Effects of process changes on emergency department crowding in a changing world: an interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: During a 6-year period, several process changes were introduced at the emergency department (ED) to decrease crowding, such as the implementation of a general practitioner cooperative (GPC) and additional medical staff during peak hours. In this study, we assessed the effects of these process changes on three crowding measures: patients' length of stay (LOS), the modified National ED OverCrowding Score (mNEDOCS), and exit block while taking into account changing external circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and centralization of acute care. METHODS: We determined time points of the various interventions and external circumstances and built an interrupted time-series (ITS) model per outcome measure. We analyzed changes in level and trend before and after the selected time points using ARIMA modeling, to account for autocorrelation in the outcome measures. RESULTS: Longer patients' ED LOS was associated with more inpatient admissions and more urgent patients. The mNEDOCS decreased with the integration of the GPC and the expansion of the ED to 34 beds and increased with the closure of a neighboring ED and ICU. More exit blocks occurred when more patients with shortness of breath and more patients > 70 years of age presented to the ED. During the severe influenza wave of 2018-2019, patients' ED LOS and the number of exit blocks increased. CONCLUSIONS: In the ongoing battle against ED crowding, it is pivotal to understand the effect of interventions, corrected for changing circumstances and patient and visit characteristics. In our ED, interventions which were associated with decreased crowding measures included the expansion of the ED with more beds and the integration of the GPC on the ED.

Association between Covid-19 surge and emergency department patient flow and experience.

BACKGROUND: Preparations for Covid-19 in the Netherlands included hospital reconfigurations to increase capacity for the expected surge at the emergency department (ED). We describe patients' ED length of stay (LOS), crowding and experiences of patients with respiratory complaints during the first Covid-19 peak. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of demand, ED LOS, crowding, and a patient experience survey during a 12-week period in 2020 and similar periods in 2018 and 2019. Crowding levels were calculated using the National ED OverCrowding Scale. RESULTS: The number of patients with respiratory complaints increased significantly, while total ED numbers were unchanged. Although presentation during the Covid-19 peak and needing hospital admission were associated with a longer ED LOS in patients with respiratory complaints, significantly less crowding occurred compared with the 2018 and 2019 periods. Increased ED LOS was associated with lower patient experience scores. CONCLUSION: Advanced warning and its associated preparation within the hospital and the community prevented significant delays in ED throughput during the first Covid-19 peak.

Non-sterile gloves and dressing versus sterile gloves, dressings and drapes for suturing of traumatic wounds in the emergency department: a non-inferiority multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with traumatic wounds frequently present to the ED. Literature on whether to treat these wounds sterile or non-sterile is sparse. Non-sterile treatment has the advantage of saving resources and costs, and could be of value in health settings where sterile materials are not readily available. Our objective was to compare the rate of wound infection after suturing traumatic lacerations with non-sterile gloves and dressings versus sterile gloves, dressings and drapes in the ED. We hypothesised that non-sterile gloves and dressings would be non-inferior to sterile gloves, dressings and drapes. The non-inferiority margin was set at 2%. METHODS: A multicentre single-blinded randomised controlled trial testing for non-inferiority of non-sterile gloves and dressings versus sterile gloves, dressings and drapes for suturing of traumatic wounds was performed in 3 EDs in The Netherlands. Adults with uncomplicated wounds were included from July 2012 to December 2016. At the time of treatment, patient and wound characteristics and management were documented. The outcome was wound infection, which was identified during follow-up in the treating ED at 5-14 days postprocedure. RESULTS: From 2468 eligible patients, 1480 were randomised in a sterile (n=747) or non-sterile (n=733) protocol. Baseline characteristics were similar in both study arms. The observed wound infection rate in the non-sterile group was 5.7% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.5%) vs 6.8% (95% CI 5.1% to 8.8%) in the sterile group. The mean difference of the wound infection rate of the two groups was -1.1% (95% CI -3.7% to 1.5%). CONCLUSION: Although recruitment ceased prior to reaching our planned sample size, the findings suggest that there is unlikely to be a large difference between the non-sterile gloves, dressings and sterile gloves, dressings and drapes for suturing of traumatic wounds in the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL 34798.078.11, NTR3541.

Increased analgesia administration in emergency medicine after implementation of revised guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The most common complaint of patients attending the emergency department (ED) is pain, caused by different diseases. Yet the treatment of pain at the ED is suboptimal, and oligoanalgesia remains common. The objective of this study is to determine whether the administration of analgesia at the ED increases by implementation of revised guidelines in pain management. METHODS: We conducted a prospective pre-post intervention cohort study with implementation of a revised guideline for pain management at our ED, in which nurses are allowed to administer analgesia (including low-dosage piritramid (opioid) intravenous) without doctor intervention. Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) were measured, and administration of medication (main outcome) was documented. We included every adult patient presenting with pain (NRS 4-10) at the ED. RESULTS: A total of 2107 patients (1089 pre-implementation phase and 1018 post-implementation phase) were included in our study. During pre-implementation, 25.4 % of the patients with NRS between 4 and 10 received analgesia. After implementation, 32.0 % of these patients received analgesia (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of the revised guidelines in pain management at the ED, the administration of pain medication increased significantly. Nevertheless, the percentage of patients in pain receiving analgesia remain low (32 % after implementation).