IntroductionOpioid prescribing patterns have come under increasing scrutiny with the recent rise in opioid prescriptions, opioid misuse and abuse, and opioid-related adverse events. To date, there have been limited studies on the effect of default tablet quantities as part of emergency department (ED) electronic order entry. Our goal was to evaluate opioid prescribing patterns before and after the removal of a default quantity of 20 tablets from ED electronic order entry.MethodsWe performed a retrospective observational study at a single academic, urban ED with 58,000 annual visits. We identified all adult patients (18 years or older) seen in the ED and discharged home with prescriptions for tablet forms of hydrocodone and oxycodone (including mixed formulations with acetaminophen). We compared the quantity of tablets prescribed per opioid prescription 12 months before and 10 months after the electronic order-entry prescription default quantity of 20 tablets was removed and replaced with no default quantity. No specific messaging was given to providers, to avoid influencing prescribing patterns. We used two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test, two-sample test of proportions, and Pearson’s chi-squared tests where appropriate for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 4,104 adult patients received discharge prescriptions for opioids in the pre-intervention period (151.6 prescriptions per 1,000 discharged adult patients), and 2,464 post-intervention (106.69 prescriptions per 1,000 discharged adult patients). The median quantity of opioid tablets prescribed decreased from 20 (interquartile ration [IQR] 10–20) to 15 (IQR 10–20) (p<0.0001) after removal of the default quantity. While the most frequent quantity of tablets received in both groups was 20 tablets, the proportion of patients who received prescriptions on discharge that contained 20 tablets decreased from 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.48–0.52]) to 0.23 (95% CI [0.21–0.24]) (p<0.001) after default quantity removal.ConclusionAlthough the median number of tablets differed significantly before and after the intervention, the clinical significance of this is unclear. An observed wider distribution of the quantity of tablets prescribed after removal of the default quantity of 20 may reflect more appropriate prescribing patterns (i.e., less severe indications receiving fewer tabs and more severe indications receiving more). A default value of 20 tablets for opioid prescriptions may be an example of the electronic medical record’s ability to reduce practice variability in medication orders actually counteracting optimal patient care.

No abstract

Our modified Delphi process resulted in the identification of 46 final triggers for the detection of adverse events among ED patients. These triggers should be pilot field tested to quantify their individual and collective performance in detecting all-cause harm to ED patients.

Objectives Quality and safety review for performance improvement is important for systems of care and is required for US academic emergency departments (EDs). Assessment of the impact of patient safety initiatives in the context of increasing burdens of quality measurement compels standardized, meaningful, high-yield approaches for performance review. Limited data describe how quality and safety reviews are currently conducted and how well they perform in detecting patient harm and areas for improvement. We hypothesized that decades-old approaches used in many academic EDs are inefficient and low yield for identifying patient harm. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the efficiency and yield of current quality review processes at five academic EDs for a 12-month period. Sites provided descriptions of their current practice and collected summary data on the number and severity of events identified in their reviews and the referral sources that led to their capture. Categories of common referral sources were established at the beginning of the study. Sites used the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's definition in defining an adverse event and a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index for grading severity of events. Results Participating sites had similar processes for quality review, including a two-level review process, monthly reviews and conferences, similar screening criteria, and a grading system for evaluating cases. In 60 months of data collection, we reviewed a total of 4735 cases and identified 381 events. This included 287 near-misses, errors/events (MERP A–I) and 94 adverse events (AEs) (MERP E–I). The overall AE rate (event rate with harm) was 1.99 (95% confidence interval = 1.62%–2.43%), ranging from 1.24% to 3.47% across sites. The overall rate of quality concerns (events without harm) was 6.06% (5.42%–6.78%), ranging from 2.96% to 10.95% across sites. Seventy-two–hour returns were the most frequent referral source used, accounting for 47% of the cases reviewed but with a yield of only 0.81% in identifying harm. Other referral sources similarly had very low yields. External referrals were the highest yield referral source, with 14.34% (10.64%–19.03%) identifying AEs. As a percentage of the 94 AEs identified, external referrals also accounted for 41.49% of cases. Conclusions With an overall adverse event rate of 1.99%, commonly used referral sources seem to be low yield and inefficient for detecting patient harm. Approximately 6% of the cases identified by these criteria yielded a near miss or quality concern. New approaches to quality and safety review in the ED are needed to optimize their yield and efficiency for identifying harm and areas for improvement.

No abstract

Introduction Most emergency departments (ED) use patient experience surveys (i.e., Press Ganey) that include specific physician assessment fields. Our ED group currently staffs two EDs – one at a large, tertiary-care hospital, and the other at a small, affiliated, community site. Both are staffed by the same physicians. The goals of this study were to determine whether Press Ganey ED satisfaction scores for emergency physicians working at two different sites were consistent between sites, and to identify factors contributing to any variation. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of patients seen at either ED between September 2015 and March 2016 who returned a Press Ganey satisfaction survey. We compiled a database linking the patient visit with his or her responses on a 1–5 scale to questions that included “overall rating of emergency room care” and five physician-specific questions. Operational metrics including time to room, time to physician, overall length of stay, labs received, prescriptions received, demographic data, and the attending physician were also linked. We averaged scores for physicians staffing both EDs and compared them between sites using t-tests. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine the impact of visit-specific metrics on survey scores. Results A total of 1,012 ED patients met the inclusion criteria (site 1=457; site 2=555). The overall rating-of-care metric was significantly lower at the tertiary-care hospital ED compared to our lower volume ED (4.30 vs 4.65). The same trend was observed when the five doctor-specific metrics were summed (22.06 vs 23.32). Factors that correlated with higher scores included arrival-to-first-attending time (p=0.013) and arrival-to-ED-departure time (p=0.038), both of which were longer at the tertiary-care hospital ED. Conclusion Press Ganey satisfaction scores for the same group of emergency physicians varied significantly between sites. This suggests that these scores are more dependent on site-specific factors, such as wait times, than a true representation of the quality of care provided by the physician.

Objectives-Traditional approaches to safety and quality screening in the emergency department (ED) are porous and low yield for identifying adverse events (AEs). A better approach may be in the use of trigger tool methodology. We recently developed a novel ED Trigger Tool (EDTT) using a multidisciplinary, multicenter approach. We conducted a multicenter test of this tool and assess its performance. Methods-Design and Participants: We studied the EDTT over a 13-month period at four EDs. All patients 18 and older with Emergency Severity Index (ESI) acuity levels of 1-3 seen by a provider were eligible. Reviewers completed standardized training modules. Each site reviewed 50 randomly selected visits per month. A first-level reviewer screened for presence of pre-defined triggers (findings that increase the probability of an AE). If no trigger is present, the review is deemed complete. When present, a trigger prompts an in-depth review for an AE. Any event identified is assigned a level of harm using the Medication Event Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index, ranging from a near miss (A) to patient death (I). Events are noted as present on arrival (POA) or in the ED, an act of commission or omission and are assigned one of 4 event categories. A second level physician performs a confirmatory review of all AEs, and independently reviews 10% of cases to estimate the false negative rate. All AEs or potential AEs were reviewed in monthly group calls for consensus on findings. The primary outcome is the proportion of visits in which an AE is identified, overall and by site. Secondary outcomes include categories of events, distribution of harm ratings, and association of AEs with sociodemographic

IntroductionNausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is a condition that commonly affects women in the first trimester of pregnancy. Despite frequently leading to emergency department (ED) visits, little evidence exists to characterize the nature of ED visits or to guide its treatment in the ED. Our objectives were to evaluate the treatment of NVP in the ED and to identify factors that predict return visits to the ED for NVP.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective database analysis using the electronic medical record from a single, large academic hospital. Demographic and treatment variables were collected using a chart review of 113 ED patient visits with a billing diagnosis of “nausea and vomiting in pregnancy” or “hyperemesis gravidarum.” Logistic regression analysis was used with a primary outcome of return visit to the ED for the same diagnoses.ResultsThere was wide treatment variability of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy patients in the ED. Of the 113 patient visits, 38 (33.6%) had a return ED visit for NVP. High gravidity (OR 1.31, 95% CI [1.06–1.61]), high parity (OR 1.50 95% CI [1.12–2.00]), and early gestational age (OR 0.74 95% CI [0.60–0.90]) were associated with an increase in return ED visits in univariate logistic regression models, while only early gestational age (OR 0.74 95% CI [0.59–0.91]) was associated with increased return ED visits in a multiple regression model. Admission to the hospital was found to decrease the likelihood of return ED visits (p=0.002).ConclusionNVP can be difficult to manage and has a high ED return visit rate. Optimizing care with aggressive, standardized treatment in the ED and upon discharge, particularly if factors predictive of return ED visits are present, may improve quality of care and reduce ED utilization for this condition.