Leaving Without Being Seen from the Pediatric Emergency Department: A New Baseline

BACKGROUND Left without being seen (LWBS) rates are an important quality metric for pediatric emergency departments (ED), with high acuity LWBS children representing a patient safety risk. Since 07/2021, our ED experienced a surge in LWBS after the most stringent COVID-19 quarantine restrictions ended. OBJECTIVES We assessed changes in LWBS rates and examined associations of system factors and patient characteristics with LWBS. METHODS We performed a retrospective study in a large, urban pediatric ED, for all arriving patients, comparing three time-periods: before COVID (PRE, 01/2018 – 02/2020), during early-COVID (COVID, 03/2020 – 06/2021), and after the emergence of COVID-19 variants and reemergence of seasonal viruses (POST, 07/2021 – 12/2021). We compared descriptive statistics of daily LWBS rates, patient demographics, and system characteristics. Negative binomial (system factors) and logistic regression (patient characteristics) models were developed to evaluate the associations between system factors and LWBS, and patient characteristics and LWBS, respectively. RESULTS Mean daily LWBS rates changed from 1.8% PRE to 1.4% COVID to 10.7% during POST. Rates increased across every patient demographic and triage level during POST, despite a decrease in daily ED volume compared to PRE. LWBS rates were significantly associated with ESI 2 patients, average ED census, and staff productivity within multiple periods. Patient characteristics associated with LWBS included lower assigned triage levels and arrival between 8PM and 4AM. CONCLUSIONS LWBS rates have shown a large and sustained increase since July 2021, even for high acuity patients. We identified system factors that may provide opportunities to reduce LWBS. Further work should develop strategies to prevent LWBS in at-risk patients.

Flow impacts of hot/cold zone infection control procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced emergency departments (EDs) to change operations to minimize nosocomial infection risk. Many EDs cohort patients using provincial screening tools at triage. Despite cohorting, staff exposures occurred in the 'cold zone' due to lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) use with patients deemed low risk, resulting in staff quarantines. The cohorting strategy was perceived to lengthen time to physician initial assessment and ED length of stay times in our ED without protecting staff well enough due to varying PPE use. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of hot/cold zones for patient cohorting during a viral pandemic on ED length of stay. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis 3 weeks before and after the removal of hot/cold zone care space cohorting in our ED. In the before period, staff did not routinely wear full PPE to see cold zone patients. After removal, staff wore full PPE to see almost all patients. We collected data on ED length of stay, physician initial assessment times, arrival-to-room times, patient volumes, Canadian Triage Acuity Score (CTAS), admissions, staff hours of coverage, as well as proportions of patients on droplet/contact precautions and COVD-19 positive patients. The primary outcome was median ED length of stay. RESULTS: After the removal of the hot/cold divisions, there was a decrease in the adjusted median ED length of stay by 24 min (95% CI 14; 33). PPE use increased in the after arm of the study. The interrupted time series analysis suggested a decrease in median ED length of stay after removal, although the change in slope and difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Cohorted waiting areas may provide a safety benefit without operational compromise, but cohorting staff and care spaces is likely to compromise efficiency and create delays.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: La pandémie de COVID-19 a contraint les services d'urgence (SU) à modifier leur fonctionnement afin de minimiser le risque d'infection nosocomiale. De nombreux SU regroupaient des patients à l'aide d'outils de dépistage provinciaux au triage. Malgré la constitution de cohortes, les expositions du personnel se sont produites dans la "zone froide" en raison du manque d'utilisation d'équipements de protection individuelle (EPI) avec des patients jugés à faible risque, ce qui a entraîné la mise en quarantaine du personnel. Dans notre service d'urgence, la stratégie de cohorte a été perçue comme prolongeant l'évaluation initiale des médecins et la durée du séjour dans le service sans pour autant protéger suffisamment le personnel en raison de l'utilisation variable des EPI. L'objectif de cette étude était d'évaluer l'impact des zones chaudes/froides pour le regroupement de patients lors d'une pandémie virale sur la durée du séjour à l'urgence. MéTHODES: Nous avons réalisé une analyse de séries chronologiques interrompues trois semaines avant et après la suppression de la cohorte d'espace de soins en zone chaude/froide dans nos urgences. Au cours de la période précédente, le personnel ne portait pas systématiquement un EPI complet pour voir les patients des zones froides. Après le retrait, le personnel a porté un EPI complet pour voir presque tous les patients. Nous avons recueilli des données sur la durée du séjour aux urgences, les délais d'évaluation initiale par les médecins, les délais d'arrivée en salle, le volume de patients, L'échelle canadienne de triage et de gravité (ÉTG), les admissions, les heures de couverture du personnel, ainsi que les proportions de patients ayant reçu des précautions contre les gouttelettes et les contacts et de patients positifs au COVD-19. Le critère de jugement principal était la durée médiane du séjour aux urgences. RéSULTATS: Après la suppression des divisions chaudes/froides, la durée médiane ajustée du séjour aux urgences a diminué de 24 minutes (IC à 95 % : 14 ; 33). L'utilisation des EPI a augmenté dans le groupe suivant de l'étude. L'analyse des séries chronologiques interrompues suggère une diminution de la durée médiane de séjour aux urgences après le retrait, bien que le changement de la pente et de la différence n'ait pas atteint la signification statistique. CONCLUSION: Les zones d'attente en cohorte peuvent offrir un avantage en matière de sécurité sans compromis sur le plan opérationnel, mais le regroupement du personnel et des espaces de soins est susceptible de compromettre l'efficacité et de créer des retards.

Dedicated area within the emergency department versus an outside dedicated area for evaluation and management of suspected coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The circumstances of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic necessitated an alternate operations strategy for efficient patient management. Alternate care sites were a viable option for managing emergency department (ED) surge in previous epidemics and disasters. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development of an alternate care site and evaluates efficiency by comparing key performance indicators between an ad hoc nested respiratory evaluation unit (NRU) within the ED and an alternate care site outside the ED. METHODS: This was a cohort study of 2 care models in the same ED during 2 different time periods. As coronavirus disease 2019 surged in March 2020, potential treat-and-release patients with fever or respiratory symptoms were triaged to a dedicated ED area (NRU). As ED volume grew, these low-acuity patients were triaged to an ACS. We compared ED length of stay, elopement, and left without being evaluated rates and ED recidivism between the 2 care models: NRU patients presented to the ED from March 16, 2020, to March 31, 2020, and ACS patients presented from April 1, 2020, to April 15, 2020. Continuous variables were compared using independent t test or Mann-Whitney test. Categorical variables were compared using χ2 test. RESULTS: There were 414 NRU patients and 146 alternate care site patients with no significant differences in sex or age. The mean ED length of stay was shorter for alternate care site patients: 155 versus 45 minutes (P < 0.01). Elopement and left without being evaluated rates were higher in the NRU. There was no significant difference in ED recidivism between groups: 10% versus 6% (P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: An alternate care site provided an efficient resource for the evaluation of patients with fever or respiratory symptoms during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.