Effect of a Multi-Diagnosis Observation Unit on Emergency Department Length of Stay and Inpatient Admission Rate at Two Canadian Hospitals

The utility of emergency department physical therapy and case management consultation in reducing hospital admissions

BACKGROUND

A significant number of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) following a fall or with other injuries require evaluation by a physical therapist. Traditionally, once emergent conditions are excluded in the ED, these patients are admitted to the hospital for evaluation by a physical therapist to determine whether they should be transferred to a sub-acute rehabilitation facility, discharged, require services at home, or require further inpatient care. Case management is typically used in conjunction with a physical therapist to determine eligibility for recommended services and to aid in placement.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefit of using ED-based physical therapist and case management services in lieu of routine hospital admission.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational study of consecutive patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center ED between December 1, 2017, and November 30, 2018, who had a physical therapist consult placed in the ED. We additionally evaluated which of these patients were placed into ED observation for physical therapist consultation, how many required case management, and ED disposition: discharged home from the ED or ED observation with or without services, placed in a rehabilitation facility, or admitted to the hospital.

RESULTS

During the 12-month study period, 1296 patients (2.4% of the total seen in the ED) were assessed by a physical therapist. The mean age was 75.5 ± 15.2 and 832 (64.2%) were female. Case management was involved in 91.8% of these cases. The final patient disposition was as follows: admission 24.3% (95% CI = 22.1-26.7%), home discharge with or without services 47.8% (95% CI = 45.1-50.5%), rehabilitation (rehab) setting 27.9% (95% CI = 25.6%-30.4). The median (interquartile range) time in observation was 13.1 (6.0-20.3), 9.9 (1.8-15.8), and 18.4 (14.1-24.8) hours for patients admitted, discharged home, or sent to rehabilitation (P < 0.001). Among the 979 patients discharged home or sent to rehabilitation, 17 (1.7%) returned to the ED within 72 hours and were ultimately admitted.

CONCLUSION

Given that the standard of care would otherwise be an admission to the hospital for 1 day or more for all patients requiring physical therapist consultation, an ED-based physical therapy and case management system serves as a viable method to substantially decrease hospital admissions and potentially reduce resource use, length of hospital stay, and cost both to patients and the health care system.

An environmental scan of quality improvement and patient safety activities in emergency medicine in Canada

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an environmental scan of quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) infrastructure and activities in academic emergency medicine (EM) programs and departments across Canada.

METHODS

We developed 2 electronic surveys through expert panel consensus to assess important themes identified by the CAEP QIPS Committee. "Survey 1" was sent by email to all 17 Canadian medical school affiliated EM department Chairs and Academic Hospitals department Chiefs; "Survey 2" to 12 identified QIPS leads in these hospitals. This was followed by 2 monthly email reminders to participate in the survey.

RESULTS

22/70 (31.4%) Department Chairs/Chiefs completed Survey 1. Most (81.8%) reported formal positions dedicated to QIPS activities within their groups, with a mixed funding model. Less than half of these positions have dedicated logistical support. 11/12 (91.7%) local QIPS leads completed Survey 2. Two-thirds (63.6%) reported explicit QIPS topics within residency curricula, but only 9.1% described QIPS training for staff physicians. Many described successful academic scholarship output, with the total number of peer-reviewed QIPS-related publications per centre ranging from 1-10 over the past 5 years. Few respondents reported access to academic supports: methodologists (27.3%), administrative personnel (27.3%), and statisticians (9.1%).

CONCLUSION

This environmental scan provides a snapshot of QIPS activities in EM across academic centres in Canada. We found significant local educational and academic efforts, although there is a discrepancy between the level of formal support/infrastructure and such activities. There remains opportunity to further advance QIPS efforts on a national level, as well as advocating and supporting local QIPS activities.

Triage to Observation: A Quality Improvement Initiative for Chest Pain Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a rapid admission protocol for chest pain patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) on ED length-of-stay (LOS). In this study, ED LOS was defined as the time from triage check-in until the time the patient physically leaves the ED. The purpose of this quality improvement study was to decrease ED crowding.

METHODS

This is a single-center prospective cohort study performed as a quality improvement initiative. This study implemented a rapid admission protocol for patients who were at moderate risk for a major adverse cardiac event based on the HEART score. When a patient presented to the ED through triage with a chief complaint of chest pain, this protocol allowed the provider-in-triage (PIT) to identify eligible patients for potential rapid admission to the hospital's clinical decision unit (CDU). The PIT would complete a rapid medical screening examination, initiate the patient's workup, and call the CDU providers to further evaluate the patient. By identifying these patients early, the lengthy ED chest pain workup contributing to longer ED LOS could then be completed in the CDU.

RESULTS

The total number of patients seen in the ED over the study period was 34,251. The total number of patients admitted to the CDU during the study period was 1,442. The PIT identified 13 patients for rapid admission to the CDU during the study period. These patients had a statistically significant reduction in ED LOS (P < 0.001). ED LOS was also adjusted to identify delays in patient movement resulting in a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a rapid admission protocol for chest pain patients at moderate risk for a major adverse cardiac event resulted in a reduction in ED LOS. Adjusted ED LOS was also significant, highlighting a delay in patient movement from the ED to the CDU indicating continued barriers affecting ED holding times.

Hospitalisation in short-stay units for adults with internal medicine diseases and conditions

BACKGROUND

Short-stay units are hospital units that provide short-term care for selected patients. Studies have indicated that short-stay units might reduce admission rates, time of hospital stays, hospital readmissions and expenditure without compromising the quality of care. Short-stay units are often defined by a target patient category, a target function, and a target time frame. Hypothetically, short-stay units could be established as part of any department, but this review focuses on short-stay units that provide care for participants with internal medicine diseases and conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess beneficial and harmful effects of short-stay unit hospitalisation compared with usual care in people with internal medicine diseases and conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to 13 December 2017 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched several grey literature sources and performed a forward citation search for included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials, comparing hospitalisation in a short-stay unit with usual care (hospitalisation in a traditional hospital ward or other services). We defined a short-stay unit to be a hospital ward where the targeted length of stay in hospital for patients was five days or less. We included both multipurpose and specialised short-stay units. Participants were adults admitted to hospital with an internal medicine disease or condition. We excluded surgical, obstetric, psychiatric, gynaecological, and ambulatory participants. Trials were included irrespective of publication status, date, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. We measured intervention effect sizes by meta-analyses for two primary outcomes, mortality and serious adverse events, and one secondary outcome, hospital readmission. We narratively reported the following important outcomes: quality of life, activities of daily living, non-serious adverse events, and costs. We used risk ratio differences of 15% for mortality and of 20% for serious adverse events for minimal relevant clinical consideration. We rated the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations of the outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 records reporting on 14 randomised trials with a total of 2872 participants. One trial was ongoing. Thirteen trials evaluated short-stay unit hospitalisation for six specific conditions (acute decompensated heart failure (one trial), asthma (one trial), atrial fibrillation (one trial), chest pain (seven trials), syncope (two trials), and transient ischaemic attack (one trial)) and one trial investigated participants presenting with miscellaneous internal medicine disease and conditions. The components of the intervention differed among the trials as dictated by the trial participants' condition. All included trials were at high risk of bias.The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Consequently, it is uncertain whether hospitalisation in short-stay units compared with usual care reduces mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.15) 5 trials (seven additional trials reporting on 1299 participants reported no deaths in either group)); serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.54; 7 trials (one additional trial with 108 participants reported no serious adverse events in either group)), and hospital readmission (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19, 8 trials (one additional trial with 424 participants did not report results for participants)). There was not enough information to confirm or refute that short-stay unit hospitalisation had relevant effects on quality of life, activities of daily living, non-serious adverse events, and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quantity and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Consequently, it is uncertain whether there are any beneficial or harmful effects of short-stay unit hospitalisation for adults with internal medicine diseases and conditions - more trials comparing the effects of short-stay units with usual care are needed. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors to improve the overall confidence in the evidence.