Emergency department provider in triage: assessing site-specific rationale, operational feasibility, and financial impact.

Emergency department (ED) crowding is recognized as a critical threat to patient safety, while sub-optimal ED patient flow also contributes to reduced patient satisfaction and efficiency of care. Provider in triage (PIT) programs-which typically involve, at a minimum, a physician or advanced practice provider conducting an initial screening exam and potentially initiating treatment and diagnostic testing at the time of triage-are frequently endorsed as a mechanism to reduce ED length of stay (LOS) and therefore mitigate crowding, improve patient satisfaction, and improve ED operational and financial performance. However, the peer-reviewed evidence regarding the impact of PIT programs on measures including ED LOS, wait times, and costs (as variously defined) is mixed. Mechanistically, PIT programs exert their effects by initiating diagnostic work-ups earlier and, sometimes, by equipping triage providers to directly disposition patients. However, depending on local contextual factors-including the co-existence of other front-end interventions and delays in ED throughput not addressed by PIT-we demonstrate how these features may or may not ultimately translate into reduced ED LOS in different settings. Consequently, site-specific analysis of the root causes of excessive ED LOS, along with mechanistic assessment of potential countermeasures, is essential for appropriate deployment and successful design of PIT programs at individual EDs. Additional motivations for implementing PIT programs may include their potential to enhance patient safety, patient satisfaction, and team dynamics. In this conceptual article, we address a gap in the literature by demonstrating the mechanisms underlying PIT program results and providing a framework for ED decision-makers to assess the local rationale for, operational feasibility of, and financial impact of PIT programs.

Examining care navigation: librarian participation in a team-based approach?

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated responsibilities, skill sets, degrees, and certifications required of health care navigators in order to identify areas of potential overlap with health sciences librarianship. METHOD: The authors conducted a content analysis of health care navigator position announcements and developed and assigned forty-eight category terms to represent the sample's responsibilities and skill sets. RESULTS: Coordination of patient care and a bachelor's degree were the most common responsibility and degree requirements, respectively. Results also suggest that managing and providing health information resources is an area of overlap between health care navigators and health sciences librarians, and that librarians are well suited to serve on navigation teams. CONCLUSION: Such overlap may provide an avenue for collaboration between navigators and health sciences librarians.