Evaluation of the use of individualized patient care plans in frequent emergency department visitors with pain complaints.

BACKGROUND: Pain is one of the most common complaints that patients present to the emergency department for; emergency medicine providers are tasked with providing appropriate pain relief while simultaneously limiting the risk of personal and societal harm that may result from opioid misuse. The Lakeland Regional Medical Center developed a medical management program that identified frequent emergency department visitors with a chief complaint of pain. Individualized care plans were developed for these patients. A retrospective review was then conducted to assess the efficacy of these care plans in reducing the number of emergency department visits for pain-related complaints by the patients entered into the medical management program. RESULTS: There were 294 patients; 65% were male, and the median age was 41 (interquartile range: 33 to 51). A total of 80% percent of the patients were white, and the payors were as follows: 53% were self-pay, 42% were government programs, and 5% had private insurance. The three most common chronic pain complaints were 39% abdominal pain, 24% back/neck pain, and 23% headache/migraine (patients could have more than one area of pain). A total of 60% of the patients had a primary care provider, and another 18% had a pain management provider in addition to primary care. Post plan admissions were significantly reduced to a median of 1 (IQR 0 to 3) with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test's p-value of less than 0.001. CONCLUSION: The authors describe their experience with a quality improvement initiative that identifies frequent emergency department visitors with a chief complaint of pain and provides individualized care plans to these patients. The goals of the program are to improve patient's quality and consistency of care, through interventions that eliminate the prescribing of opioids while providing non-opioid alternatives.

Impact of early versus late administration of bamlanivimab on readmissions in patients with high-risk COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant monoclonal antibody therapies have been utilized under emergency use authorization (EUA) for the prevention of clinical decompensation in high-risk COVID-19 positive patients for up to 10 days from symptom onset. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the timing of the monoclonal antibody, bamlanivimab, on clinical outcomes in high-risk COVID-19 positive patients. METHODS: This was an IRB-approved, retrospective evaluation of adult patients who received bamlanivimab per EUA criteria in the emergency department (ED). Patients were dichotomized into two groups- 3 days of symptoms or less (early) versus 4 to 10 days (late). The primary outcome was hospitalization for COVID-related illness at 28 days (or treatment failure). Secondary outcomes were COVID-related ED visits at 28 days, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital mortality at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 839 patients were included in the analysis. There was no difference observed in COVID-related hospitalization rates within 28 days between the early and late bamlanivimab administration groups (7.5% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.71). There was no difference in COVID-related ED visits within 28 days with 13% of patients returning to the ED. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, there were no differences in the rates of hospitalization at 28 days when bamlanivimab was administered in the first 3 days of illness versus days 4 to 10. Future prospective studies are warranted to expand upon the characteristics of patients that may or may not benefit from monoclonal antibody therapy.

Impact of a Hospitalwide Quality Improvement Initiative on Emergency Department Throughput and Crowding Measures.

BACKGROUND: This pre- and postintervention analysis evaluates the impact of a systemwide, comprehensive, executively supported quality improvement (QI) project on emergency department (ED) throughput measures and crowding in a large nonacademic community hospital. METHODS: The two primary endpoints used to assess the impact of the project were (1) the percentage of all patients who were door-in to door-out in less than three hours and (2) the percentage of patients who left without being seen (LWBS). Secondary endpoints for throughput were mean door-in to door-out, door-in to physician, physician to disposition, and disposition to door-out times for all patients. Secondary endpoints for crowding were median disposition to door-out time of admitted patients and the percentage of admitted patients with a disposition to door-out time of ≥ one, two, and six hours. RESULTS: A total of 666,640 patient visits were included in the primary endpoint analyses, with no patients excluded. The percentage of patients meeting the three-hour door-in to door-out goal after the QI project was 81.4%, versus 46.5% in the pre-QI group (difference, 34.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 34.7-35.1; p < 0.0001). The postintervention LWBS rate was 0.49%, versus 4.00% in the pre-QI group (difference, 3.51 percentage points; 95% CI = 3.43-3.58; p < 0.0001). A total of 417,673 patient visits were screened for inclusion for the secondary endpoint analyses. The pre-QI and post-QI groups were also compared for secondary endpoints, and significant improvement was noted in all analyses. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a comprehensive systemwide and executively supported QI project can make sustained multiyear improvements in ED throughput and LWBS. Further research is needed to determine if this standardized set of changes can be generalized to other hospital systems.