The five Ws for information visualization with application to healthcare informatics.

The Five Ws is a popular concept for information gathering in journalistic reporting. It captures all aspects of a story or incidence: who, when, what, where, and why. We propose a framework composed of a suite of cooperating visual information displays to represent the Five Ws and demonstrate its use within a healthcare informatics application. Here, the who is the patient, the where is the patient's body, and the when, what, why is a reasoning chain which can be interactively sorted and brushed. The patient is represented as a radial sunburst visualization integrated with a stylized body map. This display captures all health conditions of the past and present to serve as a quick overview to the interrogating physician. The reasoning chain is represented as a multistage flow chart, composed of date, symptom, data, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome. Our system seeks to improve the usability of information captured in the electronic medical record (EMR) and we show via multiple examples that our framework can significantly lower the time and effort needed to access the medical patient information required to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion.

The association between transfer of emergency department boarders to inpatient hallways and mortality: a 4-year experience.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We developed and implemented an institutional protocol aimed at reducing crowding by admitting boarded patients to hospital inpatient hallways. We hypothesized that transfer of admitted patients from the emergency department (ED) to inpatient hallways would be feasible and not create patient harm. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study in a suburban, academic ED with an annual census of 70,000. We studied consecutive patients admitted from our ED between January 2004 and January 2008. In 2001, a multidisciplinary team developed and implemented an institutional protocol in which admitted adult patients boarded in the ED were transferred to hospital inpatient hallways under select conditions. We extracted data from the electronic medical record system, measuring patient demographics, ED disposition (discharge, admit to floor, admit to hallway), ED length of stay, and inhospital mortality. We report ED length of stay, subsequent transfer to an ICU, and hospital mortality of patients admitted to standard and hallway inpatient beds. RESULTS: Of 55,062 ED patients admitted, there were 1,798 deaths. Of all admissions, 2,042 (4%) went to a hallway; 53,020 went to a standard bed. Patients admitted to standard and hallway beds were similar in age (median [interquartile range] 55 years [37 to 72 years] and 54 years [41 to 70 years], respectively) and sex (48.2% and 50% female patients, respectively). The median (interquartile range) times from ED triage to actual admission in patients admitted to standard and hallway beds were 426 minutes (306 to 600 minutes) and 624 (439 to 895 minutes) minutes, respectively (P<.001). Median ED census at triage was lower for standard bed admissions than for hallway patients (44 [33 to 53] versus 50 [38 to 61], respectively, P<.001). Inhospital mortality rates were higher among patients admitted to standard beds (2.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5% to 2.7%) than among patients admitted to hallway beds (1.1%; 95% CI 0.7% to 1.7%). ICU transfers were also higher in the standard bed admissions (6.7% [95% CI 6.5% to 6.9%] versus 2.5% [95% CI 1.9% to 3.3%]). CONCLUSION: Transfer of ED-boarded admitted patients to an inpatient hallway occurs during high ED census and waiting times for admission but does not appears to result in patient harm.

Telemetry monitoring during transport of low-risk chest pain patients from the emergency department: is it necessary?

BACKGROUND: Low-risk emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain (CP) are often transported by nurses to monitored beds on telemetry monitoring, diverting valuable resources from the ED and delaying transport. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that transporting low-risk CP patients off telemetry monitoring is safe. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational cohort of ED patients with low-risk chest pain (no active chest pain, normal or nondiagnostic electrocardiogram, normal initial troponin I) admitted to a non-intensive care unit monitored bed who were transported off telemetry monitor by nonclinical personnel. A protocol allowing transportation of low-risk CP patients off telemetry monitoring to a monitored bed was developed, and an ongoing daily log of patients transported off telemetry was maintained for the occurrence of any adverse events en route to the floor. Adverse events requiring treatment included dysrhythmias, hypotension, syncope, and cardiac arrest. The study population included patients who presented during September-October 2004, whose data were abstracted from the medical records using standardized methodology. A subset of 10% of the medical records were reviewed by a second investigator for interrater reliability. Death, syncope, resuscitation, and dysrhythmias during transport or immediately on arrival to the floor were the outcomes measured. Descriptive statistics and confidence intervals (CIs) were used in data analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 425 patients had CP of potentially ischemic origin, of whom 322 (75.8%) were low risk and met the inclusion criteria and were transported off monitors. Their mean (+/-standard deviation) age was 58.3 (+/-16.0) years; 48.1% were female. During transport from the ED, there was no patient with any adverse events requiring treatment and there was no death (95% CI = 0% to 0.93%). CONCLUSIONS: Transportation of low-risk ED chest pain patients off telemetry monitoring by nonclinical personnel to the floor appears safe. This may reduce diversion of ED nurses from the ED, helping to alleviate nursing shortages.

Mandated pain scales improve frequency of ED analgesic administration.

A retrospective study design was used to determine the effect of introducing a mandated verbal numeric pain scale on the incidence and timing of analgesic administration in the ED. Consecutive patients presenting with renal colic, extremity trauma, headache, ophthalmologic trauma, and soft tissue injury were included. 521 encounters were reviewed before and 479 encounters after the introduction of the pain scale. Groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Analgesic use increased from 25% to 36% (p < 0.001), and analgesics were administered more rapidly after the scale was introduced (113 minutes vs. 152 minutes, p = 0.09). Analgesic use correlated with pain severity. Patients undergoing diagnostic testing were less likely to receive analgesics, especially when presenting with a headache (p < 0.001). We conclude that use of a pain scale at triage significantly increases use of analgesia, and shortens the time till its administration. Patients undergoing diagnostic workups were less likely to receive analgesia.