The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda Diagnostic Testing Breakout Session Report.

Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department (ED). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude worst-case diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease-related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making (SDM) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM. Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM, 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus

Variation in Ancillary Testing among Pediatric Asthma Patients Seen in Emergency Departments

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72605/1/j.aem.2007.01.016.pd

A new implicit review instrument for measuring quality of care delivered to pediatric patients in the emergency department

BackgroundThere are few outcomes experienced by children receiving care in the Emergency Department (ED) that are amenable to measuring for the purposes of assessing of quality of care. The purpose of this study was to develop, test, and validate a new implicit review instrument that measures quality of care delivered to children in EDs.MethodsWe developed a 7-point structured implicit review instrument that encompasses four aspects of care, including the physician's initial data gathering, integration of information and development of appropriate diagnoses; initial treatment plan and orders; and plan for disposition and follow-up. Two pediatric emergency medicine physicians applied the 5-item instrument to children presenting in the highest triage category to four rural EDs, and we assessed the reliability of the average summary scores (possible range of 5-35) across the two reviewers using standard measures. We also validated the instrument by comparing this mean summary score between those with and without medication errors (ascertained independently by two pharmacists) using a two-sample t-test.ResultsWe reviewed the medical records of 178 pediatric patients for the study. The mean and median summary score for this cohort of patients were 27.4 and 28.5, respectively. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha of 0.92 and 0.89). All items showed a significant (p < 0.005) positive correlation between reviewers using the Spearman rank correlation (range 0.24 to 0.39). Exact agreement on individual items between reviewers ranged from 70.2% to 85.4%. The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient for the mean of the total summary score across the two reviewers was 0.65. The validity of the instrument was supported by the finding of a higher score for children without medication errors compared to those with medication errors which trended toward significance (mean score = 28.5 vs. 26.0, p = 0.076).ConclusionThe instrument we developed to measure quality of care provided to children in the ED has high internal consistency, fair to good inter-rater reliability and inter-rater correlation, and high content validity. The validity of the instrument is supported by the fact that the instrument's average summary score was lower in the presence of medication errors, which trended towards statistical significance

The Impact of Medical Interpretation Method on Time and Errors

Background: Twenty-two million Americans have limited English proficiency. Interpreting for limited English proficient patients is intended to enhance communication and delivery of quality medical care. Objective: Little is known about the impact of various interpreting methods on interpreting speed and errors. This investigation addresses this important gap. Design: Four scripted clinical encounters were used to enable the comparison of equivalent clinical content. These scripts were run across four interpreting methods, including remote simultaneous, remote consecutive, proximate consecutive, and proximate ad hoc interpreting. The first 3 methods utilized professional, trained interpreters, whereas the ad hoc method utilized untrained staff. Measurements: Audiotaped transcripts of the encounters were coded, using a prespecified algorithm to determine medical error and linguistic error, by coders blinded to the interpreting method. Encounters were also timed. Results: Remote simultaneous medical interpreting (RSMI) encounters averaged 12.72 vs 18.24 minutes for the next fastest mode (proximate ad hoc) (p = 0.002). There were 12 times more medical errors of moderate or greater clinical significance among utterances in non-RSMI encounters compared to RSMI encounters (p = 0.0002). Conclusions: Whereas limited by the small number of interpreters involved, our study found that RSMI resulted in fewer medical errors and was faster than non-RSMI methods of interpreting

Antibiotic Use in Hispanic Households, New York City

Trained interviewers visited 631 inner city households to determine community prevalence and predictors of antibiotic use. Infectious disease symptoms were reported in 911 (33.2%) of 2,743 household members in the previous 30 days: medical attention was sought by 441 (48.4%) of 911 persons, and 354 (38.9%) of 911 took antibiotics for symptoms. Reported symptoms were respiratory (68.9%), gastrointestinal (15.3%), fever (12.8%), and skin infection (2.8%). Medical attention was sought significantly more often among those with chronic illness, those born in the United States, and those with fever, runny nose, or skin infections (all p<0.05). Antibiotics were taken significantly more often among those with poor health, those who spent more time at home, and those with fever and respiratory symptoms. Interventions to promote judicious use of antibiotics must include clinicians and the public, and for the Hispanic population such interventions must also be culturally relevant and provided in Spanish

Providing High-Quality Care for Limited English Proficient Patients: The Importance of Language Concordance and Interpreter Use

Background: Provider–patient language discordance is related to worse quality care for limited English proficient (LEP) patients who speak Spanish. However, little is known about language barriers among LEP Asian-American patients. Objective: We examined the effects of language discordance on the degree of health education and the quality of interpersonal care that patients received, and examined its effect on patient satisfaction. We also evaluated how the presence/absence of a clinic interpreter affected these outcomes. Design: Cross-sectional survey, response rate 74%. Participants: A total of 2,746 Chinese and Vietnamese patients receiving care at 11 health centers in 8 cities. Measurements: Provider–patient language concordance, health education received, quality of interpersonal care, patient ratings of providers, and the presence/absence of a clinic interpreter. Regression analyses were used to adjust for potential confounding. Results: Patients with language-discordant providers reported receiving less health education (β = 0.17, p &lt; 0.05) compared to those with language-concordant providers. This effect was mitigated with the use of a clinic interpreter. Patients with language-discordant providers also reported worse interpersonal care (β = 0.28, p &lt; 0.05), and were more likely to give low ratings to their providers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61; CI = 0.97–2.67). Using a clinic interpreter did not mitigate these effects and in fact exacerbated disparities in patients’ perceptions of their providers. Conclusion: Language barriers are associated with less health education, worse interpersonal care, and lower patient satisfaction. Having access to a clinic interpreter can facilitate the transmission of health education. However, in terms of patients’ ratings of their providers and the quality of interpersonal care, having an interpreter present does not serve as a substitute for language concordance between patient and provider