ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Electronic medical record (EMR) alerts are automated messages that notify the physician of important information. However, little is known about how EMR alerts affect the workflow and decision-making of emergency physicians (EPs). STUDY OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to quantify the number of EMR alerts EPs receive, the time required to resolve alerts, the types of alerts EPs receive, and the impact of alerts on patient management. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study at a tertiary care ED with 130,000 visits annually. Research assistants observed EPs on shift from May to December 2018. They recorded the number of EMR alerts received, time spent addressing the alerts, the types of alerts received, and queried the EP to determine if the alert impacted patient management. RESULTS: Seven residents and six attending physicians were observed on a total of 17 shifts and 153 patient encounters; 78% (119) of patient encounters involved alerts. These 119 patients triggered 530 EMR alerts. EPs spent a mean of 7.06 s addressing each alert and addressed 3.46 alerts per total patient seen. In total, EPs spent approximately 24 s per patient resolving alerts. Only 12 alerts (2.26%) changed clinical management. CONCLUSION: EPs frequently receive EMR alerts, however, most alerts were not perceived to impact patient care. These alerts contribute to the high volume of interruptions EPs must contend with in the clinical environment of the ED.
Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records , Physicians , Health Personnel , Humans , Prospective Studies , WorkflowABSTRACT
Background The resuscitation of septic patients is a fundamental skill of emergency medicine (EM) training. We developed a required rotation designed to augment resident training in resuscitating critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the successful completion of sepsis core measures alongside clinical outcomes between patients with a resuscitation resident (RR) involved in care versus patients without. Methods This retrospective study was conducted at a single site tertiary care Level 1 trauma center with an ED census of 130,000 visits annually. Data were collected from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016, using the electronic medical record (EMR) via an Epic query (Epic Systems Corp., Verona, WI). Patients admitted with severe sepsis or septic shock (Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines) were included and separated into two groups, one with RR involvement and one without. Emergency department length of stay, time to initial lactic acid draw, lactic acid value, time to bolus fluid initiation, time to antibiotic initiation, need for medical intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 30-day mortality were compared between the two groups. Chi-square tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze the categorical variables. Two-sided t-tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to examine continuous variables. Results Out of 4,746 patients admitted, 101 patients had an RR participate in their care. The median time to initial lactic acid draw was shorter (0.53 vs 1.05 hours; p < 0. 0001) and the lactic acid level was higher (2.5 vs 1.8 mmol/L; p < 0. 0001) with the presence of an RR. Resuscitation resident was correlated with a decrease in time to antibiotics and appropriate 30 cc/kg bolus, however, these were not statistically significant (p = 0.10 and p = 0.09 respectively). Resuscitation resident involvement was also associated with more medical ICU (45.5% vs 18.8%; p<0.0001) admissions and a higher 30-day mortality (14.9% vs 29.7%; p < 0. 0001). All other variables were not statistically significant. Conclusion Resuscitation residents demonstrate a statistically significant impact on lactic acid-related bundle compliance and help facilitate the care of higher acuity severe sepsis and septic shock patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Unfunded patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who do not have routinely scheduled hemodialysis often receive medications known to prolong the QTc interval for their uremic symptoms even though they may have pre-existing QTc prolongation. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of these medications on the QTc interval in these patients. METHODS: Unfunded patients with ESRD presenting to the emergency department (ED) for emergent hemodialysis (HD) with QTc prolongation on their initial electrocardiogram (ECG) were recruited. Approximately 2 hours after receiving an antihistamine or antiemetic, a second ECG was ordered and the QTc was measured. The patients were followed-up 1 week later. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent (44/152) of the unfunded patients with ESRD presenting for HD at a county hospital had QT prolongation and were included with 107 total ED visits during the 4-week study period. The mean QTc was 483.7 msec on presentation to the ED, and the mean QTc measured 2 hours after receiving an antihistamine or antiemetic was 483.8 msec. None of the patients were admitted for life-threatening dysrhythmias. Thirty-six percent (16/44) of the recruited patients had QTc intervals >500 msec with a combined total of 31 patient visits, of which only 25.8% (8/31) had an increase in the QTc interval after an antihistamine or antiemetic medication was given. None of these patients had adverse outcomes, such a dysrhythmia or death, at 1-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study shows that medications known to cause QTc prolongation are safe to use in therapeutic doses in patients with ESRD who have pre-existing QT prolongation. Few patients in this cohort had significantly prolonged QTc intervals at baseline.
