Fair Play: Application of Normalized Scoring to Emergency Department Throughput Quality Measures in a National Registry.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The measurement of emergency department (ED) throughput as a patient-centered quality measure is ubiquitous; however, marked heterogeneity exists between EDs, complicating comparisons for payment purposes. We evaluate 4 scoring methodologies for accommodating differences in ED visit volume and heterogeneity among ED groups that staff multiple EDs to improve the validity and "fairness" of ED throughput quality measurement in a national registry, with the goal of developing a volume-adjusted throughput measure that balances variation at the ED group level. METHODS: We conducted an ED group-level analysis using the 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Emergency Data Registry data set, which included 548 ED groups inclusive of 889 unique EDs. We calculated ED throughput performance scores for each ED group by using 4 scoring approaches: plurality, simple average, weighted average, and a weighted standardized score. For comparison, ED groups (ie, taxpayer identification numbers) were grouped into 3 types: taxpayer identification numbers with only 1 ED; those with multiple EDs, but no ED with greater than 60,000 visits; and those with multiple EDs and at least 1 ED with greater than 60,000 visits. RESULTS: We found marked differences in the classification of ED throughput performance between scoring approaches. The weighted standardized score (z score) approach resulted in the least skewed and most uniform distribution across the majority of ED types, with a kurtosis of 12.91 for taxpayer identification numbers composed of 1 ED, 2.58 for those with multiple EDs without any supercenter, and 3.56 for those with multiple EDs with at least 1 supercenter, all lower than comparable scoring methods. The plurality and simple average scoring approaches appeared to disproportionally penalize ED groups that staff a single ED or multiple large-volume EDs. CONCLUSION: Application of a weighted standardized (z score) approach to ED throughput measurement resulted in a more balanced variation between different ED group types and reduced distortions in the length-of-stay measurement among ED groups staffing high-volume EDs. This approach may be a more accurate and acceptable method of profiling ED group throughput pay-for-performance programs.

Improving Communication Between the Emergency Department and Radiology Department With a Novel Web-Based Tool in an Urban Academic Center.

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM: Streamlining communication between radiology and referring services is vital to ensure appropriate care with minimal delays. Increased subspecialization has led to compartmentalization of the radiology department with many physicians working in disparate areas. At our hospital, we anecdotally noted that a significant portion of incoming phone calls were misdirected to the wrong workstations. This resulted in wasted time, unnecessary interruptions, and delays in care because the referring clinicians could not efficiently navigate the radiology department staffing structure. Our quality improvement project involved developing a web-based tool allowing the emergency department (ED) to more efficiently contact the appropriate radiology desk and reduce misdirected phone calls. INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH EMPLOYED TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM: Surveys were sent to radiology residents and ED providers (attendings, residents, physician assistants) to assess how often phone calls were misdirected to the wrong radiology station. Radiology residents were asked which stations received the most misdirected phone calls, and what station the caller was often looking for. ED providers were asked which stations they intended when they were told they called the wrong station, and a series of questions in the survey assessed their knowledge of commonly called radiology station (Plain Film, CT Body, Ultrasound, Neuoradiology, Pediatrics, and Overnight Desk). ED and radiology physicians worked together to design a simple, easily accessed web-based tool that allowed the ED clinicians to determine which station should be called during for each hour of the day, which integrated differences in staffing by radiology throughout the day. After the tool had been implemented for 8 months, surveys were again sent to radiology residents and ED clinicians asking the same questions as before to assess for any significant change in response. Additional questions were added to the ED survey to assess awareness of the new tool. DESCRIPTION OF OUTCOMES IN CHANGE OF PRACTICE: An interactive, easily updated schedule with optimal contact numbers was made available through the ED intranet. The design allowed for easy modification of contact numbers over time to accommodate changes in coverage location or staffing models. Prior to implementation contact information was presented on a static screen, which was unable to be changed and included multiple incorrect and defunct numbers. Additionally, contact defaulted to a general radiology pager, which was carried by a resident only responsible for plain films for most of the day. Numbers included in the new intranet tool were all pertinent reading room stations, all scheduling desks, and all technologist workspaces. Different schedules were provided for weekdays and weekends. Initial survey results showed that prior to the intervention, 74% of radiology residents said they received misdirected phone calls at least twice a day, and 57.9% of ED respondents reached the wrong recipient at least once per day. Frequencies of misdirected calls dropped to 58.4% of radiology residents (P = 0.37) and 17.9% of ED respondents (P < 0.01) on follow-up surveys 8 months after the tool was established. After establishing the new tool, 82.1% of ED respondents were aware of the new intranet contact tool and were using it to contact radiology. On the series of questions assessing ED respondents' knowledge of radiology numbers, over 50% of respondents knew the correct answer or answered using the call sheet after implementation; this resulted in statistically significant increases in accuracy for Body, Neuroradiology, and Pediatric radiology stations. Furthermore, with the exception of ED plain films, there was a statistically significant reduction in number of responses who said the general radiology pager should be called for reads. Fifty percent of radiology residents believed there was a reduction in the number of misdirected phone calls from the ED with this tool. CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND DESCRIPTIONS OF FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Our tool was successful in accomplishing multiple goals. First, over 80% of ED respondents adopted the new tool. Second, the number of misdirected phone calls based on the subjective perception of ED respondents and radiology residents was reduced. Third, we objectively improved the ED respondents' behavior pattern in contacting the radiology department by either calling the correct number using the call tool, and by reducing the number of respondents who use the pager. Going forward, we hope to be able to expand use of this tool throughout the hospital in order to provide more timely and efficient care with other services by streamlining access between referring services and the appropriate radiology recipients.

Effects of simultaneous perturbations of voice pitch and loudness feedback on voice F0 and amplitude control.

Perturbations in either voice pitch or loudness feedback lead to changes in a speaker's voice fundamental frequency (F0) or amplitude. Voice pitch or loudness perturbations were presented individually (either pitch or loudness shift stimuli) or simultaneously (pitch combined with loudness shift stimuli) to subjects sustaining a vowel to test the hypothesis that the mechanisms for these two response types are independent. For simultaneous perturbations, pitch and loudness both changed in the same direction or in opposite directions. Results showed that subjects responded with voice F0 or amplitude responses that opposed the direction of the respective pitch- or loudness shift stimuli. Thus, depending on the stimulus direction, both responses could either change in the same direction or in the opposite direction to each other. F0 response magnitudes were greatest with pitch-shift only stimuli (18 cents), smallest for loudness shift stimuli (10 cents) and intermediate with pitch combined with loudness shift stimuli (13 and 16 cents). Amplitude responses were largest with +3 dB stimuli (0.96 dB) and smallest with -3 dB stimuli (0.49 dB) but were not affected by the addition of pitch-shift stimuli. Results suggest the F0 and amplitude response mechanisms may be independent but interact in some conditions.