What can COVID-19 teach us about patient satisfaction in the emergency department? A mixed-methods approach.

OBJECTIVE: The current study explored improved patient satisfaction scores at a single emergency department (ED) during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020). METHODS: A mixed-methods design, integrating qualitative and quantitative data analyses, was employed to explore a total of 289 patient satisfaction survey ratings and 421 comments based on care that took place in the ED during the initial phase of the COVID-19 epidemic. This allowed for comparisons to a more typical time period in the ED along with the emergence of novel categories of influence. RESULTS: The ED census was 31% lower during 2020 (COVID-19) than the previous year, and a significantly greater percentage of patients in 2020 indicated that they would "definitely recommend" the ED compared with 2019. Wait time was mentioned in >40% of dissatisfied patient comments in 2019 but <20% of dissatisfied patient comments in 2020. General negative comments were proportionately greater than general positive comments in 2019, whereas in 2020 the reverse pattern held. Other categories did not differ significantly across 2019 and 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The general circumstances surrounding the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic included a lower census in the ED and higher reported satisfaction among patients. A comparison of the content of patient comments revealed less concern about wait times and a more positive overall view toward receiving care during the first 3 months of the pandemic.

High yield criteria for obtaining non-trauma chest radiography in the adult emergency department population.

To develop a clinical decision rule for predicting significant chest radiography abnormalities in adult Emergency Department (ED) patients, a prospective, observational study was conducted of consecutive adults (>or=18 years old) who underwent chest radiography for nontraumatic complaints at an urban ED with an annual census of 85,000. The official radiologist interpretation of the film was used as the gold standard for defining radiographic abnormalities. Using predefined criteria and author consensus, patients were divided into two groups: those with clinically significant abnormalities (CSA) and those with either normal or nonclinically significant abnormalities. Chi square recursive partitioning was used to derive a decision rule. Odds ratios and kappa statistics were calculated for derived criteria. The results showed 284 (17%) of 1650 patients had clinically significant abnormal radiographs. The presence of any of 10 criteria (age >or= 60 years, temperature >or= 38 degrees C, oxygen saturation < 90%, respiratory rate > 24 breaths/min, hemoptysis, rales, diminished breath sounds, a history of alcohol abuse, tuberculosis, or thromboembolic disease) was 95% sensitive (95% CI: 92-98%) and 40% specific (95% CI: 37-43%) in detecting CSA radiographs. Positive and negative predictive values were 25% (95% CI: 23-27%) and 98% (95% CI: 96-99%), respectively. A highly sensitive decision rule for detecting clinically significant abnormalities on chest radiographs in nontraumatized adults has been developed. If prospectively validated, these criteria may permit clinicians to confidently reduce the number of radiographs in this population.