developing and reporting innovative strategies that improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients boarded in the emergency department.

Project description:ObjectivesICU admission delays can negatively affect patient outcomes, but emergency department volume and boarding times may also affect these decisions and associated patient outcomes. We sought to investigate the effect of emergency department and ICU capacity strain on ICU admission decisions and to examine the effect of emergency department boarding time of critically ill patients on in-hospital mortality.DesignA retrospective cohort study.SettingSingle academic tertiary care hospital.PatientsAdult critically ill emergency department patients for whom a consult for medical ICU admission was requested, over a 21-month period.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsPatient data, including severity of illness (Mortality Probability Model III on Admission), outcomes of mortality and persistent organ dysfunction, and hourly census reports for the emergency department, for all ICUs and all adult wards were compiled. A total of 854 emergency department requests for ICU admission were logged, with 455 (53.3%) as "accept" and 399 (46.7%) as "deny" cases, with median emergency department boarding times 4.2 hours (interquartile range, 2.8-6.3 hr) and 11.7 hours (3.2-20.3 hr) and similar rates of persistent organ dysfunction and/or death 41.5% and 44.6%, respectively. Those accepted were younger (mean ± SD, 61 ± 17 vs 65 ± 18 yr) and more severely ill (median Mortality Probability Model III on Admission score, 15.3% [7.0-29.5%] vs 13.4% [6.3-25.2%]) than those denied admission. In the multivariable model, a full medical ICU was the only hospital-level factor significantly associated with a lower probability of ICU acceptance (odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.81]). Using propensity score analysis to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics between those accepted or denied for ICU admission, longer emergency department boarding time after consult was associated with higher odds of mortality and persistent organ dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.77 [1.07-2.95]/log10 hour increase).ConclusionsICU admission decisions for critically ill emergency department patients are affected by medical ICU bed availability, though higher emergency department volume and other ICU occupancy did not play a role. Prolonged emergency department boarding times were associated with worse patient outcomes, suggesting a need for improved throughput and targeted care for patients awaiting ICU admission.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the factors that influence physicians' admission decisions, especially among lower acuity patients. For the purpose of our study, non-medical refers to all of the factors-other than the patient's clinical condition-that could potentially influence admission decisions.ObjectiveTo describe the influence of non-medical factors on physicians' decisions to admit non-critically ill patients presenting to the ED.DesignCross-sectional study of hospital admissions at a single academic medical center.ParticipantsNon-critically ill adult patients admitted to the hospital (n = 297) and the admitting emergency medicine physicians (n = 34).Main measuresA patient survey assessed non-medical factors, including primary care access and utilization. A physician survey assessed clinical and non-medical factors influencing the decision to admit. Based on physician responses, admissions were characterized as "strongly acuity-driven," "moderately acuity-driven," or "weakly acuity-driven." Among these admission types, we compared length of stay, cost, and readmission within 30 days to the hospital or ED.Key resultsBased on the admitting physician's assessment, we categorized the motivation for admission as strongly acuity-driven in 185 (62 %) admissions, moderately acuity-driven in 92 (31 %), and weakly acuity-driven in 20 (7 %). Per the physician surveys, 51 % of hospitalizations were strongly or moderately influenced by one or more non-medical factors, including lack of information about baseline conditions (23 %); inadequate access to outpatient specialty care (14 %); need for a diagnostic testing or procedure (12 %); a recent ED visit (11 %); and inadequate access to primary care (10 %). Compared with strongly-acuity driven admissions, admissions that were moderately or weakly acuity-driven were shorter and less costly but were associated with similar rates of ED (35 %) and hospital (27 %) readmission.ConclusionsNon-medical factors are influential in the admission decisions for many patients presenting to the emergency department. Moderately and weakly acuity-driven admissions may represent a feasible target for alternative care pathways.

Project description:ObjectivesIn mechanically ventilated patients, awareness with paralysis (AWP) can have devastating consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and thoughts of suicide. Single-center data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate an event rate for AWP factors higher than that reported from the operating room. However, there remains a lack of data on AWP among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The objective was to assess the proportion of ED patients experiencing AWP and investigate modifiable variables associated with its occurrence.DesignAn a priori planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, before-and-after clinical trial.SettingThe ED of three academic medical centers.PatientsMechanically ventilated adult patients that received neuromuscular blockers.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAll data related to sedation and analgesia were collected. AWP was the primary outcome, assessed with the modified Brice questionnaire, and was independently adjudicated by three expert reviewers. Perceived threat, in the causal pathway for PTSD, was the secondary outcome. A total of 388 patients were studied. The proportion of patients experiencing AWP was 3.4% ( n = 13), the majority of whom received rocuronium ( n = 12/13; 92.3%). Among patients who received rocuronium, 5.5% ( n = 12/230) experienced AWP, compared with 0.6% ( n = 1/158) among patients who did not receive rocuronium in the ED (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.15). Patients experiencing AWP had a higher mean ( sd ) threat perception scale score, compared with patients without AWP (15.6 [5.8] vs 7.7 [6.0]; p < 0.01).ConclusionsAWP was present in a concerning proportion of mechanically ventilated ED patients, was associated with rocuronium exposure in the ED, and led to increased levels of perceived threat, placing patients at greater risk for PTSD. Studies that aim to further quantify AWP in this vulnerable population and eliminate its occurrence are urgently needed.

Project description:BackgroundWhether types of hospitals with high readmission rates also have high overall postdischarge acute care utilization (including emergency department and observation care) is unknown.DesignCross-sectional analysis.SubjectsNonfederal United States acute care hospitals.MeasuresUsing methodology established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, we calculated each hospital's "excess days in acute care" for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries aged over 65 years discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure (HF), or pneumonia, representing the mean difference between predicted and expected total days of acute care utilization in the 30 days following hospital discharge, per 100 discharges. We assessed the multivariable association of 8 hospital characteristics with excess days in acute care and the proportion of hospitals with each characteristic that were statistical outliers (95% credible interval estimate does not include 0).ResultsWe included 2184 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction [228 (10.4%) better than expected, 549 (25.1%) worse than expected], 3720 hospitals for HF [484 (13.0%) better and 840 (22.6%) worse], and 4195 hospitals for pneumonia [673 (16.0%) better, 1005 (24.0%) worse]. Results for all conditions were similar. Worse than expected outliers for pneumonia included: 18.8% of safety net hospitals versus 26.1% of nonsafety net hospitals; 16.7% of public hospitals versus 33.1% of for-profit hospitals; 19.5% of nonteaching hospitals versus 52.2% of major teaching hospitals; 7.9% of rural hospitals versus 42.1% of large urban hospitals; 5.9% of hospitals with 24-<50 beds versus 58% of hospitals with >500 beds; and 29.0% of hospitals with nurse-to-bed ratios >1.0-1.5 versus 21.7% of hospitals with ratios >2.0.ConclusionsIncluding emergency department and observation stays in measures of postdischarge utilization produces similar results as measuring only readmissions in that major teaching, urban and for-profit hospitals still perform disproportionately poorly versus nonteaching or public hospitals. However, it enables identification of more outliers and a more granular assessment of the association of hospital factors and outcomes.

Dataset Information

Characteristics and outcomes of patients triaged as critically ill in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital in Bhutan.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Characteristics and outcomes of patients triaged as critically ill in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital in Bhutan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets