IntroductionAcademic emergency department (ED) handoffs are high-risk transfer of care events. Emergency medicine residents are inadequately trained to handle these vital transitions. We aimed to explore what modifications the I-PASS (illness severity, patient summary, action list, situation awareness and contingency plans, and synthesis by receiver) handoff system requires to be effectively modified for use in ED inter-shift handoffs.MethodsThis mixed-method needs assessment conducted at an academic ED explored the suitability of the I-PASS system for ED handoffs. We conducted a literature review, focus groups, and then a survey. We sought to identify the distinctive elements of ED handoffs and discern how these could be incorporated into the I-PASS system.ResultsFocus group participants agreed the patient summary should be adapted to include anticipated disposition of patient. Participants generally endorsed the order and content of the other elements of the I-PASS tool. The survey yielded several wording changes to reflect contextual differences. Themes from all qualitative sources converged to suggest changes for brevity and clarity. Most participants agreed that the I-PASS tool would be well suited to the ED setting.ConclusionWith modifications for context, brevity, and clarity, the I-PASS system may be well suited for application to the ED setting. This study provides qualitative data in support of using the I-PASS tool and concrete suggestions for how to modify the I-PASS tool for the ED. Implementation and outcome research is needed to investigate if the I-PASS tool is feasible and improves patient outcomes in the ED environment.

This brief report describes the rapid deployment of a realtime electronic tracking board for all hospitals in the state of Oregon. In preparation for the coronavirus disease 2019 surge on hospital resources, and in collaboration across health systems, with health authorities and an industry partner, we combined existing infrastructures to create the first automated tracking board for our entire state, including bed types by health system and geographic area, and with granularity to the individual unit level for each participating hospital. At the time of submission, we have a live snapshot of 87% of beds in the state, including real-time ventilator data across eight health systems. The tracking board allows for rapid assessment of available bed and ventilator resources and pulls electronic health record data that is created through normal care processes rather than relying upon manual entry. It is updated every 5 minutes and is drillable from state to unit level. Together these factors make the data actionable, which is essential in a crisis. The new tracking system integrates seamlessly with our preexisting statewide, manually updated tracking board via bidirectional data sharing to ensure existing processes across the state can continue. This new tool allows any health system in our state to visualize occupancy by type and location in real time. Amid pandemic uncertainty, having a reliable tool for tracking critical hospital resources will enhance our statewide ability to maintain healthcare functionality in a world with coronavirus disease 2019.

In this pilot trial of monthly provider funnel plot Press Ganey feedback reports, there was no difference in patient satisfaction scores between the intervention and control groups after 12 months. While this study was not powered to detect outcome differences, we demonstrate the feasibility, logistics, and effect sizes that could be used to inform future definitive trials.

Introduction: Febrile neutropenia is a potentially life-threatening complication of chemotherapy in pediatric oncology patients. Prompt initiation of antibiotic therapy may minimize morbidity and mortality associated with this condition, and time to antibiotic (TTA) administration <60 minutes is used as a quality benchmark by many institutions. We implemented a quality improvement initiative to achieve TTA < 60 minutes in >80% of eligible patients in the pediatric emergency department. Methods: After collecting baseline data, we employed consecutive PDSA cycles to (i) reduce time to antibiotic order after patient arrival; (ii) expedite the preparation of antibiotic by pharmacy; and (iii) enable antibiotic ordering before patient arrival. Statistical process control methodologies were used for key outcome measures to compare pre-intervention, post-intervention, and maintenance periods. Results: Comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention years, mean TTA decreased from 64 to 53 minutes and the percentage of patients receiving antibiotics in <60 minutes increased from 59% to 84%. Improvements were sustained in the maintenance period of the project, with mean TTA administration of 44 minutes and 85% of patients receiving antibiotics within our stated goal. Conclusion: Through a series of PDSA cycles, we decreased TTA and increased the percentage of febrile neutropenia patients receiving antibiotics in <60 minutes.

Significant delays occur in providing adequate pain relief for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with extremity fractures. The median time to pain medication administration for patients presenting to our ED with extremity fractures was 72.5 minutes. We used a multidisciplinary approach to implement three improvement cycles with the goal of reducing the median time to pain medication by 15% over an eight month time period. First, we redesigned nursing triage and treatment processes. Second, we improved nursing documentation standardization to ensure accurate tracking of patients who declined pain medication. Third, through consensus building within our physician group, we implemented a department-wide standard of care to provide early pain relief for extremity fractures. Median time to pain medication for patients with an extremity fracture reduced significantly between the pre-and post-intervention periods (p=0.009). The average monthly median time to medication was 72.5 minutes (95% CI: 57.1 to 88.0) before the intervention (Jan 2013-Oct 2014) and 49.8 minutes (95% CI: 42.7 to 56.9) after the intervention (November 2014 to June 2016). In other words, monthly median time was 31% faster (22.7 minute difference) in the post intervention period. Implementing three key interventions reduced the time to pain medication for patients with extremity injuries. Since June 2016 the reductions in median time to medication have continued to improve.

Implementing a telephone follow-up system after a patient's emergency department (ED) visit is challenging, but it may improve patient safety and care. This study's objective was to describe the development and implementation of a comprehensive ED telephone follow-up system over a 9-year period. Discharged patients who received a follow-up telephone call within 48 hours of their ED visit included all pediatric patients, those who left without being seen by a provider, and any adult patient with a "high-risk chief complaint," which was defined as a headache, visual problem, chest pain, dyspnea, abdominal pain, syncope, trauma, and neurological-related problems. There were 127 524 cases that met criteria to receive a follow-up call, with 138 331 attempted calls being made and 46 114 (36.2%) cases successfully followed up. Forty-two percent of pediatric cases and 16% of patients who left without being seen were successfully contacted with a follow-up call; 1.6% of cases were referred to the CQI Committee. In the 9 years prior and after implementation of this follow-up system, there were 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1-5.9) and 2.5 (95% CI = 1.3-4.5) medical malpractice lawsuits per 100 000 ED patient visits, respectively; this represented a 28.6% reduction. A comprehensive telephone follow-up program can be developed and implemented utilizing available resources.

IntroductionThe Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that residency programs ensure resident competency in performing safe, effective handoffs. Understanding resident, attending, and nurse perceptions of the key elements of a safe and effective emergency department (ED) handoff is a crucial step to developing feasible, acceptable educational interventions to teach and assess this fundamental competency. The aim of our study was to identify the essential themes of ED-based handoffs and to explore the key cultural and interprofessional themes that may be barriers to developing and implementing successful ED-based educational handoff interventions.MethodsUsing a grounded theory approach and constructivist/interpretivist research paradigm, we analyzed data from three primary and one confirmatory focus groups (FGs) at an urban, academic ED. FG protocols were developed using open-ended questions that sought to understand what participants felt were the crucial elements of ED handoffs. ED residents, attendings, a physician assistant, and nurses participated in the FGs. FGs were observed, hand-transcribed, audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed. We analyzed data using an iterative process of theme and subtheme identification. Saturation was reached during the third FG, and the fourth confirmatory group reinforced the identified themes. Two team members analyzed the transcripts separately and identified the same major themes.ResultsED providers identified that crucial elements of ED handoff include the following: 1) Culture (provider buy-in, openness to change, shared expectations of sign-out goals); 2) Time (brevity, interruptions, waiting); 3) Environment (physical location, ED factors); 4) Process (standardization, information order, tools).ConclusionKey participants in the ED handoff process perceive that the crucial elements of intershift handoffs involve the themes of culture, time, environment, and process. Attention to these themes may improve the feasibility and acceptance of educational interventions that aim to teach and assess handoff competency.

No abstract