Time Cost of Standardized Nursing Screens in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Various policies require that screening questions be asked of all patients who present to the emergency department (ED). No studies have previously examined the potential time costs of standardized screens. Our objective was to analyze the time nursing spent conducting standardized nursing screens and calculate the corresponding time cost. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of ED registered nurses (RN) performing triage assessments on adults presenting to the ED. A study author timed nurses while the RN asked five pre-selected questions from their current triage protocol. The time cost of each question was determined by multiplying the length of time spent asking the question each year by the mean hourly wage of RNs at the study hospital. (T/3,600) × V × S; T = mean time per question (in seconds); V = annual patient volume; S = mean hourly RN wage. RESULTS: We observed 200 triage assessments. During the triage assessments, 130 patients (65%) were asked about pneumococcal vaccine status; 161 (80.5%) about tetanus vaccine status; 184 (92%) about medication allergies; 172 (86%) about influenza vaccine; and 73 (36.5%) about recent travel. The mean time spent per question ranged from 4.37-6.26 seconds. The estimated annual time used to ask the five questions in the study ED is 590.73 hours, which equates to $20,675.50 in nursing costs per year. CONCLUSION: There are potential monetary and time costs of standardized screening questions in the ED. The values heavily impact time and cost efficiency in the ED and could be redirected to more pertinent patient care. The required screening questions often have an unclear utility on the care that the patient receives in the ED. Further studies are needed to determine cost effectiveness of required ED screenings.

Medical clearance of the psychiatric patient in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: As part of the emergency department (ED) evaluation of patients with psychiatric complaints, emergency physicians are often asked to perform screening laboratory tests prior to admitting psychiatric patients, the value of which is questionable. STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if routine screening laboratory studies performed in the ED on patients with a psychiatric chief complaint would alter ED medical clearance (evaluation, management or disposition) of such patients. METHODS: In this retrospective chart review, the patient charts were reviewed for triage notes, history and physical examination, laboratory study results, and patient disposition. The study investigators subjectively determined if any of the laboratory abnormalities identified after admission would have changed ED management or disposition of the patient had they been identified in the ED. RESULTS: Subjects were 519 consecutive adult patients (18 years of age and older) admitted to the Medical College of Georgia's inpatient psychiatric ward through the ED. There were 502 patients who met inclusion criteria, and 50 of them had completely normal laboratory studies. Laboratory studies were performed in the ED for 148 patients. The most common abnormalities identified were positive urine drug screen (n = 221), anemia (n = 136), and hyperglycemia (n = 139). There was one case (0.19%) identified in which an abnormal laboratory value would have changed ED management or disposition of the patient had it been found during the patient's ED visit. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to the ED with a psychiatric chief complaint can be medically cleared for admission to a psychiatric facility by qualified emergency physicians using an appropriate history and physical examination. There is no need for routine medical screening laboratory tests.

Electronic collaboration: using technology to solve old problems of quality care.

The participants of the Electronic Collaboration working group of the 2010 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference developed recommendations and research questions for improving regional quality of care through the use of electronic collaboration. A writing group devised a working draft prior to the meeting and presented this to the breakout session at the consensus conference for input and approval. The recommendations include: 1) patient health information should be available electronically across the entire health care delivery system from the 9-1-1 call to the emergency department (ED) visit through hospitalization and outpatient care, 2) relevant patient health information should be shared electronically across the entire health care delivery system, 3) Web-based collaborative technologies should be employed to facilitate patient transfer and timely access to specialists, 4) personal health record adoption should be considered as a way to improve patient health, and 5) any comprehensive reform of regionalization in emergency care must include telemedicine. The workgroup emphasized the need for funding increases so that research in this new and exciting area can expand.