Benchmarking and quality improvement: the Harvard Emergency Department Quality Study.

PURPOSE: To determine whether feedback of comparative information was associated with improvement in medical record and patient-based measures of quality in emergency departments. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: During 1-month study periods in 1993 and 1995, all medical records for patients who presented to five Harvard teaching hospital emergency departments with one of six selected chief complaints (abdominal pain, shortness of breath, chest pain, hand laceration, head trauma, or vaginal bleeding) were reviewed for the percent compliance with process-of-care guidelines. Patient-reported problems and patient ratings of satisfaction with emergency department care were collected from eligible patients using patient questionnaires. After reviewing benchmark information, emergency department directors designed quality improvement interventions to improve compliance with the process-of-care guidelines and improve patient-reported quality measures. RESULTS: In the preintervention period, 4,876 medical records were reviewed (99% of those eligible), 2,327 patients completed on-site questionnaires (84% of those eligible), and 1,386 patients completed 10-day follow-up questionnaires (80% of a random sample of eligible participants). In the postintervention period, 6,005 medical records were reviewed (99% of those eligible), 2,899 patients completed on-site questionnaires (84% of those eligible), and 2,326 patients completed 10-day follow-up questionnaires (80% of all baseline participants). In multivariate analyses, adjusting for age, urgency, chief complaint, and site, compliance with process-of-care guidelines increased from 55.9% (preintervention) to 60.4% (postintervention, P = 0.0001). We also found a 4% decrease (from 24% to 20%) in the rate of patient-reported problems with emergency department care (P = 0.0001). There were no significant improvements in patient ratings of satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Feedback of benchmark information and subsequent quality improvement efforts led to small, although significant, improvement in compliance with process-of-care guidelines and patient-reported measures of quality. The measures that relied on patient reports of problems with care, rather than patient ratings of satisfaction with care, seemed to be more responsive to change. These results support the value of benchmarking and collaboration.

Hospital admissions through the emergency department: does insurance status matter?

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of insurance status on the probability of admission and subsequent health status of patients presenting to emergency departments. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of patients with common medical problems at five urban, academic hospital emergency departments in Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts. The outcome measure for the study was admission to the hospital from the emergency department and functional health status at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: During a 1-month period, 2,562 patients younger than 65 years of age presented with either abdominal pain (52%), chest pain (19%) or shortness of breath (29%). Of the 1,368 patients eligible for questionnaire, 1,162 (85%) completed baseline questionnaires, and of these, 964 (83%) completed telephone follow-up interviews 10 days later. Fifteen percent of patients were uninsured and 34% were admitted to the hospital from the emergency department. Uninsured patients were significantly less likely than insured patients to be admitted, both when adjusting for urgency, chief complaint, age, gender and hospital (odds ratio = 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 0.7), and when additionally adjusting for comorbid conditions, lack of a regular physician, income, employment status, education and race (odds ratio = 0.4, 95% confidence interval 0.2 to 0.8). However, there were no differences in adjusted functional health status between admitted and nonadmitted patients by insurance status, either at baseline or at 10-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured patients with one of three common chief complaints appear to be less frequently admitted to the hospital than are insured patients, although health status does not appear to be affected. Whether these results reflect underutilization among uninsured patients or overutilization among insured patients remains to be determined.

Nonurgent emergency department visits: the effect of having a regular doctor.

OBJECTIVES: The authors assess the association between having a regular doctor and presentation for nonurgent versus urgent emergency department visits while controlling for potential confounders such as sociodemographics, health status, and comorbidity. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in emergency departments of five urban teaching hospitals in the northeast. Adult patients presenting with chest pain, abdominal pain, or asthma (n = 1696; 88% of eligible) were studied. Patients completed a survey on presentation, reporting sociodemographics, health status, comorbid diseases, and relationship with a regular doctor. Urgency on presentation was assessed by chart review using explicit criteria. RESULTS: Of the 1,696 study participants, 852 (50%) presented with nonurgent complaints. In logistic regression analyses, absence of a relationship with a regular physician was an independent correlate of presentation for a nonurgent emergency department visit (odds ratio 1.6; 95% confidence interval 1.2, 2.2) when controlling for age, gender, marital status, health status, and comorbid diseases. Race, lack of insurance, and education were not associated with nonurgent use. CONCLUSIONS: Absence of a relationship with a regular doctor was correlated with use of the emergency department for selected nonurgent conditions when controlling for important potential confounders. Our study suggests that maintaining a relationship with a regular physician may reduce nonurgent use of the emergency department regardless of insurance status or health status.

Using a computerized sign-out program to improve continuity of inpatient care and prevent adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Many medical injuries are preventable, but there are few reported successful strategies to prevent such injuries. Previous work identified coverage by house staff not primarily responsible for the patient (cross-coverage) as a significant correlate of risk for preventable adverse events. A four-month intervention--computerized sign-outs--was introduced in 1993 in an urban teaching hospital to improve continuity of care during cross-coverage and thereby reduce risk for preventable adverse events. MEASUREMENTS: A previously tested confidential self-report system was used to identify adverse events, which were defined as unexpected complications of medical therapy that resulted in increased length of stay or disability at discharge. A panel of three board-certified internists confirmed events and evaluated preventability based on case summaries. RESULTS: After the intervention, the rate of preventable adverse events among the 3,747 patients admitted to the medical service decreased from 1.7% to 1.2% (p < 0.10). Both univariate and multivariate analysis revealed no association between cross coverage and preventable adverse events after the intervention. In the baseline period, the odds ratio (OR) for a patient suffering a preventable adverse event during cross coverage was 5.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-18.2; p = 0.01), but was no longer significant after the intervention (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.2-9.0). CONCLUSION: House staff are willing participants in efforts to measure and improve the quality of health care systems. The intervention may have reduced the risk for medical injury associated with discontinuity of inpatients care. Four years after the end of the study, the computerized sign-out program remained an integral part of the computing support system for house staff and was widely used.

The effect of change of health insurance on access to care.

This study examines how changes in health insurance status affect patients and their care. Results show that, controlling for socioeconomic factors, condition, age, and urgency, patients who lost insurance and patients who changed insurance were more likely to delay seeking care within the four months after visiting an emergency department than people whose health insurance status did not change. Patients who lost coverage were more likely to report no primary care provider and were less likely to have recommended follow-up care within the four-month period. Loss of insurance also was associated with lower likelihood of vaccine use and check-ups in the prior year. The study confirms that a loss or change in health insurance in the prior year has a measurable effect on access to health care. The greatest impact was among patients who lost insurance, though patients who changed health plans also were more likely to delay seeking care than patients whose health insurance status did not change.

Patient-specific predictors of ambulance use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine patient-specific socioeconomic and health status characteristics for patients arriving by ambulance at an emergency department. METHODS: Ambulance use among adult ED patients presenting with abdominal pain, chest pain, head trauma, or shortness of breath was studied at five urban teaching hospitals in the north-eastern United States. Cross-sectional analysis within a prospective cohort study of 4,979 consecutive patients was performed using an interval sequence subset of 2,315 patients (84% of those eligible) to whom questionnaires were administered. Ambulance use (21% of surveyed patients; 26% of all patients) was analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Predictors of ambulance use included age greater than 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 2.82); clinical severity (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.27 to 4.25); poverty (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.83); physical function (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.09 for each point of worsening function on a 12-point physical function scale); and various types of health insurance coverage. Race, sex, education, Medicaid coverage, frequency of ED use, living arrangements, and primary physician availability were not predictive in multivariate analysis of surveyed patients. CONCLUSION: Ambulance use varies by age, clinical severity, income, patient-specific characteristics of physical function, and type of health insurance. Medicaid coverage and frequent ED use are not predictive of increased ambulance use.

Patient noncompliance with medical advice after the emergency department visit.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the correlates of compliance with follow-up appointments and prescription filling after an emergency department visit. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was undertaken as part of the Emergency Department Quality Study evaluation of five urban teaching hospital EDs in the northeastern United States. Of 2,757 eligible patients who presented with abdominal pain, asthma, chest pain, hand lacerations, head trauma, or first-trimester vaginal bleeding and were enrolled during 1-month period, 2,315 (84%) completed on-site baseline questionnaires. Information about diagnoses, socioeconomic status, discharge instructions, insurance status, and primary care was obtained from the on-site patient surveys and from reviews of medical records. A 76% random sample of patients who completed the questionnaire was generated, and 1,386 patients (79% of the sample) were interviewed by telephone approximately 10 days after their ED visit to determine compliance with follow-up appointments and prescription filling. RESULTS: Of the 1,386 patients interviewed at 10 days, 914 (66%) had been discharged from the ED, and 408 (45%) of those discharged recalled being advised to take a medication. Fifty of these patients (12%) reported that they did not obtain the medication. Significant independent correlates of not filling prescriptions were lack of insurance (odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 5.5) and dissatisfaction with discharge instructions (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.4). Two hundred thirty-five (26%) of the discharged patients said they were given follow-up appointments and did not have an appointment pending at the time of the interview; 77 (33%) of these patients reported having missed their appointment. The only significant independent correlate of missing follow-up appointments was being given a telephone number to call instead of leaving the ED with an appointment scheduled (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 8.8). CONCLUSION: Not having an appointment made before leaving the ED was an independent correlate of missing follow-up appointments. Lack of insurance and dissatisfaction with discharge instructions were independent correlates of not filling prescriptions.

Evaluation of screening criteria for adverse events in medical patients.

The goals of this study were to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 15 screening criteria for adverse events, preventable adverse events, and severe adverse events in medical patients, and to evaluate combinations of these criteria, including those available through hospital billing data, to determine whether a small subset of generic screens might efficiently identify adverse events. The authors studied 3,137 consecutive admissions to a medical service over a 4-month period at an urban tertiary care hospital. Chart reviews were performed after discharge by reviewers blinded to the eventual determination of presence of an adverse event. Judgments regarding presence, severity, and preventability of adverse events were made using guided implicit reviews by physicians. Of all admissions, 341 (11%) were judged to include an adverse event, of which 274 were severe and 145 were preventable. Sensitivity and specificity of individual screens varied widely, with prior hospitalization the most sensitive (68%) but least specific (56%). Death was specific (97%) but not sensitive (9%); readmission was intermediate (sensitivity 28%, specificity 80%). In analyses using severe and preventable adverse events as the outcome, results were generally similar. Combinations of screens also were compared, including some using only screens available through billing data; the most sensitive billing strategy detected just 47% of adverse events, but cost only $3 per admission reviewed and $57 per adverse event, versus $13 per admission and $116 per adverse event for a strategy in which all records were reviewed. It is concluded that no small subset of screens identified a high percentage of adverse events. Using screens available through billing data, although insensitive, would be much less costly.

Does housestaff discontinuity of care increase the risk for preventable adverse events?

OBJECTIVE: To study the relation between housestaff coverage schedules and the occurrence of preventable adverse events. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All 3146 patients admitted to the medical service during a 4-month period. MEASUREMENTS: A previously tested confidential self-report system to identify adverse events, which were defined as unexpected complications of medical therapy that resulted in increased length of stay or disability at discharge. A panel of three board-certified internists confirmed events and evaluated preventability based on case summaries. Housestaff coverage was coded according to the day in the usual intern's schedule and to cross-coverage status. Cross-coverage was defined as care by a house officer who was not the patient's usual intern and not a member of the usual intern's patient care team. Coverage for an adverse event was assigned according to who was covering during the proximate cause of that event. Clinical data were collected for each patient and two matched controls. RESULTS: Of the 124 adverse events reported and confirmed, 54 (44%) were judged potentially preventable. In the univariate analysis, patients with potentially preventable adverse events were more likely than their controls to be covered by a physician from another team at the time of the event (26% compared with 12% [odds ratio, 3.5; P = 0.01]). In the multivariate analysis, three factors were significant independent correlates of potentially preventable adverse events; cross-coverage (odds ratio, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.4 to 26.7), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (odds ratio per point, 1.2; CI, 1.1 to 1.4), and history of gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio, 4.7; CI, 1.2 to 19.0). CONCLUSION: Potentially preventable adverse events were strongly associated with coverage by a physician from another team, which may reflect management by housestaff unfamiliar with the patient. The results emphasize the need for careful attention to the outcome of work-hour reforms for housestaff.

Potential identifiability and preventability of adverse events using information systems.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential ability of computerized information systems (ISs) to identify and prevent adverse events in medical patients. DESIGN: Clinical descriptions of all 133 adverse events identified through chart review for a cohort of 3,138 medical patients were evaluated by two reviewers. MEASUREMENTS: For each adverse event, three hierarchical levels of IS sophistication were considered: Level 1--demographics, results for all diagnostic tests, and current medications would be available on-line; Level 2--all orders would be entered on-line by physicians; and Level 3--additional clinical data, such as automated problem lists, would be available on-line. Potential for event identification and potential for event prevention were scored by each reviewer according to two distinct sets of event monitors. RESULTS: Of all the adverse events, 53% were judged identifiable using Level 1 information, 58% were judged identifiable using Level 2 information, and 89% were judged identifiable using Level 3 information. The highest-yield event monitors for identifying adverse events were "panic" laboratory results, unexpected transfer to an intensive care unit, and hospital-incurred trauma. With information from Levels 1, 2, and 3, 5%, 13%, and 23% of the adverse events, respectively, were judged preventable. For preventing these adverse events, guided-dose algorithms, drug-laboratory checks, and drug-patient characteristic checks held the most potential.

Physician reporting compared with medical-record review to identify adverse medical events.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of housestaff physician reporting as a method for identifying adverse events on a medical service and to compare the physician reporting mechanism with a retrospective record review mechanism. SETTING: Medical service of an urban, university-affiliated teaching hospital. DESIGN: Concurrent physician reporting mechanism using the hospital electronic mail system compared with a retrospective record review using a screening mechanism followed by structured, implicit physician review of the record. PATIENTS: All 3146 admissions to the medical service from 13 November 1990 to 14 March 1991. RESULTS: The housestaff physician reporting method identified nearly the same number (89) of adverse events as did the record review (85). However, the two methods identified only 41 of the same patients (kappa = 0.52). No statistically significant clinical or socioeconomic differences occurred between the patients identified as having had an adverse event, using the two reporting methods (physician versus record review). The housestaff did report statistically more preventable adverse events (62.5% compared with 32%; P = 0.003). The physician reporting mechanism was also less costly (approximately $15,000 compared with $54,000). CONCLUSION: An adverse event identification strategy based on physician self-referral uncovers as many adverse events as does a record review and is less costly. In addition, physician-identified events are more likely to be preventable and, thus, are targets for quality improvement.

Integrating providers into quality improvement: a pilot project at one hospital.

Brigham and Women's Hospital initiated a study of the quality of care centering on self-reporting of potential medical injuries by providers. The goal of the study is to decrease the incidence of such injuries through a continuous quality methodology that integrates providers into the identification phase and incorporates all hospital employees in the development of new practices. This article provides an overview of the investigation methodology and discusses the conceptual relationships between clinical epidemiological analyses and industrial quality improvement.

Early and late results of coronary bypass surgery. Evolution and the influence of cardioplegia.

Comparison of 1085 patients having coronary bypass surgery without cardioplegia from Jan. 1970 to Aug. 8, 1977 with 1060 patients operated upon with cardioplegia from Aug. 9, 1977 to Dec. 31, 1980 suggests that improved myocardial protection afforded by cardioplegia combined with profound topical hypothermia has its principal impact in those patients requiring urgent or emergency operations by reducing the probability of intraoperative left ventricular failure after coronary bypass. The need for postoperative balloon pumping and the risk of intraoperative death were significantly lower in patients operated upon with hypothermia + cardioplegia myocardial protection. In patients who survived 30 days after operation there was no significant improvement in long-term survival, incidence of myocardial infarction, or recurrence of angina pectoris in the cardioplegia group despite a greater average number of grafts per patient and a smaller number of ungrafted but obstructed coronary arteries.

Aggressive surgical management of post-infarction angina: results of myocardial revascularization early after transmural infarction.

In our Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery between 1970 and 1982, 110 patients (88 males and 22 females) had coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) performed for unstable angina pectoris after acute transmural myocardial infarction. Fifty-one patients (mean age 59 years) had CABG within 2 weeks of myocardial infarction (Group 1); and 59 patients (mean age 56 years) (p = NS) within 6 weeks of myocardial infarction (Group 2). The incidence of preoperative arrhythmias, left ventricular ejection fraction, end-diastolic pressure, and the number of vessels diseased were similar in Groups 1 and 2. The incidence of cardiogenic shock was higher in Group 1 (16/51, 31% vs 2/59, 3% [p < 0.001]). This was also the case with the use of the intraaortic balloon (32/51, 63% vs 12/59, 20% [p < 0.001]), and the need for emergency operation (29/51, 57% vs 4/59, 7% [p < 0.001]). The mean number of grafts was 2.8 in Group 1 and 3.0 in Group 2 (p = NS). Operative mortality was 20% (10/51) in Group 1 and 7% (4/59) in Group 2 (p < 0.01). Excluding patients in cardiogenic shock, operative mortality was 0% (0/35) in Group 1 and 5% (3/57) in Group 2 (p = NS). Incidences of late death, recurrent angina, and permanent disability were similar during mean follow-up times of 3.2 years in Group 1 and 4.1 years in Group 2. Actuarial probability of survival was 96% at 1 year and 83% at 5 years. Myocardial revascularization early after transmural myocardial infarction has a low risk, especially in the absence of cardiogenic shock. These results justify an aggressive approach to unstable angina, including patients within 2 weeks of transmural infarction.