Prognostic value of a modified surprise question designed for use in the emergency department setting.

OBJECTIVE: Few reliable and valid prognostic tools are available to help emergency physicians identify patients who might benefit from early palliative approaches. We sought to determine if responses to a modified version of the surprise question, "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days" could predict in-hospital mortality and resource utilization for hospitalized emergency department patients. METHODS: For this observational study, emergency physicians responded to the modified surprise question with each admission over a five-month study period. Logistic regression analyses were completed and standard test characteristics evaluated. RESULTS: 6,122 visits were evaluated. Emergency physicians responded negatively to the modified surprise question in 918 (15.1%). Test characteristics for in-hospital mortality were: sensitivity 32%, specificity 85%, positive predictive value 6%, negative predictive value 98%. The risk of intensive care unit use (relative risk [RR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 2.40), use of 'comfort measures' orders (RR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.81 to 4.18), palliative-care consultation (RR, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.62 to 3.56), and in-hospital mortality (RR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.72 to 2.76) were greater for patients with negative responses. CONCLUSION: The modified surprise question is a simple trigger for palliative care needs, accurately identifying those at greater risk for in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. With a negative predictive value of 98%, affirmative responses to the modified surprise question provide reassurance that in-hospital death is unlikely.

Using the Surprise Question To Identify Those with Unmet Palliative Care Needs in Emergency and Inpatient Settings: What Do Clinicians Think?

BACKGROUND: The surprise question (SQ), "Would you be surprised if this patient died within the next year?" is effective in identifying end-stage renal disease and cancer patients at high risk of death and therefore potentially unmet palliative care needs. Following implementation of the SQ in our acute care setting, we sought to explore hospital-based providers' perceptions of the tool. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate (1) providers' perceptions regarding the feasibility of SQ use in emergency and inpatient settings, (2) clinician perceptions regarding the utility of the SQ, and (3) barriers to SQ use. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of medical providers following addition of the SQ to the electronic record for all patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: A total of 111/203 (55%) providers participated: 48/57 (84%) emergency physicians (EPs) and 63/146 (43%) inpatient providers (IPs). Most reported no difficulty using the SQ. Modest numbers in both groups reported that the SQ influenced care delivery (EPs 37%, IPs 42%) as well as goals of care (EPs 45%, IPs 52%). At least some advance care planning discussions were prompted by the SQ (EPs 45%, IPs 58%). Team discussions were influenced by SQ use for more than half of each group. Most respondents (55%) expressed some concern that their SQ responses could be inaccurate. CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, clinicians indicated that use of the SQ is feasible, acceptable, and useful in facilitating advance care planning discussions among teams, patients, and families. Many reported that SQ use influenced goals of care, but concern regarding accuracy was a barrier. Additional research examining SQ accuracy and predictive ability is warranted.

Sustainable Mechanism to Reduce Emergency Department (ED) Length of Stay: The Use of ED Holding (ED Transition) Orders to Reduce ED Length of Stay.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the effect of an emergency clinician-initiated "ED admission holding order set" on emergency department (ED) treatment times and length of stay (LOS). We further describe the impact of a performance improvement strategy with sequential plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles used to influence the primary outcome measures, ED LOS, and disposition decision to patient gone (DDTPG) time, for admitted patients. METHODS: We developed and implemented an expedited, emergency physician-facilitated admission protocol that bypassed typical inpatient workflows requiring inpatient evaluations prior to the placement of admission orders. During the 48-month study period, ED flow metrics generated during the care of 27,580 admissions from the 24-month period prior to the intervention were compared to the 29,978 admissions that occurred during the 24-month period following the intervention. The intervention was the result of an in-depth, five-phase PDSA cycle quality improvement intervention evaluating ED flow, which identified the requirement of bedside inpatient evaluations prior admission order placement as being a "non-value-added" activity. ED output flow metrics evaluating the admission process were tracked for 24 months following the intervention and were compared to the 24 months prior. RESULTS: The use of an emergency physician-initiated admission holding order protocol resulted in sustainable reductions in ED LOS when comparing the 2 years prior to the intervention, with median LOS of 410 (interquartile range [IQR] = 295 to 543) and 395 (IQR = 283 to 527) minutes, to the 2 calendar years following the intervention, with the median LOS of 313 (IQR = 21 to 431) and 316 (IQR = 224 to 438) minutes, respectively. This overall reduction in ED LOS of nearly 90 minutes was found to be primarily the result of a decrease in the time from the emergency physician's admitting DDTPG times with median times of 219 (IQR = 150 to 306) and 200 (IQR = 136 to 286) minutes for the 2 years prior to the intervention compared to 89 (IQR = 58 to 138) and 92 (IQR = 60 to 147) minutes for the 2 years following the intervention. It is notable that there was a modest increase in the door to disposition decision of admission times during this same study period with annual medians of 176 (IQR = 112 to 261) and 178 (IQR = 129 to 316) minutes, respectively, for the 2 years prior to 207 (IQR = 129 to 316) and 202 (IQR = 127 to 305) minutes following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the use of emergency physician-initiated holding orders can lead to marked reductions in ED LOS for admitted patients. Continued improvement can be demonstrated with an effective performance improvement initiative designed to continuously optimize the process change.

Effect of bedside ultrasonography on the certainty of physician clinical decisionmaking for septic patients in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Sepsis protocols promote aggressive patient management, including invasive procedures. After the provision of point-of-care ultrasonographic markers of volume status and cardiac function, we seek to evaluate changes in emergency physician clinical decisionmaking and physician assessments about the clinical utility of the point-of-care ultrasonographic data when caring for adult sepsis patients. METHODS: For this prospective before-and-after study, patients with suspected sepsis received point-of-care ultrasonography to determine cardiac contractility, inferior vena cava diameter, and inferior vena cava collapsibility. Physician reports of treatment plans, presumed causes of observed vital sign abnormalities, and degree of certainty were compared before and after knowledge of point-of-care ultrasonographic findings. The clinical utility of point-of-care ultrasonographic data was also evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-four adult sepsis patients were enrolled: 27 (37%) sepsis, 30 (40%) severe sepsis, 16 (22%) septic shock, and 1 (1%) systemic inflammatory response syndrome. After receipt of point-of-care ultrasonographic data, physicians altered the presumed primary cause of vital sign abnormalities in 12 cases (17% [95% confidence interval {CI} 8% to 25%]) and procedural intervention plans in 20 cases (27% [95% CI 17% to 37%]). Overall treatment plans were changed in 39 cases (53% [95% CI 41% to 64%]). Certainty increased in 47 (71%) cases and decreased in 19 (29%). Measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale, the mean clinical utility score was 65 mm (SD 29; 95% CI 58 to 72), with usefulness reported in all cases. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians found point-of-care ultrasonographic data about cardiac contractility, inferior vena cava diameter, and inferior vena cava collapsibility to be clinically useful in treating adult patients with sepsis. Increased certainty followed acquisition of point-of-care ultrasonographic data in most instances. Point-of-care ultrasonography appears to be a useful modality in evaluating and treating adult sepsis patients.