Potentially avoidable interfacility transfers following reduced emergency department volumes due to COVID-19 "Safer-at-Home" orders.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess if a state-wide lockdown implemented due to COVID-19 was associated with increased odds of being a potentially avoidable transfer (PAT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational analysis using hospital administrative data of interfacility ED-to-ED transfers to a single, quaternary care adult ED after "Safer at Home" orders were issued March 23rd, 2020 in [Blinded for submission]. Using the PAT classification to identify transfers rapidly discharged from the ED or hospital and may not require in-person care, we used a multivariable logistic regression model to examine the association of the lockdown order with odds of a transfer being a PAT. We compared the period January 1, 2018 to March 23, 2020 with March 24, 2020 to September 30, 2020, adjusting for seasonality, patient, and situational factors. RESULTS: There were 20,978 ED-to-ED transfers from during this period that were eligible and 4806 (23%) that met PAT criteria. While the first month post-lockdown saw a decrease in PATs (28%), this was not sustained. In the multivariable model there was a significant seasonal effect; May through September had the highest number of transfers as well as PATs. After adjusting for seasonality, the lockdown was not associated with PATs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.2, 5.2) and PATs decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find an effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on PATs though there was a considerable seasonal effect and an overall downward trend in PATs over time.

Point-of-Care Ultrasonography (POCUS) in a Community Emergency Department: An Analysis of Decision Making and Cost Savings Associated With POCUS.

OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) is an increasingly integral part of emergency medicine. This study investigated community emergency department physicians' choices regarding ultrasonography as a branch point in clinical decision making. METHODS: During shifts covering all days of the week and all time-spans over a 3-month period, emergency department physicians were interviewed whenever POCUS was used. Questions focused on the role of POCUS in clinical management and on tests avoided because of ultrasonography use. Cost savings attributable to POCUS were calculated using Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and FairHealth data. Anonymization of data precluded follow-up testing to account for misdiagnosis. RESULTS: On average, POCUS use eliminated $1134.31 of additional testing for privately insured patients, $2826.31 for out-of-network or uninsured patients, and $181.63 for Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services patients. Differences were significant when the total cost of eliminated additional testing was compared to a baseline of no savings (p < .001). Aggregate cost savings remained significant when analyses were broadened to include POCUS encounters that did not yield changes in management (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: When physicians' clinical expertise suggests that POCUS may be indicated, its use results in significant cost savings, even in encounters in which management is not directly impacted. POCUS, when incorporated earlier and more frequently into community hospital emergency medicine diagnostic protocols, can lower direct and indirect costs associated with diagnostic workups. Community emergency departments, in particular, would benefit from additional investigation informing specific guidelines for the integration of POCUS into clinical management and the role that this has in cost savings.