Development of the PriCARE classification for potentially preventable emergency department visits by ambulance: a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi study protocol

Development and Application of an Attribute-Based Taxonomy on the Benefits of Oral Anticoagulant Switching in Atrial Fibrillation: A Delphi Study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often switch between oral anticoagulants (OACs). It can be hard to know why a patient has switched outside of a clinical setting. Medication attribute comparisons can suggest benefits. Consensus on terms and definitions is required for inferring OAC switch benefits. The objectives of the study were to generate consensus on a taxonomy of the potential benefits of OAC switching in patients with AF and apply the taxonomy to real-world data.

METHODS

Nine expert clinicians (seven clinical pharmacists, two cardiologists) with at least 3 years of clinical and research experience in AF participated in a Delphi process. The experts rated and commented on a proposed taxonomy on the potential benefits of OAC switching. After each Delphi round, ratings were analyzed with the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) appropriateness method. Median ratings, disagreement index, and comments were used to modify the taxonomy. The resulting taxonomy from the Delphi process was applied to a cohort of patients with AF who switched OACs in a population-based administrative health dataset from 1996 to 2019 in British Columbia, Canada.

RESULTS

The taxonomy was finalized in two Delphi rounds, reaching consensus on five switch benefit categories: safety, effectiveness, convenience, economic considerations, and drug interactions. Safety benefit (a switch that could lower the risk of adverse drug events) had three subcategories: major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Effectiveness benefit had four subcategories: stroke and systemic embolism (SSE), ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality. Real-world OAC switches revealed that more OAC switches had convenience (72.6%) and drug interaction (63.0%) benefits compared to effectiveness (SSE 22.0%, ischemic stroke 11.1%, MI 3.1%, all-cause mortality 10.1%), safety (major bleeding 24.3%, GI bleeding 10.6%, ICH 48.5%), and economic benefits (12.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi-based taxonomy identified five criteria for the beneficial effects of OAC switching, aiding in characterizing real-world OAC switching.

Validating the Emergency Department Avoidability Classification (EDAC): A cluster randomized single-blinded agreement study

INTRODUCTION

The Emergency Department Avoidability Classification (EDAC) retrospectively classifies emergency department (ED) visits that could have been safely managed in subacute primary care settings, but has not been validated against a criterion standard. A validated EDAC could enable accurate and reliable quantification of avoidable ED visits. We compared agreement between the EDAC and ED physician judgements to specify avoidable ED visits.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cluster randomized, single-blinded agreement study in an academic hospital in Hamilton, Canada. ED visits between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019 were clustered based on EDAC classes and randomly sampled evenly. A total of 160 ED visit charts were randomly assigned to ten participating ED physicians at the academic hospital for evaluation. Physicians judged if the ED visit could have been managed appropriately in subacute primary care (an avoidable visit); each ED visit was evaluated by two physicians independently. We measured interrater agreement between physicians with a Cohen's kappa and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated the correlation between the EDAC and physician judgements using a Spearman rank correlation and ordinal logistic regression with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We examined the EDAC's precision to identify avoidable ED visits using accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

ED physicians agreed on 139 visits (86.9%) with a kappa of 0.69 (95% CI 0.59-0.79), indicating substantial agreement. Physicians judged 96.2% of ED visits classified as avoidable by the EDAC as suitable for management in subacute primary care. We found a high correlation between the EDAC and physician judgements (0.64), as well as a very strong association to classify avoidable ED visits (OR 80.0, 95% CI 17.1-374.9). The EDACs avoidable and potentially avoidable classes demonstrated strong accuracy to identify ED visits suitable for management in subacute care (82.8%, 95% CI 78.2-86.8).

DISCUSSION

The EDAC demonstrated strong evidence of criterion validity to classify avoidable ED visits. This classification has important potential for accurately monitoring trends in avoidable ED utilization, measuring proportions of ED volume attributed to avoidable visits and informing interventions intended at reducing ED use by patients who do not require emergency or life-saving healthcare.

Inclusion of patient-level emergency department characteristics to classify potentially redirectable visits to subacute care: a modified Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

Most patients transported by Ontario paramedics to the emergency department have non-emergent conditions and may be more appropriately served by subacute community-based care centres. We sought to determine consensus on a set of patient characteristics that could be useful to classify retrospective emergency department visits that had a high probability of being primary care-like and potentially redirectable to a subacute care centre by paramedics.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi study to assess expert consensus on characteristics of patients transported by paramedics to the emergency department from August to October 2021. An expert Delphi committee was constructed of emergency and family physicians in Ontario using purposive sampling. Experts rated whether each characteristic was useful to be included in a classification to identify potentially redirectable visits retrospectively, as well as characteristic details (e.g., upper and lower bounds). Consensus was considered 75% agreement.

RESULTS

Sixteen experts participated in the study; the experts were mostly male (75%) and evenly divided between emergency and family medicine. After 2 rounds, consensus was achieved on 8 of 9 characteristics (89%). Four characteristics were determined as useful to classify potentially redirectable emergency department visits: age (81%), triage acuity (100%), specialist consult in the emergency department (94%) and emergency department visit outcome (81%). Specifications of each characteristic were refined as follows: young and middle-aged adults with a non-emergent triage acuity, did not receive a specialist physician consult in the emergency department and discharged from the emergency department.

INTERPRETATION

Strong consensus was achieved to specify a classification system for potentially redirectable emergency department visits. These results will be combined with knowledge of which subacute care centres could conduct the main physician interventions to retrospectively identify emergency department visits that could have been suitable for paramedic redirection for further research.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ID ISRCTN22901977.

Validation of a classification to identify emergency department visits suitable for subacute and virtual care models: a randomised single-blinded agreement study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Redirecting suitable patients from the emergency department (ED) to alternative subacute settings may assist in reducing ED overcrowding while delivering equivalent care. The Emergency Department Avoidance Classification (EDAC) was constructed to retrospectively classify ED visits that may have been suitable for safe management in a subacute or virtual clinical setting. The EDAC has established face and content validity but has not been tested against a reference standard as a criterion.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective is to examine the agreement between the EDAC and ED physician judgements in retrospectively identifying ED visits suitable for subacute care management. Our secondary objective is to assess the validity of ED physicians' judgement as a criterion standard. Our tertiary objective is to examine how the ED physician's perception of a virtual ED care alternative correlates with the EDAC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A randomised single-centre, single-blinded agreement study. We will randomly select ED charts between 1 January and 31 December 2019 from an academic hospital in Hamilton, Canada. ED charts will be randomly assigned to participating ED physicians who will evaluate if this ED visit could have been managed appropriately and safely in a subacute and/or virtual model of care. Each chart will be reviewed by two physicians independently. We compute our needed sample size to be 79 charts. We will use kappa statistics to measure inter-rater agreement. A repeated measures regression model of physician ratings will provide variance estimates that we will use to assess the intraclass correlation of ED physician ratings and the EDAC.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (2022-14625). If validated, the EDAC may provide an ED-based classification to identify potentially avoidable ED visits, monitor ED visit trends, and proactively delineate those best suited for subacute or virtual care models.

Emergency department interventions that could be conducted in subacute care settings for patients with nonemergent conditions transported by paramedics: a modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

As the number of patients with nonemergent conditions who are transported by paramedics continues to increase in Ontario, redirecting specific patients to subacute settings may be more beneficial and suitable for both patients and emergency departments. We aimed to evaluate whether emergency department interventions conducted on patients with nonemergent conditions who are transported by paramedics could be conducted in subacute health centres.

METHODS

We conducted a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi study in Ontario between Oct. 13 and Dec. 19, 2020. We used purposive sampling to recruit practising emergency and primary care physicians for an expert panel. We abstracted interventions given to adult patients with nonemergent conditions (18 yr of age or older) who were transported by paramedics to an emergency department from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) database (Jan. 1, 2014, to Mar. 31, 2018). Participants in the expert panel rated the suitability of the 150 most frequently recorded emergency department interventions from the NACRS database, for completion in subacute health care centres. We set consensus at 70% agreement.

RESULTS

We invited 25 physician experts, 21 of whom consented to participate; 20 physicians completed round 1, and 18 physicians completed both rounds. After 2 rounds, consensus was reached on 146 (97.3%) interventions; 103 interventions (68.7%) were suitable for subacute centres, 43 (28.7%) for only the emergency department and 4 (2.6%) did not receive consensus. For subacute centres, all 103 interventions were rated for urgent care centres; walk-in medical centres were applicable for 46 (30.6%) interventions and clinics led by nurse practitioners for 47 (31.3%) interventions.

INTERPRETATION

Most interventions provided to patients with nonemergent conditions transported by paramedics to emergency departments were identified as suitable for urgent care clinics, with one-third being suitable for either walk-in medical centres or clinics led by nurse practitioners. This study has potential to inform a patient classification model for paramedic-initiated redirection of patients from emergency departments, although further contextualization is required for this to be implemented in clinical practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ID ISRCTN22901977.

Identifying patient characteristics associated with potentially redirectable paramedic transported emergency department visits in Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Paramedic redirection from emergency department (ED) to subacute centres may be more beneficial for some patients, though little is known about which patients are potentially appropriate. We examined whether patient characteristics were associated with ED visits when the main intervention was suitable to be performed in a subacute centre.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study using the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System from 2014 to 2018 in Ontario, Canada. We included all adult patients transported by paramedics and had a main physician intervention recorded. We used results of a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi study to categorise patients into either ED or a subacute care (urgent care and/or general practice centre) based on their main intervention. An independent logistic regression model was analysed for each subacute centre.

RESULTS

A total of 2 394 072 ED visits were included; 59% of ED interventions were categorised as 'urgent care', 27% 'ED only', 9% either 'urgent care' or 'general practice' and 5% had an intervention not previously classified. ED visits suitable for 'general practice' had the highest percentage of patients discharged, while 'ED only' had the lowest. Lower medical acuity, younger age, time of triage in evening and overnight, and discharged from ED were independently associated with both subacute centres. 'Urgent care' visits/interventions were associated with an ED main diagnosis of the respiratory system (OR 3.49), while 'general practice' visits were associated with mental health disorders (OR 9.85) and injury/poison/consequences of external causes (OR 3.38).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of ED visits had a main intervention that could have potentially been conducted in a subacute centre. We identified characteristics and diagnostic patterns associated with ED visits when the main intervention was categorised as a subacute centre intervention. This study contributes knowledge to inform which patients are potentially appropriate for paramedic redirection.

Examining the association between paramedic transport to the emergency department and hospital admission: a population-based cohort study

Background

Increasing hospitalization rates present unique challenges to manage limited inpatient bed capacity and services. Transport by paramedics to the emergency department (ED) may influence hospital admission decisions independent of patient need/acuity, though this relationship has not been established. We examined whether mode of transportation to the ED was independently associated with hospital admission.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2020 in Ontario, Canada. We included all adult patients (≥18 years) who received a triage score in the ED and presented via paramedic transport or self-referral (walk-in). Multivariable binary logistic regression was used to determine the association of mode of transportation between hospital admission, after adjusting for important patient and visit characteristics.

Results

During the study period, 21,764,640 ED visits were eligible for study inclusion. Approximately one-fifth (18.5%) of all ED visits were transported by paramedics. All-cause hospital admission incidence was greater when transported by paramedics (35.0% vs. 7.5%) and with each decreasing Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale level. Paramedic transport was independently associated with hospital admission (OR = 3.76; 95%CI = 3.74–3.77), in addition to higher medical acuity, older age, male sex, greater than two comorbidities, treatment in an urban setting and discharge diagnoses specific to the circulatory or digestive systems.

Conclusions

Transport by paramedics to an ED was independently associated with hospital admission as the disposition outcome, when compared against self-referred visits. Our findings highlight patient and visit characteristics associated with hospital admission, and can be used to inform proactive healthcare strategizing for in-patient bed management.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00507-2.