Publications

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches in the evaluation of patient experience are increasingly important priorities for quality improvement in health-care delivery. Our objective was to investigate common themes in patient-reported data to better understand areas for improvement in the emergency department (ED) experience.

METHODS: A large urban, tertiary-care ED conducted phone interviews with 2607 patients who visited the ED during 2015. Patients were asked to identify one area that would have significantly improved their visit. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis, and the results were summarized with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: The most commonly cited themes for improvement in the patient experience were wait time (49.4%) and communication (14.6%). Related, but more nuanced, themes emerged around the perception of ED crowding and compassionate care as additional important contributors to the patient experience. Other frequently cited factors contributing to a negative experience were the discharge process and inability to complete follow-up plan (8.0%), environmental factors (7.9%), perceived competency of providers in the evaluation or treatment (7.4%), and pain management (7.4%).

CONCLUSIONS: Wait times and perceptions of ED crowding, as well as provider communication and compassionate care, are significant factors identified by patients that affect their ED experience.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of video laryngoscopy (VL) may impact emergency medicine (EM) residents' intubation practices.

METHODS: We analyzed 14,313 intubations from 11 EM training sites, July 1, 2002, to December 31, 2012, assessing the likelihood of first-attempt success and likelihood of having a second attempt, by rank and device. We determined whether direct laryngoscopy (DL) first-attempt success decreased as VL became more prevalent using a logistic regression model with proportion of encounters initiated with VL at that center in the prior 90 and 365 days as predictors of DL first-attempt success.

RESULTS: First-attempt success by PGY-1s was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63% to 78%); PGY-2s, 82% (95% CI = 78% to 86%); and PGY-3+, 89% (95% CI = 85% to 92%). Residents' first-attempt success rate was higher with the C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC) versus DL, 92% versus 84% (risk difference [RD] = 8%, 95% CI = 4% to 11%), but there was no statistical difference between the GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) and DL, 80% versus 84% (RD = -4%, 95% CI = -10% to 1%). PGY-1s were more likely to have a second intubation attempt after first-attempt failure with VL versus DL: 32% versus 18% (RD = 14%, 95% CI = 5% to 23%). DL first-attempt success rates did not decrease as VL became more prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS: First-attempt success increases with training. Interns are more likely to have a second attempt when using VL. The C-MAC may be associated with increased first-attempt success for EM residents compared with DL or GVL. The increasing prevalence of VL is not accompanied by a decrease in DL success.

OBJECTIVE: Head-up positioning for preoxygenation and ramping for morbidly obese patients are well-accepted techniques, but the effect of head-up positioning with full torso elevation for all intubations is controversial. We compared first-pass success, adverse events, and glottic view between supine (SP) and nonsupine (NSP) positioning for emergency department (ED) patients undergoing orotracheal intubation.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for ED intubations over a 2-year period from 25 participating centers in the National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR). We compared characteristics and outcomes for adult patients intubated orotracheally in SP and NSP positions with either a direct or video laryngoscope. We report odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical variables and interquartile ranges with 95% CI for continuous variables. Our primary outcome was first-attempt intubation success and secondary outcomes were glottic views and peri-intubation adverse events.

RESULTS: Of 11,480 total intubations, 5.8% were performed in NSP. The NSP group included significantly more obese patients (OR = 2.2 [95% CI = 1.9-2.6]) and patients with a suspected difficult airway (OR = 1.8 [95% CI = 1.6-2.2]). First-pass success (adjusted OR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.9-1.4]) and overall rate of grade I glottic views (OR = 1.1 [95% CI = 0.9-1.2]) were similar between groups while NSP had a significantly higher rate of grade I views when direct laryngoscopy was employed (OR = 1.27 [95% CI = 1.04-1.54]). NSP was associated with higher odds of any adverse event (OR = 1.4 [95% CI = 1.1-1.7]).

CONCLUSIONS: ED providers utilized SP in most ED intubations but were more likely to use NSP for patients who were obese or in whom they predicted a difficult airway. We found no differences in first-pass success between groups but total adverse events were more likely in NSP. A randomized trial comparing patient positioning during intubation in the ED is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered approaches in the evaluation of patient experience are increasingly important priorities for quality improvement in health-care delivery. Our objective was to investigate common themes in patient-reported data to better understand areas for improvement in the emergency department (ED) experience.

METHODS: A large urban, tertiary-care ED conducted phone interviews with 2607 patients who visited the ED during 2015. Patients were asked to identify one area that would have significantly improved their visit. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis, and the results were summarized with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: The most commonly cited themes for improvement in the patient experience were wait time (49.4%) and communication (14.6%). Related, but more nuanced, themes emerged around the perception of ED crowding and compassionate care as additional important contributors to the patient experience. Other frequently cited factors contributing to a negative experience were the discharge process and inability to complete follow-up plan (8.0%), environmental factors (7.9%), perceived competency of providers in the evaluation or treatment (7.4%), and pain management (7.4%).

CONCLUSIONS: Wait times and perceptions of ED crowding, as well as provider communication and compassionate care, are significant factors identified by patients that affect their ED experience.

INTRODUCTION: Resident productivity is an important educational and operational measure in emergency medicine (EM). The ability to continue effectively seeing new patients throughout a shift is fundamental to an emergency physician's development, and residents are integral to the workforce of many academic emergency departments (ED). Our previous work has demonstrated that residents make gains in productivity over the course of intern year; however, it is unclear whether this is from experience as a physician in general on all rotations, or specific to experience in the ED.

METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, conducted in an urban academic hospital ED, with a three-year EM training program in which first-year residents see new patients ad libitum. We evaluated resident shifts for the total number of new patients seen. We constructed a generalized estimating equation to predict productivity, defined as the number of new patients seen per shift, as a function of the week of the academic year, the number of weeks spent in the ED, and their interaction. Off-service residents' productivity in the ED was analyzed in a secondary analysis.

RESULTS: We evaluated 7,779 EM intern shifts from 7/1/2010 to 7/1/2016. Interns started at 7.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] [6.87 - 7.45]) patients per nine-hour shift, with an increase of 0.20 (95% CI [0.17 - 0.24]) patients per shift for each week in the ED, over 22 weeks, leading to 11.5 (95% CI [10.6 - 12.7]) patients per shift at the end of their training in the ED. The effects of the week of the academic year and its interaction with weeks in the ED were not significant. We evaluated 2,328 off-service intern shifts, in which off-service residents saw 5.43 (95% CI [5.02 - 5.84]) patients per nine-hour shift initially, with 0.46 additional patients per week in the ED (95% CI [0.25 - 0.68]). The weeks of the academic year were not significant.

CONCLUSION: Intern productivity in EM correlates with time spent training in the ED, and not with experience on other rotations. Accordingly, an EM intern's productivity should be evaluated relative to their aggregate time in the ED, rather than the time in the academic year.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency physician productivity, often defined as new patients evaluated per hour, is essential to planning clinical operations. Prior research in this area considered this a static quantity; however, our group's study of resident physicians demonstrated significant decreases in hourly productivity throughout shifts. We now examine attending physicians' productivity to determine if it is also dynamic.

METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study, conducted from 2014 to 2016 across three community hospitals in the north-eastern USA, with different schedules and coverage. Timestamps of all patient encounters were automatically logged by the sites' electronic health record. Generalised estimating equations were constructed to predict productivity in terms of new patients per shift hour.

RESULTS: 207 169 patients were seen by 64 physicians over 2 years, comprising 9822 physician shifts. Physicians saw an average of 15.0 (SD 4.7), 20.9 (SD 6.4) and 13.2 (SD 3.8) patients per shift at the three sites, with 2.97 (SD 0.22), 2.95 (SD 0.24) and 2.17 (SD 0.09) in the first hour. Across all sites, physicians saw significantly fewer new patients after the first hour, with more gradual decreases subsequently. Additional patient arrivals were associated with greater productivity; however, this attenuates substantially late in the shift. The presence of other physicians was also associated with slightly decreased productivity.

CONCLUSIONS: Physician productivity over a single shift follows a predictable pattern that decreases significantly on an hourly basis, even if there are new patients to be seen. Estimating productivity as a simple average substantially underestimates physicians' capacity early in a shift and overestimates it later. This pattern of productivity should be factored into hospitals' staffing plans, with shifts aligned to start with the greatest volumes of patient arrivals.