"Analysis of readmissions to the emergency department among patients presenting with abdominal pain"

Upstreamist leaders: how risk factors for unscheduled return visits (URV) to the emergency department can inform integrated healthcare

PURPOSE

This paper aims to report on research undertaken in an National Health Service (NHS) emergency department in the north of England, UK, to identify which patients, with which clinical conditions are returning to the emergency department with an unscheduled return visit (URV) within seven days. This paper analyses the data in relation to the newly introduced Integrated Care Boards (ICBs). The continued upward increase in demand for emergency care services requires a new type of "upstreamist", health system leader from the emergency department, who can report on URV data to influence the development of integrated care services to reduce further demand on the emergency department.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Patients were identified through the emergency department symphony data base and included patients with at least one return visit to emergency department (ED) within seven days. A sample of 1,000 index visits between 1 January 2019-31 October 2019 was chosen by simple random sampling technique through Excel. Out of 1,000, only 761 entries had complete data in all variables. A statistical analysis was undertaken using Poisson regression using NCSS statistical software. A review of the literature on integrated health care and its relationship with health systems leadership was undertaken to conceptualise a new type of "upstreamist" system leadership to advance the integration of health care.

FINDINGS

Out of all 83 variables regressed with statistical analysis, only 12 variables were statistically significant on multi-variable regression. The most statistically important factor were patients presenting with gynaecological disorders, whose relative rate ratio (RR) for early-URV was 43% holding the other variables constant. Eye problems were also statistically highly significant (RR = 41%) however, clinically both accounted for just 1% and 2% of the URV, respectively. The URV data combined with "upstreamist" system leadership from the ED is required as a critical mechanism to identify gaps and inform a rationale for integrated care models to lessen further demand on emergency services in the ED.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

At a time of significant pressure for emergency departments, there needs to be a move towards more collaborative health system leadership with support from statistical analyses of the URV rate, which will continue to provide critical information to influence the development of integrated health and care services. This study identifies areas for further research, particularly for mixed methods studies to ascertain why patients with specific complaints return to the emergency department and if alternative pathways could be developed. The success of the Esther model in Sweden gives hope that patient-centred service development could create meaningful integrated health and care services.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This research was a large-scale quantitative study drawing upon data from one hospital in the UK to identify risk factors for URV. This quality metric can generate important data to inform the development of integrated health and care services. Further research is required to review URV data for the whole of the NHS and with the new Integrated Health and Care Boards, there is a new impetus to push for this metric to provide robust data to prioritise the need to develop integrated services where there are gaps.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first large-scale study of its kind to generate whole hospital data on risk factors for URVs to the emergency department. The URV is an important global quality metric and will continue to generate important data on those patients with specific complaints who return back to the emergency department. This is a critical time for the NHS and at the same time an important opportunity to develop "Esther" patient-centred approaches in the design of integrated health and care services.

Analgesic Treatment and the Patients' Opinion on the Hospital Emergency Department

Aim: The aim of the study was to analyze whether a patient’s opinion is related to the effect of analgesic treatment. Methods: The study was conducted using a survey questionnaire among adult patients admitted to the hospital emergency department in March 2021. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) was used to assess pain. Patients were asked to rate the intensity of pain during their stay in the emergency department in three situations: (1) at admission; (2) during the stay; and (3) upon discharge. The relationships between qualitative variables were assessed by the chi-squared test. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: There was no statistical dependence between the patient’s opinion about the medical institution and results of the effectiveness of analgesic treatments (p = 0.056). The highest percentage of patients satisfied with the received treatment were those who did not feel pain during ED discharge (94.12%), and the lowest were those who complained of severe pain during ED discharge (63.91%). The average mark for the functioning and organization of the emergency department was 7.44 (±2.04). Only 54 patients (29.83%) had taken pain medication before deciding to visit ED. Conclusions: No statistical dependency between the effect of the analgesic treatment and the patient’s opinion has been observed. The majority of patients with pain discomfort visit emergency departments without looking for consultation in other locations or without taking analgesics. In the considered institution, patients were satisfied with the analgesic treatment, staff performance, and with the organization of the department.

Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department: Missed Diagnoses

Abdominal pain is the most common chief complaint in the Emergency Department. Abdominal pain is caused by a variety of gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal disorders. Some frequently missed conditions include biliary pathology, appendicitis, diverticulitis, and urogenital pathology. The Emergency Medicine clinician must consider all aspects of the patient's presentation including history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and imaging. If no diagnosis is identified, close reassessment of pain, vital signs, and physical examination are necessary to ensure safe discharge. Strict verbal and written return precautions should be provided to the patient.

Emergency severity level-3 patient flow based on point-of-care testing improves patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Overcrowding of the Emergency Department is rapidly becoming a global challenge and a major source of concern for emergency physicians. The desire to improve Emergency Department throughput requires novel approaches to patient flow.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective and cluster-randomized study, to evaluate the impact in patient outcomes of a new patient flow based on Point-of-Care Testing (POCT). A total of 380 Emergency Severity Level-3 patients were enrolled and studied in two different groups, interventional arm (laboratory analyses performed on POCT analyzers implemented in the Emergency Department) or control arm (central laboratory). The primary outcome was the Emergency Department length of stay. Secondary outcome included the time to first medical intervention, the laboratory turnaround time and the time to disposition decision. Readmission within the 7 days after discharge was also calculated.

RESULTS

Length of stay significantly decreased by 88.50 min (from 247.00 to 158.50), time to disposition decision by 89.00 min (from 192.00 to 103.00) and laboratory turnaround time by 67.11 min (from 89.84 to 22.73) in the POCT group. No increase in readmission was found.

CONCLUSION

Our strategy based on POCT represents a good approach to optimize patient flow in the Emergency Department and it should be seen as a starting point for further studies focusing on improving throughput.