Principles of observation medicine.

The defining characteristic of emergency medicine is "time," or the acuity of disease presentation. Observation, like resuscitation, involves the management of time-sensitive conditions. In the ED there is a continuum of time-sensitive conditions. This continuum extends from resuscitation on one end to observation on the other. When performed well, observation services have been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy, improve treatment outcomes, decrease costs, and improve patient satisfaction. For the subset of ED patients who would have been inappropriately discharged or unnecessarily admitted, the OU has become a safety net of the ED itself. Like EDs, OUs have progressed from being poorly managed areas of the hospital to the cutting edge of acute health care. The principles developed through past experience and research provide a framework for future developments in emergency medicine.

Abdominal pain and emergency department evaluation.

By approaching the abdominal pain patient in a systematic fashion, the physician can improve his or her performance in evaluating the patient in a safe and efficient manner without extensive or redundant tests.

Economic issues in observation unit medicine.

Emergency department observation units are the rational choice for improving the utilization of health care resources and at the same time improving the quality of patient care. Potential pitfalls can be avoided by flexibility on both the part of the observation unit and the hospital administration staff. The continued growth of observation medicine throughout the country is evidence that most have been successful in designing creative solutions to accommodate this new health service.

Impact on the care of the emergency department chest pain patient from the chest pain evaluation registry (CHEPER) study.

This study examines the question of whether chest pain observation units increase the proportion of chest pain patients with an extended evaluation for cardiac ischemia ("rule out myocardial infarction [MI] evaluation"), decrease the number of missed MIs, and decrease costs. This is a multiple site registry study of 8 established chest pain observation units (complying with the American College Emergency Physician's Observation Section's standards) compared with previous studies on chest pain evaluation without the use of observation (5 studies, 12,405 patients). A total of 23,407 of 444,189 emergency department patients (5.3%) had the chief complaint of chest pain during the study period. In the chest pain observation units, 153 of 2,229 patients (6.9%) with acute MI were identified. Most of the observation chest pain patients (76%) were discharged home without hospital admission. Compared to previous studies, a higher proportion of patients underwent a "rule out MI evaluation" (67%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 66%, 68% vs 57%, 95% CI 56%, 58%; p <0.001) equal to 2,250 additional patients completely evaluated ($1,219,500 additional costs). A lower proportion of MIs were missed (0.4%, 95% CI 0.3%, 0.5% vs 4.5%, 95% CI 4.0% to 5.5%; p <0.001) as estimated by return visits within 72 hours. Compared to previous studies, final hospital admission rate was lower (47%, 95% CI 46%, 48% vs 57%, 95% CI 56%, 58%; p <0.001), equal to 2,314 hospital admissions avoided in the study population ($4,093,466 saved costs). Calculated true costs overall were lower by $2,873,966 at the study hospitals. Thus, chest pain observation units increased the proportion of chest pain patients thoroughly evaluated with improved quality of care and lower costs.

Critical care by emergency physicians in American and English hospitals.

The object of this study was to compare emergency physician critical care services in an American (A) and an English (E) Emergency Department (ED). A prospective case comparison trial was used. The study was carried out at two university affiliated community hospitals, one in the U.S.A and one in England. Subjects were consecutive patients triaged as requiring critical care services and subsequently admitted to the hospital ward (A, n = 17; E, n = 18) or the intensive/critical care unit ([ICU] A, n = 14; E, n = 24). The study time period was randomly selected 8-h shifts occurring over a 4-week period. All patients were treated by standard guidelines for critical care services at the study hospital emergency department. For all study patients mean length of stay was significantly longer for the American (233 min, 95% CI 201, 264) than the English ED (24 min, 95% CI 23, 25). American emergency physicians spent less total time providing physician services (19.2 min, 95% CI 16.8, 21.6) vs. (23 min, 95% CI 21.6, 24.4) than English emergency physicians. American emergency physicians spent less time with the patient than English emergency physicians: 12.4 min (95% CI 10.3, 14.5) vs. 17 min (95% CI 15.8, 18.2). American emergency physicians spent more time on the telephone 1.8 min (95% CI 1.4, 2.2) vs. 1.2 min (95% CI 1.1, 1.3), and in patient care discussions/order giving 1.8 min (95% CI 1.4, 2.2) vs. 1.1 min (95% CI .8, 1.4), There was no significant difference in time charting (3.2 min, 95% CI 2.8, 3.6 vs. 3.5 min, 95% CI 3.2, 3.8). Results did not vary significantly whether analysed subgroups or the whole study group. American emergency physicians provided 81% of their service during the first hour. There were delays at the American hospital until the physician saw the patient: 4.9 min (95% CI 2.5, 7.3) for patients admitted to the ICU/CVU (Cardiovascular Unit), and 9.2 min (95% CI 4.6, 13.8) for patients admitted to the ward. At the American hospital, ICU/CVU physicians provided additional physician services in the emergency department whether the patient was admitted to the ward (6.7 min, 95% CI 5.5, 7.9) or the ICU/CVU (12.1 min, 95% CI 8.8, 15.9). For patients admitted to the ICU/CVU 47% of the length of stay was spent waiting for a bed to become available after the decision to admit had been made. Emergency physicians at E provided critical care services almost continuously during a short stay in the ED. Emergency physicians at A provided services intermittently with most services during an initial period of stabilization. Further study is necessary to identify what factors contribute to these different approaches to critical care in the ED.

Emergency physician workload: a time study.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Physician service time varies with patient service category, length of stay, and intensity of service. DESIGN: Prospective time study of emergency physician services. Physicians recorded the beginning and ending times of each service episode offered to a patient (whether at the bedside or occurring elsewhere in the department). Each episode was defined as an "interaction," with the total service time offered to a patient being the sum of all interactions for that patient. Length of stay was the time interval from when the patient registered in the emergency department to when the patient was released. Intensity of service was calculated as service time divided by length of stay. SETTING: University-affiliated community teaching hospital. TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: One thousand three hundred forty-seven ED patients were entered into the study for nonselected (514), walk-in (637), observation (52), laceration repair (102), or critical care (42) services. Six of 12 physicians in the group staffing the ED participated in the study. Patient data were entered onto study cards when the service was offered. Patients were entered into the study consecutively except when the physician became too busy to see one patient at a time and accurately enter time data; such interruptions occurred for 18% of the patients. RESULTS: Physician service time for nonselected service patients (24.2 minutes per patient; 95% CI, 23.1-25.3) was consistent with ACEP's findings for nonselected services offered by emergency physicians (22 minutes per patient). Physician service time did not vary significantly from the standard for laceration repair patients (25.0 minutes per patient; 95% CI, 22.6-27.4) but did vary significantly from the standard for walk-in (9.8 minutes per patient; 95% CI, 9.3-10.3; P < .05), observation (55.6 minutes per patient; 95% CI, 50.7-60.5; P < .05), and critical care patients (31.9 minutes per patient; 95% CI, 26.2-37.6; P < .05). Walk-in and laceration repair patients had a single physician-patient interaction (1.3 per patient and 1.1 per patient, respectively), consistent with a discrete service offered during episodic care. Observation and critical care patients had multiple physician-patient interactions (6.3 per patient and 2.6 per patient, respectively) over an extended period, which is consistent with additional services being offered during their period of observation/holding. CONCLUSION: Case mix of patient services affects emergency physician workload and should be considered in planning departmental staffing needs.

Utilization review. Emergency medicine implications.

The medical profession has made utilization review a priority in its efforts to limit health care expenditures. In emergency medicine this has ranged from initiatives to limit inappropriate emergency department visits to guidelines to limit emergency department testing and criteria to limit hospital admissions. The emergency department observation unit is an area in which the emergency physicians follow these practice guidelines without compromising patient care. The emergency department utilization review/quality assurance committee is a management tool by which emergency physicians monitor and implement these strategies for cost-effective patient care.

Formula for emergency physician staffing.

Estimates of emergency physician needs traditionally have relied on calculations based on the number of patients seen by the emergency physician (volume formula). We have found this model has not predicted accurately manpower needs in our emergency department as the case mix of services has changed. The "LIVES" formula estimates the amount of time emergency physicians provide services by using Length of stay, intensity of services, and Service type in addition to the traditional factors (Volume of patients, Efficiency of physicians). Thirteen years of statistics from our emergency department were used to examine the performance of the two formulas in predicting changes in the amount of physician services. The LIVES formula performed better than the volume formula: a better fit with number of physicians used by chi 2 analysis (chi 2 = 1084 versus 5591), a better correlation with physicians used (regression coefficient 0.98 v 0.21), a higher degree of association with physicians used (correlation coefficient 0.96 versus 0.53 with P less than 0.0001 v 0.06 by Student's t-test), and explained more of the variability in the amount of physicians used (92% v 28%). Changes in types of services provided by the modern emergency department require multifactorial analysis to determine manpower needs.

The observable patient in the DRG era.

We examined financial differences of observing patients in the acute care hospital versus an emergency department observation unit. We identified 193 patients who could have been treated in either the acute care hospital or observation unit. Under a cost reimbursement system, the charge per patient was +197 greater, the reimbursement per patient was +254 greater, and the profit per patient was +140 greater for observing patients in the hospital rather than in the observation unit (p less than 0.001). Under a prospective payment system, the charge per patient was +1187 greater, the reimbursement per patient was +1137 greater, and the profit per patient was +1063 greater for observing patients in the hospital rather than in the observation unit (p less than 0.001). This difference in reimbursement can be a great financial incentive for hospitals to admit patients rather than to observe them in the emergency department. Significant savings might be realized for the health care payer by optimal use of observation units under a prospective payment or cost reimbursement system.

Thrombotic microangiopathy and renal failure associated with antineoplastic chemotherapy.

Five patients with carcinoma developed thrombotic microangiopathy (characterized by renal insufficiency, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, and usually thrombocytopenia) after treatment with cisplatin, bleomycin, and a vinca alkaloid. One patient had thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, three the hemolytic-uremic syndrome, and one an apparent forme fruste of one of these disorders. Histologic examination of the renal tissue showed evidence of intravascular coagulation, primarily affecting the small arteries, arterioles, and glomeruli. Because each patient was tumor-free or had only a small tumor at the onset of this syndrome, the thrombotic microangiopathy may have been induced by chemotherapy. Diagnosis of this potentially fatal complication may be delayed or missed if renal tissue or the peripheral blood smear is not examined, because renal failure may be ascribed to cisplatin nephrotoxicity and the anemia and thrombocytopenia to drug-induced bone marrow suppression.