Article

Qualitative Factors in Patients Who Die Shortly After Emergency Department Discharge

Department of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
Academic Emergency Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.2). 08/2013; 20(8):778-85. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12181
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Early death after emergency department (ED) discharge may signal opportunities to improve care. Prior studies are limited by incomplete mortality ascertainment and lack of clinically important information in administrative data. The goal in this hypothesis-generating study was to identify patient and process of care themes that may provide possible explanations for early postdischarge mortality.
This was a qualitative analysis of medical records of adult patients who visited the ED of any of six hospitals in an integrated health system (Kaiser Permanente Southern California [KPSC]) and died within 7 days of discharge in 2007 and 2008. Nonmembers, visits to non-health plan hospitals, patients receiving or referred to hospice care, and patients with do not attempt resuscitation or do not intubate orders (DNAR/DNI) were excluded. Under the guidance of two qualitative research scientists, a team of three emergency physicians used grounded theory techniques to identify patient clinical presentations and processes of care that serve as potential explanations for poor outcome after discharge.
The source population consisted of a total of 290,092 members with 446,120 discharges from six KPSC EDs in 2007 and 2008. A total of 203 deaths occurred within 7 days of ED discharge (0.05%). Sixty-one randomly chosen cases were reviewed. Patient-level themes that emerged included an unexplained persistent acute change in mental status, recent fall, abnormal vital signs, ill-appearing presentation, malfunctioning indwelling device, and presenting symptoms remaining at discharge. Process-of-care factors included a discrepancy in history of present illness, incomplete physical examination, and change of discharge plan by a third party, such as a consulting or admitting physician.
In this hypothesis-generating study, qualitative research techniques were used to identify clinical and process-of-care factors in patients who died within days after discharge from an ED. These potential predictors will be formally tested in a future quantitative study.

Full-text

Available from: Jerome R Hoffman, May 16, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
72 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We aimed to determine the rate of preventable death in patients that died early and unexpectedly following hospital admission from the Emergency Department (ED). We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in four centers from the Paris metropolitan area. Inclusion criteria were medical patients that died in hospital within 72 hours of ED attendance and were not admitted to the intensive care unit (unexpected death). Exclusion criteria were limitations of care determined by treating physicians. The existence of a limitation of care decision was adjudicated by two independent chart abstractors. Preventable death was defined as death occurring as a result of medical error. For each selected patient with unexpected death, charts were examined for medical errors and rated on a 1 to 5 preventability scale (from very unlikely to very likely) the preventability of the death. The primary endpoint was the likely preventable death, rated as 4 or 5 on the preventability scale. We retrieved 555 charts; 47 unexpected deaths were analysed; 24 (51%) were considered as preventable. There was a median number of medical errors of two. The most common process breakdowns were incorrect choice of treatment (47% of patients) and failure to order appropriate diagnostic tests (38% of patients). The most common medical error was a severe delay or absence of recommended treatment for severe sepsis, which occurred in ten (42%) patients. In our sample, more than half of unexpected deaths are related to a medical error, and could have been prevented.
    Critical care (London, England) 04/2015; 19(1):154. DOI:10.1186/s13054-015-0877-x