The impact of medical specialist staffing on emergency department patient flow and satisfaction

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the impact of additional medical specialists, non-emergency physicians (non-EPs), performing direct supervision or a combination of direct and indirect supervision at an EP-led emergency department (ED), on patient flow and satisfaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional, three-part study was carried out including staff surveys (n=379), a before and after 16-week data collection using data of visits during the peak hours (n=5270), and patient questionnaires during 1 week before the pilot and during week 5 of the pilot. Content analysis and descriptive statistics were used for analyses. RESULTS: The value of being present at the ED was acknowledged by medical specialists in 49% of their surveys and 35% of the EPs' and ED nurses' surveys, especially during busy shifts. Radiologists were most often (67.3%) convinced of their value of being on-site, which was agreed upon by the ED professionals. Perceived improved quality of care, shortening of length of stay, and enhanced peer consultation were mentioned most often.During the pilot period, length of stay of boarded patients decreased from 197 min (interquartile range: 121 min) to 181 min (interquartile range: 113 min, P=0.006), and patient recommendation scores increased from -15 to +20. CONCLUSION: Although limited by the mix of direct and indirect supervision, our results suggest a positive impact of additional medical specialists during busy shifts. Throughput of admitted patients and patient satisfaction improved during the pilot period. Whether these findings differ between direct supervision and combination of direct and indirect supervision by the medical specialists requires further investigation

High Irritation and Removal Rates After Plate or Nail Fixation in Patients With Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures

Background: Studies comparing plate with intramedullary nail fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures show faster recovery in the plate group and implant-related complications in both groups after short-term followup (6 or 12 months). Knowledge of disability, complications, and removal rates beyond the first postoperative year will help surgeons in making a decision regarding optimal implant choice. However, comparative studies with followup beyond the first year or two are scarce. Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) Does plate fixation or intramedullary nail fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures result in less disability? (2) Which type of fixation, plate or intramedullary, is more frequently associated with implant-related irritation and implant removal? (3) Is plate or intramedullary fixation associated with postoperative complications beyond the first postoperative year? Methods: Between January 2011 and August 2012, patients with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were enrolled and randomized to plate or intramedullary nail fixation. A total of 58 patients with plate and 62 patients with intramedullary nails initially were enrolled. Minimum followup was 30 months (mean, 39 months; range, 30–51 months). Two patients (3%) with plate fixation and two patients (3%) with intramedullary nails were lost to followup. The QuickDASH was obtained at final followup and compared between patients who had plate fixation and those who had intramedullary nail fixation. Postoperative complications measured include infection, implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, and refracture after implant removal. Indications for implant removal included implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, patient’s wish, or surgeon’s preference. Results: Between patients with plate versus intramedullary nail fixation, there were no differences in QuickDASH scores (plate, 1.8 ± 3.6; intramedullary nail, 1.8 ± 7.2; mean difference, −0.7; 95% CI, −2.2 to 2.04; p = 0.95). The proportion of patients having implant-related irritation was not different (39 of 56 [70%] versus 41 of 62 [66%]; relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82–1.35; p = 0.683). Intramedullary fixation was associated with a higher likelihood of implant removal (51 of 62 [82%] versus 28 of 56 [50%]; relative risk, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.24–2.19; p < 0.001). Among the removed implants more plates than intramedullary nails were removed after the 1-year followup (12 of 28 [43%] versus six of 51 [12%]; p = 0.002). There were no infections, implant breakage, nonunions, or refractures between the 1-year and final followup in either group. Conclusions: After a mean followup of 39 months, disability scores were excellent. Major complications did not occur after the 1-year followup. A frequent and bothersome problem after both surgical treatments is implant-related irritation, resulting in high rates of implant removal, after 1 year. Future research could focus on analyzing risk factors for implant irritation or removal. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study

High Irritation and Removal Rates After Plate or Nail Fixation in Patients With Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures

Background: Studies comparing plate with intramedullary nail fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures show faster recovery in the plate group and implant-related complications in both groups after short-term followup (6 or 12 months). Knowledge of disability, complications, and removal rates beyond the first postoperative year will help surgeons in making a decision regarding optimal implant choice. However, comparative studies with followup beyond the first year or two are scarce. Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) Does plate fixation or intramedullary nail fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures result in less disability? (2) Which type of fixation, plate or intramedullary, is more frequently associated with implant-related irritation and implant removal? (3) Is plate or intramedullary fixation associated with postoperative complications beyond the first postoperative year? Methods: Between January 2011 and August 2012, patients with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were enrolled and randomized to plate or intramedullary nail fixation. A total of 58 patients with plate and 62 patients with intramedullary nails initially were enrolled. Minimum followup was 30 months (mean, 39 months; range, 30–51 months). Two patients (3%) with plate fixation and two patients (3%) with intramedullary nails were lost to followup. The QuickDASH was obtained at final followup and compared between patients who had plate fixation and those who had intramedullary nail fixation. Postoperative complications measured include infection, implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, and refracture after implant removal. Indications for implant removal included implant-related irritation, implant failure, nonunion, patient’s wish, or surgeon’s preference. Results: Between patients with plate versus intramedullary nail fixation, there were no differences in QuickDASH scores (plate, 1.8 ± 3.6; intramedullary nail, 1.8 ± 7.2; mean difference, −0.7; 95% CI, −2.2 to 2.04; p = 0.95). The proportion of patients having implant-related irritation was not different (39 of 56 [70%] versus 41 of 62 [66%]; relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82–1.35; p = 0.683). Intramedullary fixation was associated with a higher likelihood of implant removal (51 of 62 [82%] versus 28 of 56 [50%]; relative risk, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.24–2.19; p < 0.001). Among the removed implants more plates than intramedullary nails were removed after the 1-year followup (12 of 28 [43%] versus six of 51 [12%]; p = 0.002). There were no infections, implant breakage, nonunions, or refractures between the 1-year and final followup in either group. Conclusions: After a mean followup of 39 months, disability scores were excellent. Major complications did not occur after the 1-year followup. A frequent and bothersome problem after both surgical treatments is implant-related irritation, resulting in high rates of implant removal, after 1 year. Future research could focus on analyzing risk factors for implant irritation or removal. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study

The impact of a multimodal intervention on emergency department crowding and patient flow

Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the impact of a multimodal intervention on emergency department (ED) crowding and patient flow in a Dutch level 1 trauma center. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we compare ED crowding and patient flow between a 9-month pre-intervention period and a 9-month intervention period, during peak hours and overall (24/7). The multimodal intervention included (1) adding an emergency nurse practitioner (ENP) and (2) five medical specialists during peak hours to the 24/7 available emergency physicians (EPs), (3) a Lean programme to improve radiology turnaround times, and (4) extending the admission offices' openings hours. Crowding is measured with the modified National ED OverCrowding Score (mNEDOCS). Furthermore, radiology turnaround times, patients' length of stay (LOS), proportion of patients leaving without being seen (LWBS) by a medical provider, and unscheduled representations are assessed. Results: The number of ED visits were grossly similar in the two periods during peak hours (15,558 ED visits in the pre-intervention period and 15,550 in the intervention period) and overall (31,891 ED visits in the pre-intervention period vs. 32,121 in the intervention period). During peak hours, ED crowding fell from 18.6% (pre-intervention period) to 3.5% (intervention period), radiology turnaround times decreased from an average of 91 min (interquartile range 45-256 min) to 50 min (IQR 30-106 min., p < 0.001) and LOS reduced with 13 min per patient from 167 to 154 min (p < 0.001). For surgery, neurology and cardiology patients, LOS reduced significantly (with 17 min, 25 min, and 8 min. respectively), while not changing for internal medicine patients. Overall, crowding, radiology turnaround times and LOS also decreased. Less patients LWBS in the intervention period (270 patients vs. 348 patients, p < 0.001) and less patients represented unscheduled within 1 week after the initial ED visit: 864 (2.7%) in the pre-intervention period vs. 645 (2.0%) patients in the intervention period, p < 0.001. Conclusions: In this hospital, a multimodal intervention successfully reduces crowding, radiology turnaround times, patients' LOS, number of patients LWBS and the number of unscheduled return visits, suggesting improved ED processes. Further research is required on total costs of care and long-term effects

Recovery and functional outcome after radial nerve palsy in adults with a humeral shaft fracture: a multicenter prospective case series

Background: The consequences of radial nerve palsy associated with a humeral shaft fracture are unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the functional recovery of radial nerve palsy, at presentation or postoperatively, in patients with a humeral shaft fracture. Methods: Data from patients who participated in the HUMeral shaft fractures: measuring recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment (HUMMER) study, a multicenter prospective cohort study including adults with a closed humeral shaft fracture Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) type 12A or 12B, and had radial nerve palsy at presentation or postoperatively, were extracted from the HUMMER database. The primary outcome measure was clinically assessed recovery of motor function of the radial nerve. Secondary outcomes consisted of treatment, functional outcome (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Constant–Murley Score), pain level, quality of life (Short Form-36 and EuroQoL-5D-3L), activity resumption, and range of motion of the shoulder and elbow joint at 12 months after trauma. Results: Three of the 145 nonoperatively treated patients had radial nerve palsy at presentation. One recovered spontaneously and 1 after osteosynthesis. Despite multiple surgical interventions, the third patient had no recovery after entrapment between fracture fragments. Thirteen of the 245 operatively treated patients had radial nerve palsy at presentation; all recovered. Nine other patients had postoperative radial nerve palsy; 8 recovered. One had ongoing recovery at the last follow-up, after nerve release and suture repair due to entrapment under the plate. At 12 months, the functional outcome scores of all patients suggested full recovery regarding functional outcome, pain, quality of life, activity resumption, and range of motion. Conclusion: Radial nerve palsy in patients with a humeral shaft fracture at presentation or postoperatively functionally recovers in 94% and 89%, respectively

Publisher Correction: Economic evaluation of operative versus nonoperative treatment of a humeral shaft fracture: economic analyses alongside a multicenter prospective cohort study (HUMMER) (European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, (2022), 10.1007/s00068-022-02160-1)

In this article, the order that the authors appeared in the author list was incorrect. The correct order is: Saskia H. Van Bergen1 · Esther M. M. Van Lieshout1 · Kiran C. Mahabier1 · Alexandra J. L. M. Geraerds2 · Suzanne Polinder2 · Dennis Den Hartog1 · Michael H. J. Verhofstad1 · on behalf of the HUMMER Investigators

Recovery and functional outcome after radial nerve palsy in adults with a humeral shaft fracture: a multicenter prospective case series

Background: The consequences of radial nerve palsy associated with a humeral shaft fracture are unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the functional recovery of radial nerve palsy, at presentation or postoperatively, in patients with a humeral shaft fracture. Methods: Data from patients who participated in the HUMeral shaft fractures: measuring recovery after operative versus non-operative treatment (HUMMER) study, a multicenter prospective cohort study including adults with a closed humeral shaft fracture Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) type 12A or 12B, and had radial nerve palsy at presentation or postoperatively, were extracted from the HUMMER database. The primary outcome measure was clinically assessed recovery of motor function of the radial nerve. Secondary outcomes consisted of treatment, functional outcome (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand and Constant–Murley Score), pain level, quality of life (Short Form-36 and EuroQoL-5D-3L), activity resumption, and range of motion of the shoulder and elbow joint at 12 months after trauma. Results: Three of the 145 nonoperatively treated patients had radial nerve palsy at presentation. One recovered spontaneously and 1 after osteosynthesis. Despite multiple surgical interventions, the third patient had no recovery after entrapment between fracture fragments. Thirteen of the 245 operatively treated patients had radial nerve palsy at presentation; all recovered. Nine other patients had postoperative radial nerve palsy; 8 recovered. One had ongoing recovery at the last follow-up, after nerve release and suture repair due to entrapment under the plate. At 12 months, the functional outcome scores of all patients suggested full recovery regarding functional outcome, pain, quality of life, activity resumption, and range of motion. Conclusion: Radial nerve palsy in patients with a humeral shaft fracture at presentation or postoperatively functionally recovers in 94% and 89%, respectively