A Retrospective Review of Emergency Department Visits That May Be Appropriate for Management in Non-Emergency Settings.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) continue to struggle with overcrowding, increasing wait times, and a surge in patients with non-urgent conditions. Patients frequently choose the ED for non-emergent medical issues or injuries that could readily be handled in a primary care setting. We analyzed encounters in the ED at the Brooke Army Medical Center-the largest hospital in the Department of Defense-to determine the percentage of visits that could potentially be managed in a lower cost, appointment-based setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients within our electronic medical record system from September 2019 to August 2020, which represented equidistance from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a shift in ED used based on previously published data. Our study also compared the number of ED visits pre-covid vs. post-covid. We defined visits to be primary care eligible if they were discharged home and received no computed tomography imaging, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, intravenous medications, or intramuscular-controlled substances. RESULTS: During the 12 month period, we queried data on 75,205 patient charts. We categorized 56.7% (n = 42,647) of visits as primary care eligible within our chart review. Most primary-care-eligible visits were ESI level 4 (59.2%). The largest proportion of primary-care-eligible patients (28.3%) was seen in our fast-track area followed by our pediatric pod (21.9%). The total number of ED visits decreased from 7,477 pre-covid to 5,057 post-covid visits. However, the proportion of patient visits that qualified as primary care eligible was generally consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of all ED visits in our dataset could be primary care eligible. Our findings suggest that our patient population may benefit from other on-demand and appointment-based healthcare delivery to decompress the ED.

Changes in Emergency Department Volumes at the Largest U.S. Military Hospital During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global healthcare delivery. Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) is the DoD's largest hospital and a critical platform for maintaining a ready medical force. We compare temporal trends in patient volumes and characteristics in the BAMC emergency department (ED) before versus during the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We abstracted data on patient visits from the BAMC ED electronic medical record system. Data included patient demographics, visit dates, emergency severity index triage level, and disposition. We visually compared the data from January 1, 2019 to November 30, 2019 versus January 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020 to assess the period with the most apparent differences. We then used descriptive statistics to characterize the pre-pandemic control period (1 March-November 30, 2019) versus the pandemic period (1 March-November 30, 2020). RESULTS: Overall, when comparing the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, the median number of visits per day was 232 (Interquartile Range (IQR) 214-250, range 145-293) versus 165 (144-193, range 89-308, P < .0001). Specific to pediatric visits, we found the median number of visits per day was 39 (IQR 33-46, range 15-72) versus 18 (IQR 14-22, range 5-61, P < .001). When comparing the median number of visits by month, the volumes were lower during the pandemic for all months, all of which were strongly significant (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The BAMC ED experienced a significant decrease in patient volume during the COVID-19 pandemic starting in March 2020. This may have significant implications for the capacity of this facility to maintain a medically ready force.

Assessing Challenges with Access to Care for Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department for Non-Emergent Complaints.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) utilization continues to climb nationwide resulting in overcrowding, increasing wait times, and a surge in patients with non-urgent conditions. Patients frequently choose the ED for apparent non-emergent medical issues or injuries that after-the-fact could be cared for in a primary care setting. We seek to better understand the reasons why patients choose the ED over their primary care managers. METHODS: We prospectively surveyed patients that signed into the ED at the Brooke Army Medical Center as an emergency severity index of 4 or 5 (non-emergent triage) regarding their visit. We then linked their survey data to their ED visit including interventions, diagnoses, diagnostics, and disposition by using their electronic medical record. We defined their visit to be non-urgent and more appropriate for primary care, or primary care eligible, if they were discharged home and received no computed tomography (CT) imaging, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), intravenous (IV) medications, or intramuscular (IM) controlled substances. RESULTS: During the 2-month period, we collected data on 208 participants out of a total of 252 people offered a survey (82.5%). There were 92% (n=191) that were primary care eligible within our respondent pool. Most reported very good (38%) or excellent (21%) health at baseline. On survey assessing why they came, inability to get a timely appointment (n=73), and a self-reported emergency (n=58) were the most common reported reasons. Most would have utilized primary care if they had a next-morning appointment available (n=86), but many reported they would have utilized the ED regardless of primary care availability (n=77). The most common suggestion for improving access to care was more primary care appointment availability (n=96). X-rays were the most frequent study (37%) followed by laboratory studies (20%). Before coming to the ED, 38% (n=78) reported trying to contact their primary care for an appointment. Before coming to the ED, 22% (n=46) reported contacting the nurse advice line. Based on our predefined model, 92% (n=191) of our respondents were primary care eligible within our respondent pool. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perceptions of difficulty obtaining appointments appear to be a major component of the ED use for non-emergent visits. Within our dataset, most patients surveyed stated they had difficulty obtaining a timely appointment or self-reported as an emergency. Data suggests most patients surveyed could be managed in the primary care setting.

Emergency Medicine Medical Director's Perspective: Preparation and Response to a Pandemic.

As we look back to our preparation and response, it seems clear that there were distinct phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of these phases brought changes, challenges, and opportunities to adapt and absorb the impacts. Many different hospitals in the US and abroad faced similar phases with different timelines and patient volumes, and dealt with them in a variety of ways. We believe there is no objectively right or wrong way to handle a situation like this, but there may be general principles that help individual institutions develop a response appropriate to their time and situation. The distinct phases of pandemics and the associated medical preparation and response has been described by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which provides a helpful framework to describe our experience with regards to COVID-19 within our emergency department (ED) and hospital.

Analysis of Injuries and Prehospital Interventions Sustained by Females in the Iraq and Afghanistan Combat Zones.

Background: Women served in both combat and non-combat units in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the recent conflicts lacked traditional separation of civilians from combatants carrying additional risk for injury to local civilians. There is a relative paucity of data specific to this topic. We compare injury patterns and interventions performed in the prehospital, combat setting among females versus males. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of previously published data from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry. We included all subjects that had at least one prehospital intervention documented. We compared variables between females and males. Results: From January 2007 to August 2016, our inclusion criteria captured 19,485 males and 533 females. Female casualties were older (median age 29 vs. 25), less likely to have sustained injuries from explosives (48.0% vs. 56.8%), and more severely injured as measured by median composite injury scores (10 vs. 9). Most subjects were in Afghanistan for both females and males (52.9% vs. 73.9%). Among United States (US) service members, findings were similar to the overall study population, except female service members had lower median composite injury scores than males (5 vs. 9). In unadjusted analyses, females were less likely to survive to hospital discharge (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.97). There was no difference in survival (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.07), when controlling for confounders. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses specific to US forces, we were unable to detect any differences in survival or for select analgesic administration. In both unadjusted and adjusted analyses specific to host nation civilians, we were unable to detect any differences in survival; however, even when controlling for confounders females were less likely to receive ketamine and IV morphine (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.63; 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.98, respectively). Conclusions: Females accounted for a small proportion of total casualties within our dataset. After controlling for confounders, survival was comparable between males and females, but host nation females were less likely to receive ketamine and intravenous morphine. Future studies should seek to elucidate the reasons for these subtle differences between males and females in prehospital combat casualty care.

Non-traditional risk factors for atherosclerotic disease: A review for emergency physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a life-threatening disease frequently managed in the Emergency Department (ED). Risk factors such as age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and smoking are classically associated with atherosclerosis and ACS. OBJECTIVE: This review evaluates non-traditional risk factors for atherosclerotic disease and seeks to inform physicians of their potential danger, particularly in vulnerable patient populations. DISCUSSION: Traditional risk factors are commonly utilized in the evaluation of patients with concern for ACS and acute myocardial infarction (AMI), though these may not be as useful for individual patient assessment. Heart disease accounts for a significant number of deaths in the U.S. Awareness of disease presentation and risk factors is important; however, several non-traditional risk factors are associated with atherosclerosis. Vasculitides, as well as immunologic medications used to treat these patients, increase atherosclerosis. Specific types of cancer and some therapies used to treat cancer are associated with atherosclerosis development and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Heavy alcohol use increases atherosclerosis and risk of AMI. Pregnancy also increases risk of AMI. Patients with HIV develop atherosclerosis at higher rates, and antiretroviral therapy predisposes patients to early development of coronary disease. Infections such as pneumonia and sepsis, associated with elevated inflammation, increase rate of ACS events during illness and throughout the one-year period after diagnosis of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Several non-traditional factors are associated with increased risk of atherosclerosis and ACS. Knowledge of these risk factors is important in the ED to minimize the potential of missing ACS.

Prehospital Cricothyrotomy Kits Used in Combat.

BACKGROUND: Surgical cricothyrotomy remains the only definitive airway management modality for the tactical setting recommended by Tactical Combat Casualty Care guidelines. Some units have fielded commercial cricothyrotomy kits to assist Combat Medics with surgical cricothyrotomy. To our knowledge, no previous publications report data on the use of these kits in combat settings. This series reports the the use of two kits in four patients in the prehospital combat setting. METHODS: Using the Department of Defense Trauma Registry and the Prehospital Trauma Registry, we identified four cases of patients who underwent prehospital cricothyrotomy with the use of commercial kits. In the first two cases, a Medic successfully used a North American Rescue CricKit (NARCK) to obtain a surgical airway in a Servicemember with multiple amputations from an improvised explosive device explosion. In case 3, the Medic unsuccessfully used an H&H Medical kit to attempt placement of a surgical airway in a Servicemember shot in the head by small arms fire. A second attempt to place a surgical airway using a NARCK was successful. In case 4, a Soldier sustained a gunshot wound to the chest. A Medic described fluid in the airway precluding bag-valve-mask ventilation; the Medic attempted to place a surgical airway with the H&H kit without success. CONCLUSION: Four cases of prehospital surgical airway cannulation on the battlefield demonstrated three successful uses of prehospital cricothyrotomy kits. Further research should focus on determining which kits may be most useful in the combat setting.