Real-Time Emergency Department Electronic Notifications Regarding High-Risk Patients: A Systematic Review

Telemedicine in the emergency department: an overview of systematic reviews

AIM

There is both favorable and controversial evidence on the application of telemedicine in the emergency department (ED), which has created uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of these systems. We performed a systematic review of the literature on systematic reviews to provide an overview of the benefits and challenges to the application of telemedicine systems for the ED.

SUBJECT AND METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were explored for systematic reviews of telemedicine applications for the ED. Each review was critically appraised by two authors for data items to be extracted and evaluated. The most highly recommended technology, feasibility, benefits, and challenges to the application of telemedicine systems were studied and reported.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies of varying methodological quality and summarized their key findings. Form these 18 studies, 12 papers yielded a high risk of bias in their investigation. Nine papers concluded that real-time video conferencing was the best method of delivery, eight papers found cost reduction as an outcome of implementing these systems, and six studies found technical and infrastructure issues as a challenge when implementing telemedicine for EDs.

CONCLUSION

There is strong evidence suggesting that the use of telemedicine positively impacts patient care. However, there are many challenges in implementing telemedicine that may impede the process or even impact patient safety. In conclusion, despite the high potential of telemedicine systems, there is still a need for better quality of evidence in order to confirm their feasibility in the ED.

Leveraging a health information exchange to examine the accuracy of self-report emergency department utilization data among hospitalized injury survivors

Background

Accurate acute care medical utilization history is an important outcome for clinicians and investigators concerned with improving trauma center care. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy of self-report emergency department (ED) utilization compared with utilization obtained from the Emergency Department Information Exchange (EDIE) in admitted trauma surgery patients with comorbid mental health and substance use problems.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 169 injured patients admitted to the University of Washington’s Harborview Level I Trauma Center. Patients had high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation and alcohol comorbidity. The investigation used EDIE, a novel health technology tool that collects information at the time a patient checks into any ED in Washington and other US states. Patterns of EDIE-documented visits were described, and the accuracy of injured patients’ self-report visits was compared with EDIE-recorded visits during the course of the 12 months prior to the index trauma center admission.

Results

Overall, 45% of the sample (n=76) inaccurately recalled their ED visits during the past year, with 36 participants (21%) reporting less ED visits than EDIE indicated and 40 (24%) reporting more ED visits than EDIE indicated. Patients with histories of alcohol use problems and major psychiatric illness were more likely to either under-report or over-report ED health service use.

Discussion

Nearly half of all patients were unable to accurately recall ED visits in the previous 12 months compared with EDIE, with almost one-quarter of patients demonstrating high levels of disagreement. The improved accuracy and ease of use when compared with self-report make EDIE an important tool for both clinical and pragmatic trial longitudinal outcome assessments. Orchestrated investigative and policy efforts could further examine the benefits of introducing EDIE and other information exchanges into routine acute care clinical workflows.

Level of evidence

II/III.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02274688.