Comanagement of hospitalized surgical patients by medicine physicians in the United States.

Arch Intern Med. 2010 Feb 22;170(4):363-8

Authors: Sharma G, Kuo YF, Freeman J, Zhang DD, Goodwin JS

BACKGROUND: Comanagement of surgical patients by medicine physicians (generalist physicians or internal medicine subspecialists) has been shown to improve efficiency and to reduce adverse outcomes. We examined the extent to which comanagement is used during hospitalizations for common surgical procedures in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for 1 of 15 inpatient surgical procedures from 1996 to 2006 (n = 694 806). We also calculated the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries comanaged by medicine physicians (generalist physicians or internal medicine subspecialists) during hospitalization. Comanagement was defined by relevant physicians (generalist or internal medicine subspecialist) submitting a claim for evaluation and management services on 70% or more of the days that the patients were hospitalized. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2006, 35.2% of patients hospitalized for a common surgical procedure were comanaged by a medicine physician: 23.7% by a generalist physician and 14% by an internal medicine subspecialist (2.5% were comanaged by both). The percentage of patients experiencing comanagement was relatively unchanged from 1996 to 2000 and then increased sharply. The increase was entirely attributable to a surge in comanagement by generalist physicians. In a multivariable multilevel analysis, comanagement by generalist physicians increased 11.4% per year from 2001 to 2006. Patients with advanced age, with more comorbidities, or receiving care in nonteaching, midsize (200-499 beds), or for-profit hospitals were more likely to receive comanagement. All of the growth in comanagement was attributed to increased comanagement by hospitalist physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Medical comanagement of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for a surgical procedure is increasing because of the increasing role of hospitalists. To meet this growing need for comanagement, training in internal medicine should include medical management of surgical patients.

PMID: 20177040 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Hospital cost of care, quality of care, and readmission rates: penny wise and pound foolish?

Arch Intern Med. 2010 Feb 22;170(4):340-6

Authors: Chen LM, Jha AK, Guterman S, Ridgway AB, Orav EJ, Epstein AM

BACKGROUND: Hospitals face increasing pressure to lower cost of care while improving quality of care. It is unclear if efforts to reduce hospital cost of care will adversely affect quality of care or increase downstream inpatient cost of care. METHODS: We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of US hospitals discharging Medicare patients for congestive heart failure (CHF) or pneumonia in 2006. For each condition, we examined the association between hospital cost of care and the following variables: process quality of care, 30-day mortality rates, readmission rates, and 6-month inpatient cost of care. RESULTS: Compared with hospitals in the lowest-cost quartile for CHF care, hospitals in the highest-cost quartile had higher quality-of-care scores (89.9% vs 85.5%) and lower mortality for CHF (9.8% vs 10.8%) (P < .001 for both). For pneumonia, the converse was true. Compared with low-cost hospitals, high-cost hospitals had lower quality-of-care scores (85.7% vs 86.6%, P = .002) and higher mortality for pneumonia (11.7% vs 10.9%, P < .001). Low-cost hospitals had similar or slightly higher 30-day readmission rates compared with high-cost hospitals (24.7% vs 22.0%, P < .001 for CHF and 17.9% vs 17.3%, P = .20 for pneumonia). Nevertheless, patients initially seen in low-cost hospitals incurred lower 6-month inpatient cost of care compared with patients initially seen in hospitals with the highest cost of care ($12 715 vs $18 411 for CHF and $10 143 vs $15 138 for pneumonia, P < .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: The associations are inconsistent between hospitals' cost of care and quality of care and between hospitals' cost of care and mortality rates. Most evidence did not support the "penny wise and pound foolish" hypothesis that low-cost hospitals discharge patients earlier but have higher readmission rates and greater downstream inpatient cost of care.

PMID: 20177036 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Pneumothorax Following Thoracentesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Arch Intern Med. 2010 Feb 22;170(4):332-9

Authors: Gordon CE, Feller-Kopman D, Balk EM, Smetana GW

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the factors related to the development of pneumothorax following thoracentesis. We aimed to determine the mean pneumothorax rate following thoracentesis and to identify risk factors for pneumothorax through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We reviewed MEDLINE-indexed studies from January 1, 1966, through April 1, 2009, and included studies of any design with at least 10 patients that reported the pneumothorax rate following thoracentesis. Two investigators independently extracted data on the pneumothorax rate, risk factors for pneumothorax, and study methodological quality. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies reported pneumothorax rates following 6605 thoracenteses. The overall pneumothorax rate was 6.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6%-7.8%), and 34.1% of pneumothoraces required chest tube insertion. Ultrasonography use was associated with significantly lower risk of pneumothorax (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7). Lower pneumothorax rates were observed with experienced operators (3.9% vs 8.5%, P = .04), but this was nonsignificant within studies directly comparing this factor (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-2.3). Pneumothorax was more likely following therapeutic thoracentesis (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8), in conjunction with periprocedural symptoms (OR, 26.6; 95% CI, 2.7-262.5), and in association with, although nonsignificantly, mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 0.95-16.8). Two or more needle passes conferred a nonsignificant increased risk of pneumothorax (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 0.3-20.1). CONCLUSIONS: Iatrogenic pneumothorax is a common complication of thoracentesis and frequently requires chest tube insertion. Real-time ultrasonography use is a modifiable factor that reduces the pneumothorax rate. Performance of thoracentesis for therapeutic purposes and in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation confers a higher likelihood of pneumothorax. Experienced operators may have lower pneumothorax rates. Patient safety may be improved by changes in clinical practice in accord with these findings.

PMID: 20177035 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

The course of nonspecific chest pain in primary care: symptom persistence and health care usage.

Arch Intern Med. 2010 Feb 8;170(3):251-5

Authors: Glombiewski JA, Rief W, Bösner S, Keller H, Martin A, Donner-Banzhoff N

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific chest pain is common in primary care, yet knowledge is sparse about its course and outcome and how they relate to optimum health care usage. We investigated the following observations: (1) many patients who present with nonspecific chest pain in primary care show symptom persistence for 6 months, (2) many patients with nonspecific chest pain showed signs of overinvestigation, and (3) many patients with chronic chest pain were referred to mental health specialists. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, general physician-based cohort study with 6-week and 6-month follow-ups in 74 primary care offices in Hessen, Germany. Of approximately 190 000 consecutive patients who visited their general physicians from October 1, 2005, to July 31, 2006, 807 patients with nonspecific chest pain were identified by an expert committee (delayed-type reference standard). The dropout rate was 2.7%. Main outcome measures were persistent chest pain at a 6-month follow-up visit and health care usage at 6 months. RESULTS: The rate of persistent chest pain was 55.5%. A total of 10.7% of patients had inappropriate health care usage, defined as 2 or more visits to a cardiologist or 3 or more cardiac diagnostic investigations. Most patients with persistent nonspecific chest pain were referred to a cardiologist, and less than 2% were referred to mental health specialists. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients with nonspecific chest pain, standard medical care does not offer sufficient help for symptom relief. One-tenth of patients with persistent chest pain underwent additional diagnostic testing of no known clinical benefit. Psychological referrals were rarely given.

PMID: 20142569 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Impact of hospital-associated hyponatremia on selected outcomes.

Arch Intern Med. 2010 Feb 8;170(3):294-302

Authors: Wald R, Jaber BL, Price LL, Upadhyay A, Madias NE

BACKGROUND: Hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disorder encountered in hospitalized patients. METHODS: We evaluated whether hospital-associated hyponatremia has an independent effect on all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and patient disposition. This cohort study included all adult hospitalizations at an academic medical center occurring between 2000-2007 for which an admission serum sodium concentration ([Na(+)]) was available (N = 53 236). We examined community-acquired hyponatremia (admission serum [Na(+)], <138 mEq/L [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 1.0]), hospital-aggravated hyponatremia (community-acquired hyponatremia complicated by worsening in serum [Na(+)]), and hospital-acquired hyponatremia (nadir serum [Na(+)], <138 mEq/L with a normal admission serum [Na(+)]). The independent associations of these hyponatremic presentations with in-hospital mortality, LOS, and patient disposition were evaluated using generalized estimating equations adjusted for age, sex, race, admission service, and Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index score. RESULTS: Community-acquired hyponatremia occurred in 37.9% of hospitalizations and was associated with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 1.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-1.69) for in-hospital mortality and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.08-1.17) for discharge to a short- or long-term care facility and a 14% (95% CI, 11%-16%) adjusted increase in LOS. Hospital-acquired hyponatremia developed in 38.2% of hospitalizations longer than 1 day in which initial serum [Na(+)] was 138 to 142 mEq/L. Hospital-acquired hyponatremia was associated with adjusted ORs of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.39-1.98) for in-hospital mortality and 1.64 (95% CI, 1.55-1.74) for discharge to a facility and a 64% (95% CI, 60%-68%) adjusted increase in LOS. The strength of these associations tended to increase with hyponatremia severity. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-associated hyponatremia is a common occurrence. All forms of hyponatremia are independently associated with in-hospital mortality and heightened resource consumption.

PMID: 20142578 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Rapid Response Teams: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Arch Intern Med. 2010 Jan 11;170(1):18-26

Authors: Chan PS, Jain R, Nallmothu BK, Berg RA, Sasson C

BACKGROUND: Although rapid response teams (RRTs) increasingly have been adopted by hospitals, their effectiveness in reducing hospital mortality remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of RRTs on reducing cardiopulmonary arrest and hospital mortality rates. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies published from January 1, 1950, through November 31, 2008, using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, and all Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. Randomized clinical trials and prospective studies of RRTs that reported data on changes in the primary outcome of hospital mortality or the secondary outcome of cardiopulmonary arrest cases were included. RESULTS: Eighteen studies from 17 publications (with 1 treated as 2 separate studies) were identified, involving nearly 1.3 million hospital admissions. Implementation of an RRT in adults was associated with a 33.8% reduction in rates of cardiopulmonary arrest outside the intensive care unit (ICU) (relative risk [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.80) but was not associated with lower hospital mortality rates (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-1.09). In children, implementation of an RRT was associated with a 37.7% reduction in rates of cardiopulmonary arrest outside the ICU (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.84) and a 21.4% reduction in hospital mortality rates (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98). The pooled mortality estimate in children, however, was not robust to sensitivity analyses. Moreover, studies frequently found evidence that deaths were prevented out of proportion to reductions in cases of cardiopulmonary arrest, raising questions about mechanisms of improvement. CONCLUSION: Although RRTs have broad appeal, robust evidence to support their effectiveness in reducing hospital mortality is lacking.

PMID: 20065195 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

A weak link in the rapid response system.

Arch Intern Med. 2010 Jan 11;170(1):12-3

Authors: Edelson DP

PMID: 20065194 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Disclosure of hospital adverse events and its association with patients’ ratings of the quality of care.

Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1888-94

Authors: López L, Weissman JS, Schneider EC, Weingart SN, Cohen AP, Epstein AM

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the characteristics of adverse events (AEs) affect the likelihood of disclosure or how the disclosure of an AE relates to patients’ perception of quality of care. METHODS: The study included a random sample of medical and surgical acute care adult patients in Massachusetts hospitals between April 1 and October 1, 2003. The unit of analysis was the AE, and multivariable regression analyses accounted for clustering at the patient level. RESULTS: Overall, 603 patients reported 845 AEs, and 40% of AEs were disclosed. The AEs that required additional treatment (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.32) or affected patients who reported good health (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.29-3.24) were more likely to be disclosed. Disclosure was less likely if the events were preventable (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.83) or if the patients were still affected by the AE at the time of survey (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Higher-quality ratings were associated with disclosure (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.39-2.99) of preventable and nonpreventable events and with patients who felt that they were able to protect themselves from AEs (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.21-3.24). Lower-quality ratings were associated with events that were preventable (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.76), with events that caused increased discomfort (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.86), or with events that still adversely affected the patient at the time of the survey (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of disclosure of AEs by medical personnel remain low in hospitalized patients. Disclosure of some of these events is associated with higher ratings of quality by patients.

PMID: 19901141 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Disclosure of hospital adverse events and its association with patients’ ratings of the quality of care.

Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1888-94

Authors: López L, Weissman JS, Schneider EC, Weingart SN, Cohen AP, Epstein AM

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the characteristics of adverse events (AEs) affect the likelihood of disclosure or how the disclosure of an AE relates to patients’ perception of quality of care. METHODS: The study included a random sample of medical and surgical acute care adult patients in Massachusetts hospitals between April 1 and October 1, 2003. The unit of analysis was the AE, and multivariable regression analyses accounted for clustering at the patient level. RESULTS: Overall, 603 patients reported 845 AEs, and 40% of AEs were disclosed. The AEs that required additional treatment (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.32) or affected patients who reported good health (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.29-3.24) were more likely to be disclosed. Disclosure was less likely if the events were preventable (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.83) or if the patients were still affected by the AE at the time of survey (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Higher-quality ratings were associated with disclosure (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.39-2.99) of preventable and nonpreventable events and with patients who felt that they were able to protect themselves from AEs (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.21-3.24). Lower-quality ratings were associated with events that were preventable (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.76), with events that caused increased discomfort (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.86), or with events that still adversely affected the patient at the time of the survey (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of disclosure of AEs by medical personnel remain low in hospitalized patients. Disclosure of some of these events is associated with higher ratings of quality by patients.

PMID: 19901141 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Disclosure of hospital adverse events and its association with patients’ ratings of the quality of care.

Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1888-94

Authors: López L, Weissman JS, Schneider EC, Weingart SN, Cohen AP, Epstein AM

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how the characteristics of adverse events (AEs) affect the likelihood of disclosure or how the disclosure of an AE relates to patients’ perception of quality of care. METHODS: The study included a random sample of medical and surgical acute care adult patients in Massachusetts hospitals between April 1 and October 1, 2003. The unit of analysis was the AE, and multivariable regression analyses accounted for clustering at the patient level. RESULTS: Overall, 603 patients reported 845 AEs, and 40% of AEs were disclosed. The AEs that required additional treatment (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.32) or affected patients who reported good health (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.29-3.24) were more likely to be disclosed. Disclosure was less likely if the events were preventable (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.83) or if the patients were still affected by the AE at the time of survey (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Higher-quality ratings were associated with disclosure (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.39-2.99) of preventable and nonpreventable events and with patients who felt that they were able to protect themselves from AEs (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.21-3.24). Lower-quality ratings were associated with events that were preventable (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.76), with events that caused increased discomfort (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.86), or with events that still adversely affected the patient at the time of the survey (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of disclosure of AEs by medical personnel remain low in hospitalized patients. Disclosure of some of these events is associated with higher ratings of quality by patients.

PMID: 19901141 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors.

Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1881-7

Authors: Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S, Abrams R, Cosby K, Lambert BL, Elstein AS, Hasler S, Kabongo ML, Krosnjar N, Odwazny R, Wisniewski MF, McNutt RA

BACKGROUND: Missed or delayed diagnoses are a common but understudied area in patient safety research. To better understand the types, causes, and prevention of such errors, we surveyed clinicians to solicit perceived cases of missed and delayed diagnoses. METHODS: A 6-item written survey was administered at 20 grand rounds presentations across the United States and by mail at 2 collaborating institutions. Respondents were asked to report 3 cases of diagnostic errors and to describe their perceived causes, seriousness, and frequency. RESULTS: A total of 669 cases were reported by 310 clinicians from 22 institutions. After cases without diagnostic errors or lacking sufficient details were excluded, 583 remained. Of these, 162 errors (28%) were rated as major, 241 (41%) as moderate, and 180 (31%) as minor or insignificant. The most common missed or delayed diagnoses were pulmonary embolism (26 cases [4.5% of total]), drug reactions or overdose (26 cases [4.5%]), lung cancer (23 cases [3.9%]), colorectal cancer (19 cases [3.3%]), acute coronary syndrome (18 cases [3.1%]), breast cancer (18 cases [3.1%]), and stroke (15 cases [2.6%]). Errors occurred most frequently in the testing phase (failure to order, report, and follow-up laboratory results) (44%), followed by clinician assessment errors (failure to consider and overweighing competing diagnosis) (32%), history taking (10%), physical examination (10%), and referral or consultation errors and delays (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians readily recalled multiple cases of diagnostic errors and were willing to share their experiences. Using a new taxonomy tool and aggregating cases by diagnosis and error type revealed patterns of diagnostic failures that suggested areas for improvement. Systematic solicitation and analysis of such errors can identify potential preventive strategies.

PMID: 19901140 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors.

Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1881-7

Authors: Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S, Abrams R, Cosby K, Lambert BL, Elstein AS, Hasler S, Kabongo ML, Krosnjar N, Odwazny R, Wisniewski MF, McNutt RA

BACKGROUND: Missed or delayed diagnoses are a common but understudied area in patient safety research. To better understand the types, causes, and prevention of such errors, we surveyed clinicians to solicit perceived cases of missed and delayed diagnoses. METHODS: A 6-item written survey was administered at 20 grand rounds presentations across the United States and by mail at 2 collaborating institutions. Respondents were asked to report 3 cases of diagnostic errors and to describe their perceived causes, seriousness, and frequency. RESULTS: A total of 669 cases were reported by 310 clinicians from 22 institutions. After cases without diagnostic errors or lacking sufficient details were excluded, 583 remained. Of these, 162 errors (28%) were rated as major, 241 (41%) as moderate, and 180 (31%) as minor or insignificant. The most common missed or delayed diagnoses were pulmonary embolism (26 cases [4.5% of total]), drug reactions or overdose (26 cases [4.5%]), lung cancer (23 cases [3.9%]), colorectal cancer (19 cases [3.3%]), acute coronary syndrome (18 cases [3.1%]), breast cancer (18 cases [3.1%]), and stroke (15 cases [2.6%]). Errors occurred most frequently in the testing phase (failure to order, report, and follow-up laboratory results) (44%), followed by clinician assessment errors (failure to consider and overweighing competing diagnosis) (32%), history taking (10%), physical examination (10%), and referral or consultation errors and delays (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians readily recalled multiple cases of diagnostic errors and were willing to share their experiences. Using a new taxonomy tool and aggregating cases by diagnosis and error type revealed patterns of diagnostic failures that suggested areas for improvement. Systematic solicitation and analysis of such errors can identify potential preventive strategies.

PMID: 19901140 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors.

Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1881-7

Authors: Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S, Abrams R, Cosby K, Lambert BL, Elstein AS, Hasler S, Kabongo ML, Krosnjar N, Odwazny R, Wisniewski MF, McNutt RA

BACKGROUND: Missed or delayed diagnoses are a common but understudied area in patient safety research. To better understand the types, causes, and prevention of such errors, we surveyed clinicians to solicit perceived cases of missed and delayed diagnoses. METHODS: A 6-item written survey was administered at 20 grand rounds presentations across the United States and by mail at 2 collaborating institutions. Respondents were asked to report 3 cases of diagnostic errors and to describe their perceived causes, seriousness, and frequency. RESULTS: A total of 669 cases were reported by 310 clinicians from 22 institutions. After cases without diagnostic errors or lacking sufficient details were excluded, 583 remained. Of these, 162 errors (28%) were rated as major, 241 (41%) as moderate, and 180 (31%) as minor or insignificant. The most common missed or delayed diagnoses were pulmonary embolism (26 cases [4.5% of total]), drug reactions or overdose (26 cases [4.5%]), lung cancer (23 cases [3.9%]), colorectal cancer (19 cases [3.3%]), acute coronary syndrome (18 cases [3.1%]), breast cancer (18 cases [3.1%]), and stroke (15 cases [2.6%]). Errors occurred most frequently in the testing phase (failure to order, report, and follow-up laboratory results) (44%), followed by clinician assessment errors (failure to consider and overweighing competing diagnosis) (32%), history taking (10%), physical examination (10%), and referral or consultation errors and delays (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians readily recalled multiple cases of diagnostic errors and were willing to share their experiences. Using a new taxonomy tool and aggregating cases by diagnosis and error type revealed patterns of diagnostic failures that suggested areas for improvement. Systematic solicitation and analysis of such errors can identify potential preventive strategies.

PMID: 19901140 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Percentage of US emergency department patients seen within the recommended triage time: 1997 to 2006.

Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1857-65

Authors: Horwitz LI, Bradley EH

BACKGROUND: The wait time to see a physician in US emergency departments (EDs) is increasing and may differentially affect patients with varied insurance status and racial/ethnic backgrounds. METHODS: Using a stratified random sampling of 151 999 visits, representing 539 million ED visits from 1997 to 2006, we examined trends in the percentage of patients seen within the triage target time by triage category (emergent, urgent, semiurgent, and nonurgent), payer type, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: The percentage of patients seen within the triage target time declined a mean of 0.8% per year, from 80.0% in 1997 to 75.9% in 2006 (P < .001). The percentage of patients seen within the triage target time declined 2.3% per year for emergent patients (59.2% to 48.0%; P < .001) compared with 0.7% per year for semiurgent patients (90.6% to 84.7%; P < .001). In 2006, the adjusted odds of being seen within the triage target time were 30% lower than in 1997 (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.89). The adjusted odds of being seen within the triage target time were 87% lower (odds ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.15) for emergent patients compared with semiurgent patients. Patients of each payment type experienced similar decreases in the percentage seen within the triage target over time (P for interaction = .24), as did patients of each racial/ethnic group (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients in the ED who are seen by a physician within the time recommended at triage has been steadily declining and is at its lowest point in at least 10 years. Of all patients in the ED, the most emergent are the least likely to be seen within the triage target time. Patients of all racial/ethnic backgrounds and payer types have been similarly affected.

PMID: 19901137 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]

Percentage of US emergency department patients seen within the recommended triage time: 1997 to 2006.

Arch Intern Med. 2009 Nov 9;169(20):1857-65

Authors: Horwitz LI, Bradley EH

BACKGROUND: The wait time to see a physician in US emergency departments (EDs) is increasing and may differentially affect patients with varied insurance status and racial/ethnic backgrounds. METHODS: Using a stratified random sampling of 151 999 visits, representing 539 million ED visits from 1997 to 2006, we examined trends in the percentage of patients seen within the triage target time by triage category (emergent, urgent, semiurgent, and nonurgent), payer type, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: The percentage of patients seen within the triage target time declined a mean of 0.8% per year, from 80.0% in 1997 to 75.9% in 2006 (P < .001). The percentage of patients seen within the triage target time declined 2.3% per year for emergent patients (59.2% to 48.0%; P < .001) compared with 0.7% per year for semiurgent patients (90.6% to 84.7%; P < .001). In 2006, the adjusted odds of being seen within the triage target time were 30% lower than in 1997 (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.89). The adjusted odds of being seen within the triage target time were 87% lower (odds ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.15) for emergent patients compared with semiurgent patients. Patients of each payment type experienced similar decreases in the percentage seen within the triage target over time (P for interaction = .24), as did patients of each racial/ethnic group (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients in the ED who are seen by a physician within the time recommended at triage has been steadily declining and is at its lowest point in at least 10 years. Of all patients in the ED, the most emergent are the least likely to be seen within the triage target time. Patients of all racial/ethnic backgrounds and payer types have been similarly affected.

PMID: 19901137 [PubMed - in process]

[Read more →]