An Analysis of New York Data: Fluctuations in Hospital Capacity Are Driven by Variability in Elective Admissions and Discharge Activity.

Background Hospital overcrowding compromises patient safety. The contribution of variability in admissions and discharges to overall hospital capacity needs to be quantified. This study describes the statewide day-to-day fluctuation in the volume of hospitalized patients, the variability and pattern of hospital admissions and discharges throughout the week, and the contribution of Emergency Department (ED) vs. elective (non-ED) admissions and discharges to the overall variability in the system across the week. Methodology This is a retrospective analysis of the New York State Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database, in which all New York healthcare facilities submit patient-level data monthly. The study period was from January 01 to December 31, 2015. Outcomes included total volumes of admissions and discharges and length of stay sorted by patient origin (ED vs. non-ED admits (elective)) and service type (medicine vs. surgery) by day of the week. Results We studied 1,692,090 hospital admissions. Admissions were highest on Mondays and Tuesdays and steadily decreased throughout the week. There was little variability in the ED admissions throughout the week. Surgical elective admissions had significant variability throughout the week, with higher admissions at the beginning of the week. There was a significant difference (p < 0.01) between admissions on weekdays vs. weekends. Discharges increased from Monday to Friday, with a dramatic drop on the weekends, for both ED and elective pathways. Systemwide, on Monday, hospitals were 21% above the mean volume, and on Fridays, hospitals were 32% below the mean volume. Conclusions Overall hospital capacity shows dramatic variability throughout the week, driven primarily by elective admissions and discharges from any source throughout the week. Because elective admissions are schedulable, hospitals can reduce variability by smoothing scheduling. Increased weekend discharges will also improve capacity.

Rapid creation of an emergency department telehealth program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread to nearly every continent, with over 2.6 m cases confirmed worldwide. Emergency departments care for a significant number of patients who are under investigation for COVID-19 or are COVID-19-positive. When patients present in the emergency department, there is an increased risk of spreading the virus to other patients and staff. We designed an emergency department telehealth program for patients physically in the emergency department, to reduce exposure and conserve personal protective equipment. While traditional telehealth is designed to be patient-specific and device-independent, our emergency department telehealth program was device-specific and patient-independent. In this article, we describe how we rapidly implemented our emergency department telehealth program, used for 880 min of contact time and 523 patient encounters in a 30-day period, which decreased exposure to COVID-19 and conserved personal protective equipment. We share our challenges, successes and recommendations for designing an emergency department telehealth program, building the technological aspects, and deploying telehealth devices in the emergency department environment. Our recommendations can be adopted by other emergency departments to create and run their own emergency department telehealth initiatives.

Team triage increases discharges and decreases time to discharge without increasing test ordering.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) crowding is detrimental to patients and staff. During traditional triage, nurses evaluate patients and identify their level of emergency. During team triage, physicians and/or nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) place orders, laboratory results, intravenous lines (IVs), and imaging in triage. Team triage improves access to testing and decreases length of stay. However, ordering practices in team triage may lead to overtesting. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients seen before and after a team triage process was established. Percentage of patients receiving testing and the diagnostic yields of troponins, lactates, international normalized ratios (INRs), blood cultures, glomerular filtration rates (GFR), and head computed tomography (CT) images were studied. RESULTS: A total of 704 traditionally triaged patients and 862 team triaged patients met inclusion criteria. Comparing traditional versus team triaged patients, the proportion of patients discharged was 0.44 versus 0.53 (P < 0.001), and the length of stay to discharge was 417 versus 375 minutes (P = 0.003). Comparing traditional versus team triage, a head CT was obtained 12.5% versus 5.7% (P < 0.001) of the time with diagnostic yield 45.5% versus 52% (not significant), troponin was obtained 51.3% versus 45.9% (not significant) of the time with diagnostic yield 14.9% versus 13.9% (not significant), lactate was obtained 41.6% versus 32.1% (P = 0.011) of the time with diagnostic yield 18.4% versus 12.3% (not significant), INR was obtained 70.2% versus 55.8% (P = 0.007) of the time with diagnostic yield 15.8% versus 10.5% (P = 0. 042), GFR was obtained 99.3% versus 98.4% (not significant) of the time with diagnostic yield 18.9% versus 13.7% (P = 0.02), and blood cultures were obtained 23.4% versus 7.3% (P < 0.001) of the time with diagnostic yield 7.3% versus 9.3% (not significant). CONCLUSION: Compared with traditional triage, the team triage process increased discharges and decreased time to discharge, but did not lead to increased testing or decreased diagnostic yield.

Cohort of Four Thousand Four Hundred Four Persons Under Investigation for COVID-19 in a New York Hospital and Predictors of ICU Care and Ventilation.

Study objective: Most coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reports have focused on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients. However, at initial presentation, most patients' viral status is unknown. Determination of factors that predict initial and subsequent need for ICU and invasive mechanical ventilation is critical for resource planning and allocation. We describe our experience with 4,404 persons under investigation and explore predictors of ICU care and invasive mechanical ventilation at a New York COVID-19 epicenter. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all persons under investigation and presenting to a large academic medical center emergency department (ED) in New York State with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. The association between patient predictor variables and SARS-CoV-2 status, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and mortality was explored with univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Between March 12 and April 14, 2020, we treated 4,404 persons under investigation for COVID-19 infection, of whom 68% were discharged home, 29% were admitted to a regular floor, and 3% to an ICU. One thousand six hundred fifty-one of 3,369 patients tested have had SARS-CoV-2-positive results to date. Of patients with regular floor admissions, 13% were subsequently upgraded to the ICU after a median of 62 hours (interquartile range 28 to 106 hours). Fifty patients required invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED, 4 required out-of-hospital invasive mechanical ventilation, and another 167 subsequently required invasive mechanical ventilation in a median of 60 hours (interquartile range 26 to 99) hours after admission. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and lower oxygen saturations were associated with need for ICU and invasive mechanical ventilation, and with death. High respiratory rates were associated with the need for ICU care. Conclusion: Persons under investigation for COVID-19 infection contribute significantly to the health care burden beyond those ruling in for SARS-CoV-2. For every 100 admitted persons under investigation, 9 will require ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both on arrival and another 12 within 2 to 3 days of hospital admission, especially persons under investigation with lower oxygen saturations and positive SARS-CoV-2 swab results. This information should help hospitals manage the pandemic efficiently.

What is full capacity protocol, and how is it implemented successfully?

BACKGROUND: Full capacity protocol (FCP) is an internationally recognized intervention designed to address emergency department (ED) crowding. Despite FCP international recognition and positive effects on hospital performance measures, many hospitals, even the most crowded ones, have not implemented FCP. We conducted this study to identify the core components of FCP, explore the key barriers and facilitators associated with the FCP implementation, and provide practical recommendations on how to overcome those barriers. METHODS: To identify the core components of FCP, we used a non-experimental approach. We conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (e.g., division chiefs, medical directors) involved in the implementation of FCP. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide data collection and analysis. We used a template analysis approach to determine the relevance of the CFIR constructs to implementing the FCP. We analyzed the responses to the interview questions about FCP definition and FCP key principles, compared different hospitals' FCP official documents, and consulted with the original FCP developer. We then used an adaptation framework to categorize the core components of FCP into three main groups. Finally, we summarized practical recommendations for each barrier based on information provided by the interviewees. RESULTS: A total of 32 interviews were conducted. We observed that FCP has evolved from the idea of transferring boarded patients from ED hallways to inpatient hallways to a practical hospital-wide intervention with several components and multiple levels. The key determinant of successful FCP implementation was collaboration with inpatient nursing staff, as they were often reluctant to have patients boarded in inpatient hallways. Other determinants of successful FCP implementation were reaching consensus about the criteria for activation of each FCP level and actions in each FCP level, modifying the electronic health records system, restructuring the inpatient units to have adequate staffing and resources, complying with external regulations and policies such as fire marshal guidelines, and gaining hospital leaders' support. CONCLUSIONS: The key determinant in implementing FCP is creating a supportive and cooperative hospital culture and encouraging key stakeholders, including inpatient nursing staff, to acknowledge that crowding is a hospital-wide problem that requires a hospital-wide response.

Emergency department and hospital crowding: causes, consequences, and cures.

Overcrowding with associated delays in patient care is a problem faced by emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. ED overcrowding can be the result of poor ED department design and prolonged throughput due to staffing, ancillary service performance, and flow processes. As such, the problem may be addressed by process improvements within the ED. A broad body of literature demonstrates that ED overcrowding can be a function of hospital capacity rather than an ED specific issue. Lack of institutional capacity leads to boarding in the ED with resultant ED crowding. This is a problem not solvable by the ED and must be addressed as an institution-wide problem. This paper discusses the causes of ED overcrowding, provides a brief overview of the drastic consequences, and discusses possible cures that have been successfully implemented.

Patients overwhelmingly prefer inpatient boarding to emergency department boarding.

BACKGROUND: Boarding of admitted patients in the emergency department (ED) is a major cause of crowding. One alternative to boarding in the ED, a full-capacity protocol where boarded patients are redeployed to inpatient units, can reduce crowding and improve overall flow. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare patient satisfaction with boarding in the ED vs. inpatient hallways. METHODS: We performed a structured telephone survey regarding patient experiences and preferences for boarding among admitted ED patients who experienced boarding in the ED hallway and then were subsequently transferred to inpatient hallways. Demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as patient preferences, including items related to patient comfort and safety using a 5-point scale, were recorded and descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. RESULTS: Of 110 patients contacted, 105 consented to participate. Mean age was 57 ± 16 years and 52% were female. All patients were initially boarded in the ED in a hallway before their transfer to an inpatient hallway bed. The overall preferred location after admission was the inpatient hallway in 85% (95% confidence interval 75-90) of respondents. In comparing ED vs. inpatient hallway boarding, the following percentages of respondents preferred inpatient boarding with regard to the following 8 items: rest, 85%; safety, 83%; confidentiality, 82%; treatment, 78%; comfort, 79%; quiet, 84%; staff availability, 84%; and privacy, 84%. For no item was there a preference for boarding in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Patients overwhelmingly preferred the inpatient hallway rather than the ED hallway when admitted to the hospital.

Associations between routine coronary computed tomographic angiography and reduced unnecessary hospital admissions, length of stay, recidivism rates, and invasive coronary angiography in the emergency department triage of chest pain.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to assess the effects on resource utilization of routine coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) in triaging chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED). BACKGROUND: The routine use of CCTA for ED evaluation of chest pain is feasible and safe. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multivariate analysis of data from two risk-matched cohorts of 894 ED patients presenting with chest pain to assess the impact of CCTA versus standard evaluation on admissions rate, length of stay, major adverse cardiovascular event rates, recidivism rates, and downstream resource utilization. RESULTS: The overall admission rate was lower with CCTA (14% vs. 40%; p < 0.001). Standard evaluation was associated with a 5.5-fold greater risk for admission (odds ratio [OR]: 5.53; p < 0.001). Expected ED length of stay with standard evaluation was about 1.6 times longer (OR: 1.55; p < 0.001). There were no differences in the rates of death and acute myocardial infarction within 30 days of the index visit between the two groups. The likelihood of returning to the ED within 30 days for recurrent chest pain was 5 times greater with standard evaluation (OR: 5.06; p = 0.022). Standard evaluation was associated with a 7-fold greater likelihood of invasive coronary angiography without revascularization (OR: 7.17; p < 0.001), while neither group was significantly more likely to receive revascularization (OR: 2.06; p = 0.193). The median radiation dose with CCTA was 5.88 mSv (n = 1039; confidence interval: 5.2 to 6.4). CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of CCTA in ED evaluation of chest pain reduces healthcare resource utilization.

Practical implications of implementing emergency department crowding interventions: summary of a moderated panel.

Emergency department (ED) crowding continues to be a major public health problem in the United States and around the world. In June 2011, the Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference focused on exploring interventions to alleviate ED crowding and to generate a series of research agendas on the topic. As part of the conference, a panel of leaders in the emergency care community shared their perspectives on emergency care, crowding, and some of the fundamental issues facing emergency care today. The panel participants included Drs. Bruce Siegel, Sandra Schneider, Peter Viccellio, and Randy Pilgrim. The panel was moderated by Dr. Jesse Pines. Dr. Siegel's comments focused on his work on Urgent Matters, which conducted two multihospital collaboratives related to improving ED crowding and disseminating results. Dr. Schneider focused on the future of ED crowding measures, the importance of improving our understanding of ED boarding and its implications, and the need for the specialty of emergency medicine (EM) to move beyond the discussion of unnecessary visits. Dr. Viccellio's comments focused on several areas, including the need for a clear message about unnecessary ED visits by the emergency care community and potential solutions to improve ED crowding. Finally, Dr. Pilgrim focused on the effect of effective leadership and management in crowding interventions and provided several examples of how these considerations directly affected the success or failure of well-constructed ED crowding interventions. This article describes each panelist's comments in detail.

The association between length of emergency department boarding and mortality.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) boarding has been associated with several negative patient-oriented outcomes, from worse satisfaction to higher inpatient mortality rates. The current study evaluates the association between length of ED boarding and outcomes. The authors expected that prolonged ED boarding of admitted patients would be associated with higher mortality rates and longer hospital lengths of stay (LOS). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study set at a suburban academic ED with an annual ED census of 90,000 visits. Consecutive patients admitted to the hospital from the ED and discharged between October 2005 and September 2008 were included. An electronic medical record (EMR) system was used to extract patient demographics, ED disposition (discharge, admit to floor), ED and hospital LOS, and in-hospital mortality. Boarding was defined as ED LOS 2 hours or more after decision for admission. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the association between length of ED boarding and hospital LOS, subsequent transfer to an intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality controlling for comorbidities. RESULTS: There were 41,256 admissions from the ED. Mortality generally increased with increasing boarding time, from 2.5% in patients boarded less than 2 hours to 4.5% in patients boarding 12 hours or more (p < 0.001). Mean hospital LOS also showed an increase with boarding time (p < 0.001), from 5.6 days (SD ± 11.4 days) for those who stayed in the ED for less than 2 hours to 8.7 days (SD ± 16.3 days) for those who boarded for more than 24 hours. The increases were still apparent after adjustment for comorbid conditions and other factors. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital mortality and hospital LOS are associated with length of ED boarding.

Introduction of a stat laboratory reduces emergency department length of stay.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) impacts patient satisfaction and overcrowding. Laboratory turnaround time (TAT) is a major determinant of ED LOS. The authors determined the impact of a Stat laboratory (Stat lab) on ED LOS. The authors hypothesized that a Stat lab would reduce ED LOS for admitted patients by 1 hour. METHODS: This was a before-and-after study conducted at an academic suburban ED with 75,000 annual patient visits. All patients presenting to the ED during the months of August and October 2006 were considered. A Stat lab located within the central laboratory was introduced in September 2006 to reduce laboratory TAT. The test TATs and ED LOS before (August 2006) and after (October 2006) implementing the Stat lab for all ED patients were the data of interest. ED LOS before and after the Stat lab was introduced was compared with the Mann-Whitney U-test. A sample size of 5,000 patients in each group had 99% power to detect a 1-hour difference in ED LOS. RESULTS: There were 5,631 ED visits before and 5,635 visits after implementing the Stat lab. Groups were similar in age (34 years vs. 36 years) and gender (51% males in both). The percentages of patients with laboratory tests before and after Stat lab implementation were 68.7 and 71.3%, respectively. Test TATs for admitted patients were significantly improved after the Stat lab introduction. Implementation of the Stat lab was associated with a significant reduction in the median ED LOS from 466 (interquartile range [IQR] = minutes before to 402 (IQR = 296-553) minutes after implementing the Stat lab. The effects of the Stat lab on ED LOS were less marked for discharged patients. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a Stat lab dedicated to the ED within the central laboratory was associated with shorter laboratory TATs and shorter ED LOS for admitted patients, by approximately 1 hour.

Emergency department activation of an interventional cardiology team reduces door-to-balloon times in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines recommend door-to-balloon times of fewer than 90 minutes in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. We hypothesized that immediate activation of an interventional cardiology team (code H) would reduce the time to percutaneous coronary intervention by 1 hour and increase the proportion of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes of arrival. METHODS: Study design was a before-and-after trial in an academic suburban emergency department (ED) with a certified cardiac catheterization laboratory. Subjects were a consecutive sample of patients presenting to the ED with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction evident on the initial ECG. Patients without chest pain and refusing catheterization were excluded. The intervention was the use of a central paging system for activation of the interventional cardiology team (attending physician, fellow, nurse, technician) by emergency physicians in patients presenting to the ED with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Measures were demographic and clinical information collected with standardized data collection forms. Outcomes were door-to-balloon times and the proportion of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes of arrival. Groups were compared with chi2 and t tests. RESULTS: There were 97 patients included in the study; 43 were treated in the 2 years before implementation of the code H and 54 patients were treated the subsequent 2 years. Mean age (SD) was 56.9 years (13.7), 27% were women, and 86% were white. Groups were similar in age, sex, and race. Implementation of a code H reduced the median door-to-balloon time by 68 minutes (from 176 to 108 minutes; P<.001) and increased the proportion of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes from 2.8% to 29.0% (mean difference 26.5; 95% confidence interval 15.0 to 36.9). To determine whether further improvements occurred, 48 patients treated in 2006 showed a 20-minute further reduction in door-to-balloon time; 52% underwent angioplasty within 90 minutes of ED presentation. CONCLUSION: Institutional implementation of a protocol that requires emergency physicians to activate an interventional cardiology team response in ED patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction reduces the door-to-balloon time and increases the proportion of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes.

Performance of a decision rule to predict need for computed tomography among children with blunt head trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of the NEXUS II head trauma decision instrument to identify patients with clinically important intracranial injury (ICI) from among children with blunt head trauma. METHODS: An analysis was conducted of the pediatric cohort involved in the derivation set of National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II), a prospective, observational, multicenter study of all patients who had blunt head trauma and underwent cranial computed tomography (CT) imaging at 1 of 21 emergency departments. We determined the test performance characteristics of the 8-variable NEXUS II decision instrument, derived from the entire NEXUS II cohort, in the pediatric cohort (0-18 years of age), as well as in the very young children (<3 years). Clinically important ICI was defined as ICI that required neurosurgical intervention (craniotomy, intracranial pressure monitoring, or mechanical ventilation) or was likely to be associated with significant long-term neurologic impairment. RESULTS: NEXUS II enrolled 1666 children, 138 (8.3%) of whom had clinically important ICI. The decision instrument correctly identified 136 of the 138 cases and classified 230 as low risk. A total of 309 children were younger than 3 years, among whom 25 had ICI. The decision instrument identified all 25 cases of clinically important ICI in this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The decision instrument derived in the large NEXUS II cohort performed with similarly high sensitivity among the subgroup of children who were included in this study. Clinically important ICI were rare in children who did not exhibit at least 1 of the NEXUS II risk criteria.