No abstract

ObjectivesThis study describes the proportion of emergency department (ED) returns within 7 days due to adverse events, defined as adverse outcomes related to healthcare received.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingWe used an electronically triggered adverse event surveillance system at a tertiary care ED from May to June 2010 to examine ED returns within 7 days of index visit.ParticipantsOne of three trained nurses determined whether the visit was related to index emergency care. For such records, one of three trained emergency physicians conducted adverse event determinations.Main outcome measureWe determined adverse event type and severity and analysed the data with descriptive statistics, χ2 tests and logistic regression.ResultsOf 13 495 index ED visits, 923 (6.8%) were followed by ED returns within 7 days. The median age of all patients was 47 years and 52.8% were women. After nursing review, 211 cases required physician review. Of these, 53 visits were adverse events (positive predictive value (PPV)=5.7%, 95% CI 4.4% to 7.4%) and 30 (56.6%) were preventable. Common adverse event types involved management, diagnostic or medication issues. We observed one potentially preventable death and 58.5% of adverse events resulting in transient disability. The PPV of a modified trigger with a cut-off of return within 72 h, resulting in admission was 11.9% (95% CI 6.8% to 18.9%).ConclusionsOur electronic trigger efficiently identified adverse events among 12% of patients with ED returns within 72 h, requiring hospital admission. Given the high degree of preventability of the identified adverse events, this trigger also holds promise as a performance measurement tool.

Objective: Information gaps, defined as previously collected information that is not available to the treating physician, have implications for patient safety and system efficiency. For patients transferred to an emergency department (ED) from a nursing home or seniors residence, we determined the frequency and type of clinically important information gaps and the impact of a regional transfer form. Methods: During a 6-month period, we studied consecutive patients who were identified through the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database. Patients were over 60 years of age, lived in a nursing home or seniors residence, and arrived by ambulance to a tertiary care ED. We abstracted data from original transfer and ED records using a structured data collection tool. We measured the frequency of prespecified information gaps, which we defined as the failure to communicate information usually required by an emergency physician (EP). We also determined the use of the standardized patient transfer form that is used in Ontario and its impact on the rate of information gaps that occur in our community. Results: We studied 457 transfers for 384 patients. Baseline dementia was present in 34.1% of patients. Important information gaps occurred in 85.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.0%-88.0%) of cases. Specific information gaps along with their relative frequency included the following: the reason for transfer (12.9%), the baseline cognitive function and communication ability (36.5%), vital signs (37.6%), advanced directives (46.4%), medication (20.4%), activities of daily living (53.0%) and mobility (47.7%). A standardized transfer form was used in 42.7% of transfers. When the form was used, information gaps were present in 74.9% of transfers compared with 93.5% of the transfers when the form was not used (p < 0.001). Descriptors of the patient's chief complaint were frequently absent (81.0% for head injury [any information about loss of consciousness], 42.4% for abdominal pain and 47.1% for chest pain [any information on location, severity and duration]). Conclusion: Information gaps occur commonly when elderly patients are transferred from a nursing home or seniors residence to the ED. A standardized transfer form was associated with a limited reduction in the prevalence of information gaps; even when the form was used, a large percentage of the transfers were missing information. We also determined that the lack of descriptive detail regarding the presenting problem was common. We believe this represents a previously unidentified information gap in the literature about nursing home transfers. Future research should focus on the clinical impact of information gaps. System improvements should focus on educational and regulatory interventions, as well as adjustments to the transfer form.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a structured morbidity and mortality (M&M) rounds model through an innovative educational intervention. Methods:The authors engaged the Departments of Emergency Medicine (EM) and Trauma Services at a tertiary care teaching hospital. A needs assessment was performed; the Ottawa M&M rounds model was developed, implemented, and then evaluated as a four-part intervention. This consisted of: 1) physician training on case selection and analysis, 2) engaging interprofessional members, 3) disseminating lessons learned, and 4) creating an administrative pathway for acting on issues identified through the M&M rounds. The measures of intervention feasibility included the proportion of sessions adherent to the new model and M&M rounds attendance. Pre-and postintervention surveys of presenters and attendees were used to determine intervention acceptability. M&M presentation content was reviewed to determine the most frequently adopted components of the model. Results:Nine of 14 (64.3%) sessions were adherent to three of four components of the Ottawa M&M Model. Of those M&M attendees who responded to the survey (796 of 912, 87.2%), improvements were found in M&M rounds attendance as well as perceived effect on clinical practice at both individual and departmental levels. Thirty-seven case presentations were analyzed and improvements postintervention were found in appropriate case selection and recognition of cognitive and system issues. Conclusions:The Ottawa M&M Model was a feasible intervention that was perceived to be effective by both presenters and attendees. The authors believe that this could be readily applied to any hospital department seeking to enhance quality of care and patient safety.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2014; 21:314-321