The safety of emergency medicine

Healthcare professionals' perceptions of patient safety in European emergency departments: a comparative analysis of survey results

Patient safety is a significant concern worldwide. The Emergency Departments (EDs) are vulnerable to adverse events. Europe, with its diverse healthcare systems, differs in patient safety. This study aimed to identify safety challenges through a comparative analysis of healthcare professionals' perceptions of patient safety in European EDs. In early 2023, a validated questionnaire was distributed to European ED professionals, meeting specific response rate criteria. The questionnaire included five safety domains and additional questions about infection control and team morale, with 36 ordinal scale questions. Responses ranged in five levels from "Never" to "Always," and the scores were summed to calculate the total safety score (TSS). The study examined the impact of per capita healthcare expenditure on safety perceptions using descriptive statistics, correlation assessments and SPSS 17 used for the analysis. The analysis of 1048 valid responses from 24 European countries revealed significant variability in safety perceptions. Teamwork scored highest, signifying effective collaboration. Common safety issues included overcrowding, patient flow management, understaffing, limited training and facilities for mental illnesses. TSS showed correlation with team morale and infection control, but no correlation with per capita healthcare expenditure. This comparative study underlines the disparities in patient safety perceptions across European EDs. Each country displayed unique safety concerns. Safety perceptions did not align with per capita healthcare expenditure, indicating that addressing ED safety needs multifaceted strategies. Policymakers can leverage these findings to inform strategic planning, encouraging targeted interventions to enhance patient safety at both the national and European levels.

Differences in the Patterns of Care Between Emergency Department Visits with and Without a Physician

BACKGROUND

A variety of clinicians practice in emergency departments (EDs). Although most ED patients prefer seeing physicians, a subset sees no physician.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the factors that predict when an ED patient is seen by at least one physician and compared the practice patterns of patient visits seen by at least one physician compared with those seen by no physician.

METHODS

We used 11 years of cross-sectional data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and focused on the sample of ED patient visits seen by at least one physician and those seen by no physician. We used bivariate statistics to compare characteristics between samples and used multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify the factors that predicted being seen by a physician. Finally, we compared the practice patterns of patient visits seen by at least one physician compared with those seen by no physician.

RESULTS

Approximately 10% of the sample was not seen by any physician. Patients seen by at least one physician had, on average, 0.8 more diagnostic services ordered/provided and 0.1 more procedures provided compared with patients who were not seen by any physician. Patients seen by at least one physician had longer visits by 29.4 min, on average, and had increased odds of being hospitalized (adjusted odds ratio 3.9, 95% confidence interval 2.9-5.2).

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of patient and hospital characteristics influenced whether ED patients were seen by physicians. Diagnostic services, procedures, visit length, and hospital admission differed by physician presence. Findings have implications for ED practice and future research.

Patient safety in emergency departments: a problem for health care systems? An international survey

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE

Patient safety in healthcare is one of the cornerstones of quality of care. The emergency department (ED) is by its very nature a place where errors and safety issues are liable to occur.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess health professionals' perception of the level of safety in EDs and to identify in which work domains safety appears most at risk.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Between 30 January and 27 February 2023, a survey addressing the main domains of safety was distributed to ED health care professionals through the European Society of Emergency Medicine contact network. It addressed five main domains: teamwork, safety leadership, physical environment and equipment, staff/external teams, and organisational factors and informatics, with a number of items for each domain. Further questions about infection control and team morale were added. The Cronbach's alpha measure was calculated to assure internal consistency.

MEASURES AND ANALYSIS

A score was developed for each domain by adding the question's value using the following ranking: never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), usually (4), and always (5) and was aggregated in three categories. The calculated sample size needed was 1000 respondents. The Wald method was used for analysis of the questions' consistency and X2 for the inferential analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

The survey included 1256 responses from 101 different countries; 70% of respondents were from Europe. The survey was completed by 1045 (84%) doctors and 199 (16%) nurses. It was noted that 568 professionals (45.2%) had less than 10 years' experience. Among respondents, 80.61% [95% confidence interval (CI) 78.42-82.8] reported that monitoring devices were available, and 74.7% (95% CI 72.28-77.11) reported that protocols for high-risk medication and for triage (66.19%) were available in their ED. The area of greatest concern was the disproportionate imbalance between needs and the availability of staff at times of greatest flow, considered sufficient by only 22.4% (95% CI 20.07-24.69) of doctors and 20.7% (95% CI 18.41-22.9) of nurses. Other critical issues were overcrowding due to boarding and a perceived lack of support from hospital management. Despite these difficult working conditions, 83% of the professionals said they were proud to work in the ED (95% CI 81.81-85.89).

CONCLUSION

This survey highlighted that most health professionals identify the ED as an environment with specific safety issues. The main factors appeared to be a shortage of personnel during busy periods, overcrowding due to boarding, and a perceived lack of support from hospital management.

Factors associated with the inappropriate use of the pediatric emergency department. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pediatric emergency department (PED) admissions have risen in recent years, a trend not justified by the severity of the pathologies presented. The aim of this study is to analyse factors related to the inappropriate use of pediatric emergency departments.

METHODS

This is a systematic review reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science and Science Direct databases, using keywords extracted from MeSH, and conducted a reverse search using Google Scholar and Open Grey, for the period January 2017 to August 2022. The quality of the papers was assessed using STROBE, CASPe, AMSTAR-2, GRADE, Levels Of Evidence and Grades Of Recommendation.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were selected. Factors related to inappropriate use included the younger age of children, black caregivers, lower socioeconomic status, lower parental educational attainment, perceived urgent demand for care, parental emotions in response to their children's health problems, psychological distress, the ineffective exercise of the parental role, the advantages of the PED and the nature of health insurance.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The results illustrate the heterogeneous nature of the phenomenon under investigation. Gaining an understanding of the factors related to the inappropriate demand of PEDs, from the perspective of health professionals, can help in developing interventions to reduce unnecessary consultations and relieve pressure on these healthcare services.

Analysis of Risk Factors for Patient Safety Events Occurring in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe and analyze the risk factors associated with patient safety events (PSEs), defined as adverse events (AEs), preventable AEs (PAEs), and near-miss events (NMEs), in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

It was a retrospective cohort study using ED patients' data retrieved from January 2010 to December 2016. Quality assurance issues (QAIs) used as triggers included the following: issues during procedural sedation, death within 24 hours of admission, patients' and physicians' complaints, returns to the ED within 72 hours, and transfers to an intensive care unit within 24 hours.

RESULTS

Of 383,586 ED visits, 6519 (1.7%) QAIs were reported with a PSEs incidence of 6.1%. Among the 397 PSEs, 258 were AEs including 82 PAEs, and 139 NMEs. During the 7-year period, we observed a fourfold increase in NMEs, and despite a decrease in the rate of AEs with the highest (3.1%) and lowest (0.8%) incidence in 2011 and 2016, respectively, the incidence of PAEs events remained relatively constant. Unadjusted analysis showed that ED waiting time, boarding time, ED length of stay (LOS), ED disposition, as well as diagnostic and QAIs were significantly related to PSEs (P < 0.05). Multivariable analysis showed that the type of QAIs and diagnostic were associated with PSEs (P < 0.001). Type of QAIs was a risk factor for AEs and PAEs occurrence and factors involved in NMEs were type of QAIs (P = 0.02) and ED LOS (P < 0.001). "The odds of a PSE occurring increased by 0.2% for each additional minute increase in the ED waiting time, by 5.2% for each additional boarding hour, and by 4.5% for each ED LOS hour."

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed several potential risk factors for PSEs, especially ED LOS, type of QAIs, and diagnostic. Systematic interventions might have more impact on risk of PSE.

The introduction of a safety checklist in two UK hospital emergency departments: A qualitative study of implementation and staff use

Aims and objectives

To explore the extent to which a checklist designed to support patient safety in hospital Emergency Departments was recognised and used by staff.

Background

Patient crowding in UK Emergency Departments makes it difficult for staff to monitor all patients for signs of clinical deterioration. An Emergency Department Safety Checklist was developed at a UK hospital to ensure patients are regularly monitored. It was subsequently implemented in six hospitals and recommended for use across the National Health Service in England.

Methods

This was a qualitative study in two UK hospital Emergency Departments. Data collection consisted of sixty‐six hours of nonparticipant observation and interviews with twenty‐six staff. Observations were sampled across different days and times. Interviews sampled a range of staff. Data were analysed thematically. The study was undertaken in accordance with COREQ guidelines.

Results

Staff described the Emergency Department Safety Checklist as a useful prompt and reminder for monitoring patients' vital signs and other aspects of care. It was also reported as effective in communicating patient care status to other staff. However, completing the checklist was also described as a task which could be overlooked during busy periods. During implementation, the checklist was promoted to staff in ways that obscured its core function of maintaining patient safety.

Conclusions

The Emergency Department Safety Checklist can support staff in maintaining patient safety. However, it was not fully recognised by staff as a core component of everyday clinical practice.

Relevance to clinical practice

The Emergency Department Safety Checklist is a response to an overcrowded environment. To realise the potential of the checklist, emergency departments should take the following steps during implementation: (a) focus on the core function of clinical safety, (b) fully integrate the checklist into the existing workflow and (c) employ a departmental team‐based approach to implementation and training.

Estrategias para la medición y el manejo de la sobreocupación de los servicios de urgencias de adultos en instituciones de alta complejidad con altos volúmenes de consulta. Revisión de la literatura

La sobreocupación de los servicios de urgencias es un problema global que cada vez afecta más las instituciones de salud que atienden pacientes de mediana y alta complejidad, haciendo que estos permanezcan más tiempo en una sala de espera con la consiguiente demora en los tiempos de atención, bajo nivel de satisfacción de los usuarios, retraso en la toma de ayudas diagnósticas, retrasos al definir altas del servicio y favorecimiento de complicaciones médicas, entre otros. Para mejorar esta situación se han desarrollado estrategias como la creación de unidades de observación, unidades fast track o asignación de citas prioritarias para los pacientes que no requieren una atención urgente, de modo adicional el triaje, los exámenes point of care y la vinculación de especialistas en medicina de urgencias. Todo esto con el fin de mejorar la calidad de la atención de los pacientes, evitar que se presenten eventos adversos durante su proceso y disminuir la sobreocupación del servicio.

Effects of work conditions on provider mental well-being and quality of care: a mixed-methods intervention study in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (EDs) are highly dynamic and stressful care environments that affect provider and patient outcomes. Yet, effective interventions are missing. This study evaluated prospective effects of a multi-professional organizational-level intervention on changes in ED providers' work conditions and well-being (primary outcomes) and patient-perceived quality of ED care (secondary outcome).

METHODS

A before and after study including an interrupted time-series (ITS) design over 1 year was established in the multidisciplinary ED of a tertiary referral hospital in Southern Germany. Our mixed-methods approach included standardized provider surveys, expert work observations, patient surveys, and register data. Stakeholder interviews were conducted for qualitative process evaluation. ITS data was available for 20 days pre- and post-intervention (Dec15/Jan16; Dec16/Jan17). The intervention comprised ten multi-professional meetings in which ED physicians and nurses developed solutions to work stressors in a systematic moderated process. Most solutions were consecutively implemented. Changes in study outcomes were assessed with paired t-tests and segmented regression analyses controlling for daily ED workload.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-nine surveys were returned at baseline and follow-up (response at baseline: 76 out of 170; follow-up: 73 out of 157). Forty-one ED providers participated in both waves. One hundred sixty expert work observations comprising 240 observation hours were conducted with 156 subsequent work stress reports. One thousand four hundred eighteen ED patients were surveyed. Considering primary outcomes, respondents reported more job control and less overtime hours at follow-up. Social support, job satisfaction, and depersonalization deteriorated while respondents' turnover intentions and inter-professional interruptions increased. Considering the secondary outcome, patient reports indicated improvements in ED organization and waiting times. Interviews revealed facilitators (e.g., comprehensive approach, employee participation) and barriers (e.g., understaffing, organizational constraints) for intervention implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report prospective effects of an ED work system intervention on provider well-being and patient-perceived quality of ED care. We found inconsistent results with partial improvements in work conditions and patient perceptions of care. However, aspects of provider mental well-being deteriorated. Given the lack of organizational-level intervention research in EDs, our findings provide valuable insights into the feasibility and effects of participatory interventions in this highly dynamic hospital setting.

Which observed behaviours may reassure physicians that a child is not septic? An international Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

In an attempt to improve the diagnosis of sepsis in children, diagnostic aids have concentrated on clinical features that suggest that sepsis is present. Clinicians need to be able to clinically rule out sepsis as well as rule it in. Little is known about which features are consistent with wellness and/or absence of sepsis. Guidelines are therefore likely to improve sensitivity without preserving specificity. We aimed to gather expert opinion on which (if any) features would make clinicians consider a child to be unlikely to have sepsis.

DESIGN

We undertook a modified two-round international Delphi study, where clinicians were asked for features they believed were indicators of wellness in an ill child.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and ninety-five clinicians (predominantly physicians) who routinely assessed unwell children and had been doing so for most of their careers.

RESULTS

Over 90% of respondents rated age-appropriate verbalisation, playing, smiling and activity as reassuring that a child was unlikely to have sepsis. Eating, spontaneous interaction and normal movement were also agreed to be reassuring by over 70% of participants. Consolability and showing fear of the clinician were not felt to be adequately reassuring. There was wide range of opinion on how reassuring the use of an electronic device was thought to be.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that physicians are reassured by specific behaviours in ill children, and provides a framework which may be used to help guide the assessment of the unwell child. Validation of individual features could lead to improved specificity of diagnostic aids for diagnosing sepsis.

Review article: A systematic review of emergency department incident classification frameworks

As in any part of the hospital system, safety incidents can occur in the ED. These incidents arguably have a distinct character, as the ED involves unscheduled flows of urgent patients who require disparate services. To aid understanding of safety issues and support risk management of the ED, a comparison of published ED specific incident classification frameworks was performed. A review of emergency medicine, health management and general medical publications, using Ovid SP to interrogate Medline (1976-2016) was undertaken to identify any type of taxonomy or classification-like framework for ED related incidents. These frameworks were then analysed and compared. The review identified 17 publications containing an incident classification framework. Comparison of factors and themes making up the classification constituent elements revealed some commonality, but no overall consistency, nor evolution towards an ideal framework. Inconsistency arises from differences in the evidential basis and design methodology of classifications, with design itself being an inherently subjective process. It was not possible to identify an 'ideal' incident classification framework for ED risk management, and there is significant variation in the selection of categories used by frameworks. The variation in classification could risk an unbalanced emphasis in findings through application of a particular framework. Design of an ED specific, ideal incident classification framework should be informed by a much wider range of theories of how organisations and systems work, in addition to clinical and human factors.

Patient and care characteristics of self-referrals treated by the general practitioner cooperative at emergency-care-access-points in the Netherlands

Background

In the Netherlands, out-of-hours primary care is provided in general practitioner-cooperatives (GPCs). These are increasingly located on site and in collaboration with emergency departments of hospitals (ED). At such sites, also called emergency-care-access-points (ECAP), the GPC is generally responsible for the triage and treatment of self-referrals who used to attend the ED. To evaluate the effects and safety of this novel organisation, we studied the characteristics and the quality of care given by GPCs to self-referrals at ECAPs.

Methods

Retrospective analysis (August 2011–January 2012) of 783 records of self-referred patients at three Dutch GPCs in an ECAP. This was supplemented with a retrospective analysis of patient records during a follow-up period of three-months to asses safety.

Results

Patient-characteristics: 59% was male, 46% aged between 16–45 years and 59% trauma-related. Most cases (95%) were triaged low-urgent. None received the highest urgency-category. Quality: The triage outcome was correct in 79%, underestimated in 12% and overestimated in 9%. After GP consultation 20% were referred to the ED, mostly for radio-diagnostics. Of the referrals to secondary care, 98% were according to common medical practice. Thirty percent had a follow-up contact, mostly with their own general practitioner, seldom with the ED. Complications, all non-severe, were registered in 3.2%; 0.4% were possibly preventable.

Conclusions

Self-referred patients at an ECAP are mostly trauma related, low-urgent and male patients. The majority could be treated by the GPC without subsequent referral to the ED. Care given at the GPC is reasonably efficient and safe. Triage and treatment of self-referrals by the GPC at ECAPs might offer opportunities for other countries facing problems with inappropriate emergency department visits.

The Emergency Medicine Events Register: An analysis of the first 150 incidents entered into a novel, online incident reporting registry

OBJECTIVE

Incident reporting systems are critical to understanding adverse events, in order to create preventative and corrective strategies. There are very few systems dedicated to Emergency Medicine with published results. All EDs in Australia and New Zealand were contacted to encourage the use of an Emergency Medicine - specific online reporting system called the Emergency Medicine Events Register (EMER).

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of the first 150 incidents entered into EMER. EMER captures Emergency-medicine-specific details including triage score, clinical presentation, outcome, contributing factors, mitigating factors, other specialities involved and patient journey stage. These details were analysed by an expert panel.

RESULTS

Over the first 26 months, 150 incidents were reported into EMER. The most common categories reported, in order, were diagnostic error, procedural complication and investigation errors. Most incidents contained more than one category of error. The most common stage of the patient's journey in which an incident was detected was after discharge from the ED.

CONCLUSION

A focus on correct diagnosis, procedure performance and investigation interpretation may reduce errors in the ED. The ability to learn from incidents and make system changes to enhance patient safety in healthcare organisations is an inherent part of providing a proactive, quality culture.