The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare quality in the emergency department, including directly impacting quality metrics and worsening barriers to the quality improvement process such as burnout, staff turnover, and boarding. We aimed to develop a blueprint for postpandemic quality improvement to address these specific barriers, focused on prioritizing frontline staff engagement from idea generation to implementation and assessment. Drawing from teamwork literature, we constructed a process that emphasized egalitarian conversations, psychological safety, and creating an environment where staff could feel heard at every step of the process. We applied this blueprint to improving rates of patients who leave without being seen and achieved a four percentage point reduction (9% vs. 5%, p < 0.001), with high rates of staff satisfaction with the process. We conclude that while postpandemic quality improvement presents significant challenges, we can rise to meet those challenges by adapting existing quality improvement processes to increase frontline staff engagement.

Clinical guidelines are evidence-based clinician decision-support tools that improve health outcomes, reduce patient harm, and decrease healthcare costs, but are often underused in emergency departments (EDs). This article describes a replicable, evidence-based design-thinking approach to developing best practices for guideline design that improves clinical satisfaction and usage. We used a 5-step process to enhance guideline usability in our ED. First, we conducted end-user interviews to identify barriers to guideline usage. Second, we reviewed the literature to identify key principles in guideline design. Third, we applied our findings to create a standardized guideline format, incorporating rapid cycle learning and iterative improvements. Fourth, we ensured the clinical validity of our updated guidelines by using a rigorous process for peer review. Lastly, we evaluated the impact of our guideline conversion process by tracking clinical guidelines access per day from October 2020 to January 2022. Our end-user interviews and review of the design literature revealed several barriers to guideline use, including lack of readability, design inconsistencies, and guideline complexity. Although our previous clinical guideline system averaged 0.13 users per day, >43 users per day accessed the clinical guidelines on our new digital platform in January 2022, representing an increase in access and use exceeding 33,000%. Our replicable process using open-access resources increased clinician access to and satisfaction with clinical guidelines in our ED. Design-thinking and use of low-cost technology can significantly improve clinical guideline visibility and has the potential to increase guideline use.

Background

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic generated an unprecedented volume of evolving clinical guidelines that strained existing clinical information systems and necessitated rapid innovation in emergency departments (EDs).

Objectives

Our team aimed to harness new COVID-19-related reliance on digital clinical support tools to re-envision how all clinical guidelines are stored and accessed in our ED.

Methods

We used a design-thinking approach including empathizing, defining the problem, ideating, prototyping, and testing to develop a low-cost, homegrown clinical information hub: E*Drive. To measure impact, we compared web traffic on E*Drive to our legacy cloud-based folder system and conducted a survey of end-users using a validated health technology utilization instrument.

Results

Our final product, E*Drive, is a centralized clinical information hub storing everything from clinical guidelines to discharge resources. Clinical guidelines are standardized and housed within the high-traffic E*Drive platform to increase accessibility. Since launch, E*Drive has averaged 84 unique weekly users, compared with less than one weekly user on the legacy system. We surveyed 52 clinicians for a total response rate of 47%. Prior to the E*Drive rollout, 12.5% of ED clinicians felt confident accessing clinical information on the legacy system, whereas 76.6% of ED clinicians felt they could more easily access clinical information using E*Drive.

Conclusion

The COVID pandemic revealed vulnerabilities within our information dissemination system and presented an opportunity to improve clinical information delivery. Centralized web-based clinical information hubs designed around the clinician end-user experience can increase clinical guideline access in the ED.

Objective

We aimed to compare general surgery emergency (GSE) volume, demographics and disease severity before and during COVID-19.

Background

Presentations to the emergency department (ED) for GSEs fell during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers to accessing care may be heightened, especially for vulnerable populations, and patients delaying care raises public health concerns.

Methods

We included adult patients with ED presentations for potential GSEs at a single quaternary-care hospital from January 2018 to August 2020. To compare GSE volumes in total and by subgroup, an interrupted time-series analysis was performed using the March shelter-in-place order as the start of the COVID-19 period. Bivariate analysis was used to compare demographics and disease severity.

Results

3255 patients (28/week) presented with potential GSEs before COVID-19, while 546 (23/week) presented during COVID-19. When shelter-in-place started, presentations fell by 8.7/week (31%) from the previous week (p<0.001), driven by decreases in peritonitis (β=-2.76, p=0.017) and gallbladder disease (β=-2.91, p=0.016). During COVID-19, patients were younger (54 vs 57, p=0.001), more often privately insured (44% vs 38%, p=0.044), and fewer required interpreters (12% vs 15%, p<0.001). Fewer patients presented with sepsis during the pandemic (15% vs 20%, p=0.009) and the average severity of illness decreased (p<0.001). Length of stay was shorter during the COVID-19 period (3.91 vs 5.50 days, p<0.001).

Conclusions

GSE volumes and severity fell during the pandemic. Patients presenting during the pandemic were less likely to be elderly, publicly insured and have limited English proficiency, potentially exacerbating underlying health disparities and highlighting the need to improve care access for these patients.

Level of evidence

III.

Patients experiencing homelessness face significant barriers to screening and treatment for colorectal cancer, leading to worse outcomes. In this perspective, we use an exemplar patient case to highlight potential policy solutions for reducing this health care disparity by increasing access to early detection and treatment in this population.

Homelessness is a growing concern across the world, particularly as individuals experiencing homelessness age and face an increasing burden of chronic health conditions. Although substantial research has focused on the medical and psychiatric care of patients experiencing homelessness, literature about the surgical care of these patients is sparse. Our objective was to review the literature to identify areas of concern unique to patients experiencing homelessness with surgical disease. A scoping review was conducted using a comprehensive database for studies from 1990 to September 1, 2020. Studies that included patients who were unhoused and discussed surgical care were included. The inclusion criteria were designed to identify evidence that directly affected surgical care, systems management, and policy making. Findings were organized within a Phases of Surgical Care framework: preoperative care, intraoperative care, postoperative care, and global use. Our search strategy yielded 553 unique studies, of which 23 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were performed at public and/or safety-net hospitals or via administrative datasets, and surgical specialties that were represented included orthopedic, cardiac, plastic surgery trauma, and vascular surgery. Using the Surgical Phases of Care framework, we identified studies that described the impact of housing status in pre- and postoperative phases as well as global use. There was limited identification of barriers to surgical and anesthetic best practices in the intraoperative phase. More than half of studies (52.2%) lacked a clear definition of homelessness. Thus, there is a marked gap in the surgical literature regarding the impact of housing status on optimal surgical care, with the largest area for improvement in the intraoperative phase of surgical and anesthetic decision making. Consistent use of clear definitions of homelessness is lacking. To promote improved care, a standardized approach to recording housing status is needed, and studies must explore vulnerabilities in surgical care unique to this population.

Background

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to the postponement of low-acuity surgical procedures in an effort to conserve resources and ensure patient safety. This study aimed to characterize patient-reported concerns about undergoing surgical procedures during the pandemic.

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional survey to patients who had their general and plastic surgical procedures postponed at the onset of the pandemic, asking about barriers to accessing surgical care. Questions addressed dependent care, transportation, employment and insurance status, as well as perceptions of and concerns about COVID-19. Mixed methods and inductive thematic analyses were conducted.

Results

One hundred thirty-five patients were interviewed. We identified the following patient concerns: contracting COVID-19 in the hospital (46%), being alone during hospitalization (40%), facing financial stressors (29%), organizing transportation (28%), experiencing changes to health insurance coverage (25%), and arranging care for dependents (18%). Nonwhite participants were 5 and 2.5 times more likely to have concerns about childcare and transportation, respectively. Perceptions of decreased hospital safety and the consequences of possible COVID-19 infection led to delay in rescheduling. Education about safety measures and communication about scheduling partially mitigated concerns about COVID-19. However, uncertainty about timeline for rescheduling and resolution of the pandemic contributed to ongoing concerns.

Conclusions

Providing effective surgical care during this unprecedented time requires both awareness of societal shifts impacting surgical patients and system-level change to address new barriers to care. Eliciting patients' perspectives, adapting processes to address potential barriers, and effectively educating patients about institutional measures to minimize in-hospital transmission of COVID-19 should be integrated into surgical care.