Emergency Department Crowding: Factors Influencing Flow

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate those factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic to the emergency department (ED) that influence two specific components of throughput: “door-to-doctor” time and dwell time.Methods: We used a prospective observational study design to determine the variables that played a significant role in determining ED flow. All adult patients seen or waiting to be seen in the ED were observed at 8pm (Monday-Friday) during a three-month period. Variables measured included daily ED volume, patient acuity, staffing, ED occupancy, daily admissions, ED boarder volume, hospital volume, and intensive care unit volume. Both log-rank tests and time-to-wait (survival) proportional-hazard regression models were fitted to determine which variables were most significant in predicting “door-to-doctor” and dwell times, with full account of the censoring for some patients.Results: We captured 1,543 patients during our study period, representing 27% of total daily volume. The ED operated at an average of 85% capacity (61-102%) with an average of 27% boarding. Median “door-to-doctor” time was 1.8 hours, with the biggest influence being triage category, day of the week, and ED occupancy. Median dwell time was 5.5 hours with similar variable influences.Conclusion: The largest contributors to decreased patient flow through the ED at our institution were triage category, ED occupancy, and day of the week. Although the statistically significant factors influencing patient throughput at our institution involve problems with inflow, an increase in ED occupancy could be due to substantial outflow obstruction and may indicate the necessity for increased capacity both within the ED and hospital. [West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(1):10-15

A Review of the Federal Guidelines That Inform and Influence Relationships Between Physicians and Industry

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73492/1/j.1553-2712.2009.00460.x.pd

The Association Between Money and Opinion in Academic Emergency Medicine

Objectives: Financial conflicts of interest have come under increasing scrutiny in medicine, but their impact has not been quantified. Our objective was to use the results of a national survey of academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty to determine if an association between money and personal opinion exists.Methods: We conducted a web-based survey of EM faculty. Opinion questions were analyzed with regard to whether the respondent had either 1) received research grant money or 2) received money from industry as a speaker, consultant, or advisor. Responses were unweighted, and tests of differences in proportions were made using Chi-squared tests, with p<0.05 set for significance.Results: We received responses from 430 members; 98 (23%) received research grants from industry, while 145 (34%) reported fee-for-service money. Respondents with research money were more likely to be comfortable accepting gifts (40% vs. 29%) and acting as paid consultants (50% vs. 37%). They had a more favorable attitude with regard to societal interactions with industry and felt that industry-sponsored lectures could be fair and unbiased (52% vs. 29%). Faculty with fee-for-service money mirrored those with research money. They were also more likely to believe that industry-sponsored research produces fair and unbiased results (61% vs. 45%) and less likely to believe that honoraria biased speakers (49% vs. 69%).Conclusion: Accepting money for either service or research identified a distinct population defined by their opinions. Faculty engaged in industry-sponsored research benefitted socially (collaborations), academically (publications), and financially from the relationship. [West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(2):126-132.

Age-Related Differences in Biomarkers of Acute Inflammation During Hospitalization for Sepsis

To evaluate age-related differences in inflammation biomarkers during the first 72 hours of hospitalization for sepsis

Emergency Department Crowding: Factors Influencing Flow

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate those factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic to the emergency department (ED) that influence two specific components of throughput: “door-to-doctor” time and dwell time.Methods: We used a prospective observational study design to determine the variables that played a significant role in determining ED flow. All adult patients seen or waiting to be seen in the ED were observed at 8pm (Monday-Friday) during a three-month period. Variables measured included daily ED volume, patient acuity, staffing, ED occupancy, daily admissions, ED boarder volume, hospital volume, and intensive care unit volume. Both log-rank tests and time-to-wait (survival) proportional-hazard regression models were fitted to determine which variables were most significant in predicting “door-to-doctor” and dwell times, with full account of the censoring for some patients.Results: We captured 1,543 patients during our study period, representing 27% of total daily volume. The ED operated at an average of 85% capacity (61-102%) with an average of 27% boarding. Median “door-to-doctor” time was 1.8 hours, with the biggest influence being triage category, day of the week, and ED occupancy. Median dwell time was 5.5 hours with similar variable influences.Conclusion: The largest contributors to decreased patient flow through the ED at our institution were triage category, ED occupancy, and day of the week. Although the statistically significant factors influencing patient throughput at our institution involve problems with inflow, an increase in ED occupancy could be due to substantial outflow obstruction and may indicate the necessity for increased capacity both within the ED and hospital. [West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(1):10-15

The Association Between Money and Opinion in Academic Emergency Medicine

Objectives: Financial conflicts of interest have come under increasing scrutiny in medicine, but their impact has not been quantified. Our objective was to use the results of a national survey of academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty to determine if an association between money and personal opinion exists.Methods: We conducted a web-based survey of EM faculty. Opinion questions were analyzed with regard to whether the respondent had either 1) received research grant money or 2) received money from industry as a speaker, consultant, or advisor. Responses were unweighted, and tests of differences in proportions were made using Chi-squared tests, with p<0.05 set for significance.Results: We received responses from 430 members; 98 (23%) received research grants from industry, while 145 (34%) reported fee-for-service money. Respondents with research money were more likely to be comfortable accepting gifts (40% vs. 29%) and acting as paid consultants (50% vs. 37%). They had a more favorable attitude with regard to societal interactions with industry and felt that industry-sponsored lectures could be fair and unbiased (52% vs. 29%). Faculty with fee-for-service money mirrored those with research money. They were also more likely to believe that industry-sponsored research produces fair and unbiased results (61% vs. 45%) and less likely to believe that honoraria biased speakers (49% vs. 69%).Conclusion: Accepting money for either service or research identified a distinct population defined by their opinions. Faculty engaged in industry-sponsored research benefitted socially (collaborations), academically (publications), and financially from the relationship. [West J Emerg Med. 2010; 11(2):126-132.

Cardiac Output Monitoring Managing Intravenous Therapy (COMMIT) to Treat Emergency Department Patients with Sepsis

ABSTRACT Objective: Fluid responsiveness is proposed as a physiology-based method to titrate fluid therapy based on preload dependence. The objectives of this study were to determine if a fluid responsiveness protocol would decrease progression of organ dysfunction, and a fluid responsiveness protocol would facilitate a more aggressive resuscitation. Methods: Prospective, 10-center, randomized interventional trial. Inclusion criteria: suspected sepsis and lactate 2.0 to 4.0 mmol/L. Exclusion criteria (abbreviated): systolic blood pressure more than 90 mmHg, and contraindication to aggressive fluid resuscitation. Intervention: fluid responsiveness protocol using Non-Invasive Cardiac Output Monitor (NICOM) to assess for fluid responsiveness (>10% increase in stroke volume in response to 5 mL/kg fluid bolus) with balance of a liter given in responsive patients. Control: standard clinical care. Outcomes: primary—change in Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at least 1 over 72 h; secondary—fluids administered. Trial was initially powered at 600 patients, but stopped early due to a change in sponsor's funding priorities. Results: Sixty-four patients were enrolled with 32 in the treatment arm. There were no significant differences between arms in age, comorbidities, baseline vital signs, or SOFA scores (P > 0.05 for all). Comparing treatment versus Standard of Care—there was no difference in proportion of increase in SOFA score of at least 1 point (30% vs. 33%) (note bene underpowered, P = 1.0) or mean preprotocol fluids 1,050 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 786–1,314) vs. 1,031 mL (95% CI: 741–1,325) (P = 0.93); however, treatment patients received more fluids during the protocol (2,633 mL [95% CI: 2,264–3,001] vs. 1,002 mL [95% CI: 707–1,298]) (P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study of a “preshock” population, there was no change in progression of organ dysfunction with a fluid responsiveness protocol. A noninvasive fluid responsiveness protocol did facilitate delivery of an increased volume of fluid. Additional properly powered and enrolled outcomes studies are needed

Serial Procalcitonin Predicts Mortality in Severe Sepsis Patients: Results From the Multicenter Procalcitonin MOnitoring SEpsis (MOSES) Study.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively validate that the inability to decrease procalcitonin levels by more than 80% between baseline and day 4 is associated with increased 28-day all-cause mortality in a large sepsis patient population recruited across the United States. DESIGN: Blinded, prospective multicenter observational clinical trial following an Food and Drug Administration-approved protocol. SETTING: Thirteen U.S.-based emergency departments and ICUs. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients meeting criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock who were admitted to the ICU from the emergency department, other wards, or directly from out of hospital were included. INTERVENTIONS: Procalcitonin was measured daily over the first 5 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary analysis of interest was the relationship between a procalcitonin decrease of more than 80% from baseline to day 4 and 28-day mortality using Cox proportional hazards regression. Among 858 enrolled patients, 646 patients were alive and in the hospital on day 4 and included in the main intention-to-diagnose analysis. The 28-day all-cause mortality was two-fold higher when procalcitonin did not show a decrease of more than 80% from baseline to day 4 (20% vs 10%; p = 0.001). This was confirmed as an independent predictor in Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.18-3.30; p \u3c 0.009]) after adjusting for demographics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, ICU residence on day 4, sepsis syndrome severity, antibiotic administration time, and other relevant confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this large, prospective multicenter U.S. study indicate that inability to decrease procalcitonin by more than 80% is a significant independent predictor of mortality and may aid in sepsis care