A Mixed-Methods Study of the Quality of Care Provided to Patients Boarding in the Emergency Department: Comparing Emergency Department and Inpatient Responsibility Models

Medical Care Research and Review (Impact Factor: 2.62). 08/2012; 69(6). DOI: 10.1177/1077558712457426
Source: PubMed


Concern exists regarding care patients receive while boarding (staying in the emergency department [ED] after a decision to admit has been made). This exploratory study compares care for such ED patients under "Inpatient Responsibility" (IPR) and "ED Responsibility" (EDR) models using mixed methods. The authors abstracted quantitative data from 1,431 patient charts for ED patients admitted to two academic hospitals in 2004-2005 and interviewed 10 providers for qualitative data. The authors compared delays using logistic regression and used provider interviews to explore reasons for quantitative findings. EDR patients had more delays to receiving home medications over the first 26 hours of admission but fewer while boarding; EDR patients had fewer delayed cardiac enzymes checks. Interviews revealed that culture, resource prioritization, and systems issues made care for boarded patients challenging. A theoretically better responsibility model may not deliver better care to boarded patients because of cultural, resource prioritization, and systems issues.

1 Follower
11 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives The aim of this paper, is to present a case to develop and test emergency department (ED)-specific approaches to improve the sequential detection, recognition and timely escalation of care for ED patients who have deteriorated after their initial triage and assessment.ResultsManaging the risk of clinical deterioration is a key feature of emergency care and underpins practice. However, although the epidemiology of deterioration in hospitalized ward patients has been well studied, the epidemiology of deterioration in ED patients is less understood. As ED workloads continue to increase, an emerging challenge for ED clinicians is how best to recognize and rapidly respond to deteriorating ED patients following triage and/or medical assessment. Rapid response systems for such patients exist in hospital wards; however, the use of rapid response systems in EDs is variable and largely unknown outside the UK.ConclusionA systematic approach to the early recognition of, and response to, deteriorating ED patients across the entire ED trajectory of care remains untested. Given the complexities of the ED environment, ward-based models of recognizing and responding to deteriorating patients may not meet the specific needs of the ED. (C) 2013 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
    European Journal of Emergency Medicine 01/2013; 20(6). DOI:10.1097/MEJ.0b013e32835d1e14 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Emergency department (ED) boarders, namely patients who have been admitted under an in-patient service but remain on a trolley in the ED, have long been a problem in the Irish healthcare system. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all ED boarders in Cork University Hospital (CUH) for a 6-month period from January to July 2011. Data were obtained from the Hospital In-Patient Enquiry Office (HIPE). The income generated by the hospital for a subset of these patients (January and February attendances) was obtained from the Finance Office in the hospital, based on diagnoses as recorded on the HIPE system. A convenience sample of two-thirds of the 39 acute hospitals nationally was surveyed to ascertain whether ED boarders were coded by individual HIPE offices as hospital in-patients or as ED attendees. A total of 806 patients were admitted to an in-patient service from January to July 2011 in CUH and subsequently discharged, having completed their entire stay in the ED. The income generated by a sub-sample of 228 patients (January and February ED boarders) was determined. The hospital was remunerated by 685,111 for these patients, i.e. an average income of 3,098 per patient. Only 8 hospitals of the 27 surveyed hospitals coded overnight ED Boarders as in-patients and were thus able to request income for these patients appropriately. Discrepancies in coding of ED boarders may result in significant revenue losses for certain hospitals.
    Irish Journal of Medical Science 08/2013; 183(2). DOI:10.1007/s11845-013-0992-0 · 0.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Hospital crowding and emergency department (ED) boarding is a large and growing problem. To date, there has been a paucity of information regarding the quality of care received by patients boarding in the ED compared to the care received by patients on an inpatient unit. We compared the rate of delays and adverse events at the event level that occur while boarding in the ED versus while on an inpatient unit. Methods This study was a secondary analysis of data from chart review and administrative databases at two urban academic teaching hospitals from August 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005. We measured delayed repeat cardiac enzymes, delayed partial thromboplastin time (PTT) level checks, delayed antibiotic administration, delayed administration of home medications and adverse events. We compared the incidence of events during ED boarding versus while on an inpatient unit. Results Among 1,431 patient charts, we identified 1,016 events. ED boarding was associated with an increased risk of home medication delays (Risk Ratio [RR] = 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26-1.88), delayed antibiotic administration (RR = 2.49; 95% CI = 1.72-3.52) and adverse events (RR = 2.36; 95% CI = 1.15-4.72). On the contrary, ED boarding was associated with fewer delays in repeat cardiac enzymes (RR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.09-0.27) and delayed PTT checks (RR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.27-0.96). Conclusion Compared to inpatient units, ED boarding was associated with more medication related delays and adverse events but fewer laboratory-related delays. Until we can eliminate ED boarding, it is critical to identify areas for improvement.
    American Journal of Emergency Medicine 09/2014; 32(9). DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2014.06.001 · 1.27 Impact Factor
Show more