No abstract

Purpose Results of a study to determine the effect of a pharmacist-led opioid task force on emergency department (ED) opioid use and discharge prescriptions are presented. Methods An observational evaluation was conducted at a large tertiary care center (ED volume of 115,000 visits per year) to evaluate selected opioid use outcomes before and after implementation of an ED opioid reduction program by interdisciplinary task force of pharmacists, physicians, and nurses. Volumes of ED opioid orders and discharge prescriptions were evaluated over the entire 25-month study period and during designated 1-month preimplementation and postimplementation periods (January 2017 and January 2018). Opioid order trends were evaluated using linear regression analysis and further investigated with an interrupted time series analysis to determine the immediate and sustained effects of the program. Results From January 2017 to January 2018, ED opioid orders were reduced by 63.5% and discharge prescriptions by 55.8% from preimplementation levels: from 246.8 to 90.1 orders and from 85.3 to 37.7 prescriptions per 1,000 patient visits, respectively. Over the entire study period, there were significant decreases in both opioid orders (β, –78.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], –88.0 to –68.9; R2, 0.93; p < 0.0001) and ED discharge prescriptions (β, –24.4; 95% CI, –27.9 to –20.9; R2, 0.90; p < 0.001). The efforts of the task force had an immediate effect on opioid prescribing practices; results for effect sustainability were mixed. Conclusion A clinical pharmacist–led opioid reduction program in the ED was demonstrated to have positive results, with a more than 50% reduction in both ED opioid orders and discharge prescriptions.

BackgroundIncrease in waiting time often results in patients leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen, ultimately decreasing patient satisfaction. We surveyed low-acuity patients in the ED waiting room to understand their preferences and expectations.MethodsAn IRB approved, 42-item survey was administered to 400 adult patients waiting in the ED waiting room for >15 min from April to August 2010. Demographics, visit reasons, triage and waiting room facility preferences were collected.ResultsThe mean age of patients was 38.9 years (SD = 14.8), and 52.5% were females. About 53.8% of patients were employed, 79.4% had access to a primary care physician (PCP), and 17% did not have any medical insurance. The most common complaint was pain. A total of 44.4% respondents reported that they believed their problems were urgent and required immediate attention, prompting them to come to the ED, while 14.6% reported that they could not get a timely PCP appointment, and 42.9% were actually referred by their PCP to come to the ED. About 57.7% of patients considered leaving the ED if the waiting times were too long. The mean acceptable waiting time before leaving ED was 221 min (SD = 194; median 180 min, IQR 120–270). A total of 39.1% survey respondents reported being most comfortable being triaged by a physician. Respondents were least comfortable being triaged by residents. On analyzing waiting room expectations for the survey respondents, we found that 70% of the subjects wanted a better estimate of waiting time and 43.5% wanted better information on reasons for the long wait.ConclusionContrary to popular belief, at our ED a large proportion of low-acuity patients has a PCP and is medically insured. Providing patients with appropriate reasons for the wait, an accurate estimate of waiting time and creating separate areas to examine minor illness/injuries would increase patient satisfaction within our population subset.

Objectives: The primary study aim was to examine the variations in crowding when an emergency department (ED) initiates ambulance diversion.Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study included nine geographically disparate EDs. Daily ED operational variables were collected during a 12-month period (January 2009 to December 2009), including total number of ED visits, mean overall length of stay (LOS), number of ED beds, and hours on ambulance diversion. The primary outcome variable was the ''ED workload rate,'' a surrogate marker for daily ED crowding. It was calculated as the total number of daily ED visits multiplied by the overall mean LOS (in hours) and divided by the number of ED beds available for acute treatment in a given day. The primary predictor variables were ambulance diversion, as a dichotomous variable of whether or not an ED went on diversion at least once during a 24-hour period, diversion hour quintiles, and sites.Results: The annual ED census ranged from 43,000 to 101,000 patients. The percentage of days that an ED went on diversion at least once varied from 4.9% to 86.6%. On days with ambulance diversion, the mean ED workload rate varied from 17.1 to 62.1 patient LOS hours per ED bed among sites. The magnitude of variation in ED workload rate was similar on days without ambulance diversion. Differences in ED workload rate varied among sites, ranging from 1.0 to 6.0 patient LOS hours per ED bed. ED workload rate was higher on average on diversion days compared to nondiversion days. The mean difference between diversion and nondiversion was statistically significant for the majority of sites.Conclusions: There was marked variation in ED workload rates and whether or not ambulance diversion occurred during a 24-hour period. This variability in initiating ambulance diversion suggests different or inconsistently applied decision-making criteria for initiating diversion.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2011; 18:941-946 ª