Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) in the United States (US) have increasingly taken the central role for the expedited diagnosis and treatment of acute episodic illnesses and exacerbations of chronic diseases, allowing outpatient management to be possible for many conditions that traditionally required hospitalization and inpatient care. The goal of this analysis was to examine the changes in ED care intensity in this context through the changes in ED patient population and ED care provided.

Methods: We analyzed the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) from 2007-2016. Incorporating survey design and weight, we calculated the changes in ED patient characteristics and ED care provided between 2007 and 2016. We also calculated changes in the proportion of visits with low-severity illnesses that may be safely managed at alternative settings. Lastly, we compared ED care received and final ED dispositions by calculating adjusted relative risk (aRR) comparing ED visits in 2007 to 2016, using survey weighted multivariable logistic regression.

Results: NHAMCS included 35,490 visits in 2007 and 19,467 visits in 2016, representing 117 million and 146 million ED visits, respectively. Between 2007 and 2016, there was an increase in the proportion of ED patients aged 45-64 (21.0% to 23.6%) and 65-74 (5.9% to 7.5%), while visits with low-severity illnesses decreased from 37.3% to 30.4%. There was a substantial increase in the proportion of Medicaid patients (22.2% to 34.0%) with corresponding decline in the privately insured (36.2% to 28.3%) and the uninsured (15.4% to 8.6%) patients. After adjusting for patient and visit characteristics, there was an increase in the utilization of advanced imaging (aRR 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.41), blood tests (aRR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22), urinalysis (aRR 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31), and visits where the patient received four or more medications (aRR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.88-2.46). Lastly, adjusted hospitalization rates declined (aRR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84) while adjusted discharge rates increased (aRR 1.06; 95%CI 1.03-1.08). Conclusion: From 2007 to 2016, ED care intensity appears to have increased modestly, including aging of patient population, increased illness severity, and increased resources utilization. The role of increased care intensity in the decline of ED hospitalization rate requires further study.

Introduction: With the majority of U.S. hospitals not having primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) capabilities, the time spent at transferring emergency departments (EDs) is predictive of clinical outcomes for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Compounding the challenges of delivering timely emergency care are the known delays caused by ED crowding. However, the association of ED crowding with timeliness for patients with STEMI is unknown. We sought to examine the relationship between ED crowding and time spent at transferring EDs for patients with STEMI.

Methods: We analyzed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) quality data. The outcome was time spent at a transferring ED (i.e., door-in-door-out [DIDO]), was CMS measure OP-3b for hospitals with ≥10 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) cases requiring transfer (i.e., STEMI) annually: Time to Transfer an AMI Patient for Acute Coronary Intervention. We used four CMS ED timeliness measures as surrogate measures of ED crowding: admitted length of stay (LOS), discharged LOS, boarding time, and waiting time. We analyzed bivariate associations between DIDO and ED timeliness measures. We used a linear multivariable regression to evaluate the contribution of hospital characteristics (academic, trauma, rural, ED volume) to DIDO.

Results: Data were available for 405 out of 4,129 hospitals for the CMS DIDO measure. These facilities were primarily non-academic (99.0%), non-trauma centers (65.4%), and in urban locations (68.5%). Median DIDO was 54.0 minutes (IQR 42.0,68.0). Increased DIDO time was associated with longer admitted LOS and boarding times. After adjusting for hospital characteristics, a one-minute increase in ED LOS at transferring facilities was associated with DIDO (coefficient, 0.084 [95% CI [0.049,0.119]]; p<0.001). This translates into a five-minute increase in DIDO for every one-hour increase in ED LOS for admitted patients.

Conclusion: Among patients with STEMI presenting to U.S. EDs, we found that ED crowding has a small but operationally insignificant effect on time spent at the transferring ED.

Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) are an important source of care for underserved populations and represent a significant part of the social safety net. In order to explore the effect of freestanding emergency departments (FSED) on access to care for urban underserved populations, we performed a geospatial analysis comparing the proximity of FSEDs and hospital EDs to public transit lines in three United States (U.S.) metropolitan areas: Houston, Denver, and Cleveland.

Methods: We used publicly available U.S. Census data, public transportation maps obtained from regional transit authorities, and geocoded FSED and hospital ED locations. Euclidean distance from each FSED and hospital ED to the nearest public transit line was calculated in ArcGIS. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) of an FSED, relative to a hospital ED, being located within 0.5 miles (mi) of a public transit line using logistic regression, adjusting for population density and median household income and with error clustered at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level.

Results: The median distance from FSEDs to public transit lines was significantly greater than from hospital EDs across all three markets. In Houston, Denver, and Cleveland, the median distance between FSEDs and public transit lines was greater than from hospital EDs by 1.0 mi, 0.2 mi, and 1.6 mi, respectively. The OR of a public transit line being located within 0.5 mi of an FSED, as compared with a hospital ED, across all three MSAs was 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13–0.34) unadjusted and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.11–0.40) adjusted for population density and median household income.

Conclusion: In comparison with hospital EDs, FSEDs are located farther from public transit lines and are less likely to be within walking distance of public transportation. These findings suggest that FSEDs are unlikely to directly increase access to care for patients without private means of transportation. Further research is necessary to explore both the direct and indirect impact of FSEDs on access to care, potentially through effects on hospital ED crowding and overall healthcare expenditures, as well as the ultimate role and responsibility of FSEDs in improving access to care for underserved populations.

Introduction: Although the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates structured case review and discussion as a part of residency training, there remains little guidance on how best to structure these conferences to cultivate a culture of safety, promote learning, and ensure that system-based improvements can be made. We hypothesized that anonymous case discussion was associated with a more effective, and less punitive, morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference. Secondarily, we were interested in determining whether this core structural element was correlated with the culture of safety at an institution.

Methods: We conducted a national survey at 33 emergency medicine residency programs evaluating residents’ perceptions of M&M and the culture of safety at their institutions. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses. We summarized Likert scores using mean and 95% confidence intervals. We also performed content analysis of the free-text comments and report on the themes identified.

Results: There were 1248 residents at the 33 programs surveyed. Of the 1002 who replied (80.3% response rate), 231 respondents reported anonymous case presentations and 744 reported non-anonymous case presentations. Residents at programs with anonymous case presentations were more likely to report that M&M was non-punitive. There were no other significant differences between anonymous and non-anonymous case presentations on any of the culture of safety domains measured. When these comments were systematically analyzed and coded, we found that the comments related to anonymity were both positive and negative. Among the themes identified were anonymity’s impact on punitive response to error, the ability to learn from cases, and professional responsibility.

Conclusion: Anonymous M&Ms are associated with a perception of a less-punitive M&M and with better ratings in several conference-specific outcomes; however, there appears to be no association between the other Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality culture of safety scores and anonymity in M&M.