End-of-life management protocol offered within emergency room (EMPOWER): study protocol for a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Patients at their end-of-life (EOL) phase frequently visit the emergency department (ED) due to their symptoms, yet the environment and physicians in ED are not traditionally equipped or trained to provide palliative care. This multicentre study aims to measure the current quality of EOL care in ED to identify gaps, formulate improvements and implement the improved EOL care protocol. We shall also evaluate healthcare resource utilisation and its associated costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study employs a quasiexperimental interrupted time series design using both qualitative and quantitative methods, involving the EDs of three tertiary hospitals in Singapore, over a period of 3 years. There are five phases in this study: (1) retrospective chart reviews of patients who died within 5 days of ED attendance; (2) pilot phase to validate the CODE questionnaire in the local context; (3) preimplementation phase; (4) focus group discussions (FGDs); and (5) postimplementation phase. In the prospective cohort, patients who are actively dying or have high likelihood of mortality this admission, and whose goal of care is palliation, will be eligible for inclusion. At least 140 patients will be recruited for each preimplementation and postimplementation phase. There will be face-to-face interviews with patients' family members, review of medical records and self-administered staff survey to evaluate existing knowledge and confidence. The FGDs will involve hospital and community healthcare providers. Data obtained from the retrospective cohort, preimplementation phase and FGDs will be used to guide prospective improvement and protocol changes. Patient, family and staff relevant outcomes from these changes will be measured using time series regression. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been reviewed and ethics approval obtained from the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board, Singapore. The results from this study will be actively disseminated through manuscript publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03906747.

Acute medical unit: experience from a tertiary healthcare institution in Singapore.

Singapore's healthcare system is under strain from the rising demands of an increasing and ageing population, resulting in delayed specialist care for patients presenting to the emergency department and requiring admission. Acute assessment units have been developed elsewhere but are not well established in local healthcare. Our institution extended our acute medical team to form an acute medical unit (AMU), in which focused internist-led teams are stationed on site to rapidly assess and re-triage patients. All patients (excluding those with very complex conditions) are admitted to the AMU and managed by internists who provide holistic, patient-centric care with better ownership, improved efficiency and less fragmentation. Patients can receive timely access to medical interventions and stable patients can benefit from early supported discharge, anchored by the nursing, allied health and transitional care teams. Given the ageing patient population with multiple comorbidities, this integrated model with exceptional outcomes is highly suitable for Singapore.

Impact of inpatient Care in Emergency Department on outcomes: a quasi-experimental cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals around the world are faced with the issue of boarders in emergency department (ED), patients marked for admission but with no available inpatient bed. Boarder status is known to be associated with delayed inpatient care and suboptimal outcomes. A new care delivery system was developed in our institution where boarders received full inpatient care from a designated medical team, acute medical team (AMT), while still residing at ED. The current study examines the impact of this AMT intervention on patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective quasi-experimental cohort study to analyze outcomes between the AMT intervention and conventional care in a 1250-bed acute care tertiary academic hospital in Singapore. Study participants included patients who received care from the AMT, a matched cohort of patients admitted directly to inpatient wards (non-AMT) and a sample of patients prior to the intervention (pre-AMT group). Primary outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOS), early discharges (within 24 h) and bed placement. Secondary outcomes included unplanned readmissions within 3 months, and patient's bill size. χ2- and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to test for differences between the cohorts on dichotomous and continuous variables respectively. RESULTS: The sample comprised of 2279 patients (1092 in AMT, 1027 in non-AMT, and 160 in pre-AMT groups). Higher rates of early discharge (without significant differences in the readmission rates) and shorter LOS were noted for the AMT patients. They were also more likely to be admitted into a ward allocated to their discipline and had lower bill size compared to non AMT patients. CONCLUSIONS: The AMT intervention improved patient outcomes and resource utilization. This model was noted to be sustainable and provides a potential solution for hospitals' ED boarders who face a gap in inpatient care during their crucial first few hours of admissions while waiting for an inpatient bed.