Predicting Emergency Department “Bouncebacks”: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Introduction: The short-term return visit rate among patients discharged from emergency departments (ED) is a quality metric and target for interventions. The ability to accurately identify which patients are more likely to revisit the ED could allow EDs and health systems to develop more focused interventions, but efforts to reduce revisits have not yet found success. Whether patients with a high number of ED visits are at increased risk of a return visit remains underexplored.Methods: This was a population-based, retrospective, cohort study using administrative data from a large physician partnership. We included patients discharged from EDs from 80 hospitals in seven states from July 2014 – June 2016. We performed multivariable logistic regression of short-term return visits on patient, visit, hospital, and community characteristics. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had a return visit within 14 days of an index ED visit.Results: Among 6,699,717 index visits, the overall risk of 14-day revisit was 12.6%. Frequent visitors accounted for 18.7% of all visits and 40.2% of all 14-day revisits. Frequent visitor status was associated with the highest odds of a revisit (odds ratio [OR] 3.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.041 – 3.073). Other predictors of revisits were cellulitis (OR 2.131; 95% CI, 2.106 – 2.156), alcohol-related disorders (OR 1.579; 95%CI, 1.548 – 1.610), congestive heart failure (OR 1.175; 95% CI, 1.126 – 1.226), and public insurance (Medicaid OR 1.514; 95% CI, 1.501 – 1.528; Medicare OR 1.601; 95% CI, 1.583 – 1.620).Conclusion: Previous ED use – even a single previous visit – was a stronger predictor of a return visit than any other patient, hospital, or community characteristic. Clinicians should consider previous ED use when considering treatment decisions and risk of return visit, as should stakeholders targeting patients at risk of a return visit

The Utility of Dot Phrases and SmartPhrases in Improving Physician Documentation of Interpreter Use

Background: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience significant healthcare disparities. Clinicians are responsible for using and documenting their use of certified interpreters for patient encounters when appropriate. However, the data on interpreter use documentation in the emergency department (ED) is limited and variable. We sought to assess the effects of dot phrase and SmartPhrase implementation in an adult ED on the rates of documentation of interpreter use. Methods: We conducted an anonymous survey asking emergency clinicians to self-report documentation of interpreter use. We also retrospectively reviewed documentation of interpreter- services use in ED charts at three time points: 1) pre-intervention baseline; 2) post-implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase shortcut; and 3) post-implementation of a SmartPhrase. Results: Most emergency clinicians reported using an interpreter “almost always” or “often.” Our manual audit revealed that at baseline, interpreter use was documented in 35% of the initial clinician note, 4% of reassessments, and 0% of procedure notes; 52% of discharge instructions were written in the patients’ preferred languages. After implementation of the dot phrase and SmartPhrase, respectively, rates of interpreter-use documentation improved to 43% and 97% of initial clinician notes, 9% and 6% of reassessments, and 5% and 35% of procedure notes, with 62% and 64% of discharge instructions written in the patients’ preferred languages. Conclusion: There was a discrepancy between reported rates of interpreter use and interpreter-use documentation rates. The latter increased with the implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase and then a SmartPhrase built into the notes. Ensuring accurate documentation of interpreter use is an impactful step in language equity for LEP patients

The Utility of Dot Phrases and SmartPhrases in Improving Physician Documentation of Interpreter Use

Background: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience significant healthcare disparities. Clinicians are responsible for using and documenting their use of certified interpreters for patient encounters when appropriate. However, the data on interpreter use documentation in the emergency department (ED) is limited and variable. We sought to assess the effects of dot phrase and SmartPhrase implementation in an adult ED on the rates of documentation of interpreter use.   Methods: We conducted an anonymous survey asking emergency clinicians to self-report documentation of interpreter use. We also retrospectively reviewed documentation of interpreter-services use in ED charts at three time points: 1) pre-intervention baseline; 2) post-implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase shortcut; and 3) post-implementation of a SmartPhrase.   Results: Most emergency clinicians reported using an interpreter “almost always” or “often.” Our manual audit revealed that at baseline, interpreter use was documented in 35% of the initial clinician note, 4% of reassessments, and 0% of procedure notes; 52% of discharge instructions were written in the patients’ preferred languages. After implementation of the dot phrase and SmartPhrase, respectively, rates of interpreter-use documentation improved to 43% and 97% of initial clinician notes, 9% and 6% of reassessments, and 5% and 35% of procedure notes, with 62% and 64% of discharge instructions written in the patients’ preferred languages.   Conclusion: There was a discrepancy between reported rates of interpreter use and interpreter-use documentation rates. The latter increased with the implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase and then a SmartPhrase built into the notes. Ensuring accurate documentation of interpreter use is an impactful step in language equity for LEP patients

Unprecedented Training: Experience of Residents During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted both the clinical training and personal lives of our next generation of Emergency Medicine leaders: resident physicians. The challenges and successes experienced by residents during the pandemic will likely shape the future of the field. LITERATURE REVIEW: Over a year from the start of the pandemic, studies are exploring how COVID-19 affected trainees, particularly in four areas: clinical training, didactic education, board certification, and physical and psychological health. While posing significant challenges for residents, the pressures of the pandemic also spurred accelerated innovation in graduate medical education that will likely have positive impacts for future learners. INSIGHT FROM THE FIELD: Our team explores how residents experienced the crisis through two critical components of well-being and career longevity: burnout and adaptation. While residents’ perceived burnout increased throughout the pandemic, many EM residents exhibited high levels of adaptation, which enabled them to continue honing their clinical skills and providing high quality care for patients. LOOKING FORWARD: The COVID-19 pandemic forced the next generation of Emergency Medicine leaders to innovate, adapt, and act resourcefully. While they are certainly weary from the experience, residents demonstrated that the future leaders of the specialty – and the prospects of the field itself – are bright

Team and leadership factors and their relationship to burnout in emergency medicine during COVID-19: A 3-wave cross-sectional study.

ObjectiveWe examined the relationship of team and leadership attributes with clinician feelings of burnout over time during the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsWe surveyed emergency medicine personnel at 2 California hospitals at 3 time points: July 2020, December 2020, and November 2021. We assessed 3 team and leadership attributes using previously validated psychological scales (joint problem-solving, process clarity, and leader inclusiveness) and burnout using a validated scale. Using logistic regression models we determined the associations between team and leadership attributes and burnout, controlling for covariates.ResultsWe obtained responses from 328, 356, and 260 respondents in waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively (mean response rate = 49.52%). The median response for feelings of burnout increased over time (2.0, interquartile range [IQR] = 2.0-3.0 in wave 1 to 3.0, IQR = 2.0-3.0 in wave 3). At all time points, greater process clarity was associated with lower odds of feeling burnout (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.36 [0.19, 0.66] in wave 1 to 0.24 [0.10, 0.61] in wave 3). In waves 2 and 3, greater joint problem-solving was associated with lower odds of feeling burnout (OR [95% CI] = 0.61 [0.42, 0.89], 0.54 [0.33, 0.88]). Leader inclusiveness was also associated with lower odds of feeling burnout (OR [95% CI] = 0.45 [0.27, 0.74] in wave 1 to 0.41 [0.24, 0.69] in wave 3).ConclusionsProcess clarity, joint problem-solving, and leader inclusiveness are associated with less clinician burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic, pointing to potential benefits of focusing on team and leadership factors during crisis. Leader inclusiveness may wane over time, requiring effort to sustain

Designing and developing a digital equity dashboard for the emergency department

Abstract Disparities in diagnosis, treatment, and health outcomes of racial minorities are well documented in the emergency department (ED). Although EDs may provide broad departmental feedback on clinical metrics, lack of up‐to‐date monitoring and data availability present significant challenges to identifying and addressing patterns of inequitable care. To address this issue, we developed an online “Equity Dashboard,” incorporating data that is updated daily from our electronic medical record to highlight demographic, clinical, and operational variables, stratified by age, race, ethnicity, and language, and sexual orientation, gender identity. Through an iterative design thinking process, we created data visualizations for an interactive interface that tells a story about the ED patient's experience and enables any staff to explore up‐to‐date trends in patient care. To assess and improve usability of the dashboard, we conducted a survey of end‐users using custom questions, as well as the System Usability Scale and Net Promoter Score, both of which are validated health technology use instruments. The Equity Dashboard is of particular use for quality improvement initiatives, as it reflects common departmental challenges including delays in clinician events, inpatient boarding, and throughput metrics. This digital tool further helps demonstrate how these operational factors differentially affect our diverse patient population. The dashboard ultimately enables the ED team to measure current performance, to identify our vulnerabilities, and to design targeted interventions to address disparities in clinical care

Building Back Better: Applying Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic to Expand Critical Information Access.

BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic generated an unprecedented volume of evolving clinical guidelines that strained existing clinical information systems and necessitated rapid innovation in emergency departments (EDs).ObjectivesOur team aimed to harness new COVID-19-related reliance on digital clinical support tools to re-envision how all clinical guidelines are stored and accessed in our ED.MethodsWe used a design-thinking approach including empathizing, defining the problem, ideating, prototyping, and testing to develop a low-cost, homegrown clinical information hub: E*Drive. To measure impact, we compared web traffic on E*Drive to our legacy cloud-based folder system and conducted a survey of end-users using a validated health technology utilization instrument.ResultsOur final product, E*Drive, is a centralized clinical information hub storing everything from clinical guidelines to discharge resources. Clinical guidelines are standardized and housed within the high-traffic E*Drive platform to increase accessibility. Since launch, E*Drive has averaged 84 unique weekly users, compared with less than one weekly user on the legacy system. We surveyed 52 clinicians for a total response rate of 47%. Prior to the E*Drive rollout, 12.5% of ED clinicians felt confident accessing clinical information on the legacy system, whereas 76.6% of ED clinicians felt they could more easily access clinical information using E*Drive.ConclusionThe COVID pandemic revealed vulnerabilities within our information dissemination system and presented an opportunity to improve clinical information delivery. Centralized web-based clinical information hubs designed around the clinician end-user experience can increase clinical guideline access in the ED