Objective: Emergency Departments (EDs) experience throughput constraints for various reasons, such as space, resources, staffing, and bed placement. These throughput constraints are known to increase the volume of patients who leave without being evaluated. TeleTriage is a method implemented shortly after the arrival of the patient to the ED, as a means to expedite evaluation of patients. The project aimed to implement a TeleTriage program and analyze any impact on Left Without Being Seen (LWBS) rates and cost.Methods: A TeleTriage program was developed within a large, nonprofit, academic health care delivery system. The program was piloted at several campuses and subsequently implemented at multiple sites within the health system. Data on LWBS rates were collected for patients evaluated by the TeleTriage process and those who were not. An analysis of staffing utilization and cost-savings was also performed.Results: The TeleTriage program resulted in an average LWBS rate of 0.12% post-implementation, versus 0.79% for patients who were not in the TeleTriage group. In addition, the staffing consolidation resulted in cost-savings.Conclusions: The use of a TeleTriage program results in decreased LWBS rates, as well as cost-savings.

Objectives The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to participate in scholarship and requires residency programs to provide an environment within which residents can acquire skills related to scholarly activities. However, consensus on the definition of scholarship and structure of program environments does not yet exist. We designed and implemented a content expert program (CEP) in 2015, in which each resident worked with a faculty advisor to develop a longitudinal scholarly activity linked to a core area of practice and, in doing so, became the department's “content expert.” We hypothesized that the CEP would significantly increase the number of scholarly outputs per resident. Methods The CEP was structured around an oversight committee composed of key faculty members, which guided development of CEP projects through regular meetings and formative feedback. Each resident generated one or more scholarly outputs from their content area. Outputs were categorized into educational, operational, research, and miscellaneous domains and further identified as intradepartmental, interdepartmental, or interdisciplinary collaborations. The number of outputs was compared to the baseline number of scholarly activities per resident at the study program using a Mann–Whitney U test. Results A total of 187 scholarly outputs were generated by 76 residents, which equated to 31.2 outputs per year, or 2.5 outputs per resident. This was a significant increase compared to the program baseline of one output per resident (p = 0.003). Eighteen distinct types of outputs spanned four major categories. Of the outputs, 37 were interdepartmental, 42 were interdisciplinary, and 32 were intradepartmental. Conclusions The CEP proved to be a sustainable way to significantly increase scholarly activity and additionally improved collaborative efforts. With the appropriate structure and willing faculty in place, such a program can enhance the practical education provided by residency programs.