Safety assessment of a redirection program using an electronic application for low-acuity patients visiting an emergency department.
Healthcare Use
Low-acuity patients
Quality of care
Redirection
Journal
BMC emergency medicine
ISSN: 1471-227X
Titre abrégé: BMC Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968543
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 04 2022
29 04 2022
Historique:
received:
04
10
2021
accepted:
01
04
2022
entrez:
29
4
2022
pubmed:
30
4
2022
medline:
4
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Emergency departments (EDs) are operating at or above capacity, which has negative consequences on patients in terms of quality of care and morbi-mortality. Redirection strategies for low-acuity ED patients to primary care practices are usually based on subjective eligibility criteria that sometimes necessitate formal medical assessment. Literature investigating the effect of those interventions is equivocal. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety of a redirection process using an electronic clinical support system used by the triage nurse without physician assessment. A single cohort observational study was performed in the ED of a level 1 academic trauma center. All low-acuity patients redirected to nearby clinics through a clinical decision support system (February-August 2017) were included. This system uses different sets of medical prerequisites to identify patients eligible to redirection. Data on safety and patient experience were collected through phone questionnaires on day 2 and 10 after ED visit. The primary endpoint was the rate of redirected patients returning to any ED for an unexpected visit within 48 h. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of 7-day return visit and satisfaction rates. A total of 980 redirected low-acuity patients were included over the period: 18 patients (2.8%) returned unexpectedly to an ED within 48 h and 31 patients (4.8%) within 7 days. No hospital admission or death were reported within 7 days following the first ED visit. Among redirected patients, 81% were satisfied with care provided by the clinic staff. The implementation of a specific electronic-guided decision support redirection protocol appeared to provide safe deferral to nearby clinics for redirected low-acuity patients. EDs are pivotal elements of the healthcare system pathway and redirection process could represent an interesting tool to improve the care to low-acuity patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Emergency departments (EDs) are operating at or above capacity, which has negative consequences on patients in terms of quality of care and morbi-mortality. Redirection strategies for low-acuity ED patients to primary care practices are usually based on subjective eligibility criteria that sometimes necessitate formal medical assessment. Literature investigating the effect of those interventions is equivocal. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety of a redirection process using an electronic clinical support system used by the triage nurse without physician assessment.
METHODS
A single cohort observational study was performed in the ED of a level 1 academic trauma center. All low-acuity patients redirected to nearby clinics through a clinical decision support system (February-August 2017) were included. This system uses different sets of medical prerequisites to identify patients eligible to redirection. Data on safety and patient experience were collected through phone questionnaires on day 2 and 10 after ED visit. The primary endpoint was the rate of redirected patients returning to any ED for an unexpected visit within 48 h. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of 7-day return visit and satisfaction rates.
RESULTS
A total of 980 redirected low-acuity patients were included over the period: 18 patients (2.8%) returned unexpectedly to an ED within 48 h and 31 patients (4.8%) within 7 days. No hospital admission or death were reported within 7 days following the first ED visit. Among redirected patients, 81% were satisfied with care provided by the clinic staff.
CONCLUSION
The implementation of a specific electronic-guided decision support redirection protocol appeared to provide safe deferral to nearby clinics for redirected low-acuity patients. EDs are pivotal elements of the healthcare system pathway and redirection process could represent an interesting tool to improve the care to low-acuity patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35488215
doi: 10.1186/s12873-022-00626-4
pii: 10.1186/s12873-022-00626-4
pmc: PMC9052637
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
71Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Emerg Med J. 2019 Oct;36(10):625-630
pubmed: 31494576
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Feb;20(1):20-6
pubmed: 24033413
Qual Manag Health Care. 2006 Jul-Sep;15(3):163-70
pubmed: 16849988
Emerg Med J. 2011 Aug;28(8):658-61
pubmed: 20668112
CJEM. 2004 Sep;6(5):337-42
pubmed: 17381991
CJEM. 2020 Sep;22(5):641-643
pubmed: 32962791
Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Aug;52(2):126-36
pubmed: 18433933
Emerg Med Int. 2013;2013:364659
pubmed: 24282641
CJEM. 2007 Jul;9(4):260-6
pubmed: 17626690
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD002097
pubmed: 23152213
BMC Emerg Med. 2018 Aug 22;18(1):26
pubmed: 30134934
CJEM. 2003 Sep;5(5):323-9
pubmed: 17466140
Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Dec;11(12):1302-10
pubmed: 15576521
Int J Emerg Med. 2008 Apr;1(1):11-20
pubmed: 19384496
CJEM. 2013 Nov;15(6):359-84
pubmed: 24176460
Br J Gen Pract. 2010 Oct;60(579):e378-84
pubmed: 20883612
CJEM. 2021 Jan;23(1):26-28
pubmed: 33683618
CJEM. 2002 Jan;4(1):16-22
pubmed: 17637144
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 19;9(6):e026200
pubmed: 31221873
CJEM. 2022 Jan;24(1):23-26
pubmed: 33748940
N Am J Med Sci. 2015 Jul;7(7):299-305
pubmed: 26258076
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 11;9(4):e024501
pubmed: 30975667
Scott Med J. 2017 Feb;62(1):2-10
pubmed: 28173740
Emerg Med J. 2015 Apr;32(4):295-300
pubmed: 24406328
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 13;2:CD002097
pubmed: 29438575
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 08;10(4):e0123803
pubmed: 25853822
CJEM. 2020 Sep;22(5):638-640
pubmed: 32962786
Emerg Med Australas. 2016 Feb;28(1):7-26
pubmed: 26784282
BMJ. 2011 Jun 01;342:d2983
pubmed: 21632665
PLoS Med. 2016 Sep 06;13(9):e1002113
pubmed: 27598248
Emerg Med J. 2016 Jul;33(7):495-503
pubmed: 27068868
Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Jul;60(1):71-7.e3
pubmed: 22305329
Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Feb;55(2):142-160.e1
pubmed: 19556030
Med J Aust. 2010 Apr 19;192(8):448-51
pubmed: 20402608
J Emerg Med. 2010 May;38(4):512-7
pubmed: 18947963
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 30;13(8):e0203316
pubmed: 30161242
BMJ. 1996 May 4;312(7039):1135-42
pubmed: 8620132
Am J Emerg Med. 2013 Oct;31(10):1490-4
pubmed: 24029494
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Jun;29(6):449-464
pubmed: 31666304
J Emerg Med. 2012 Jun;42(6):736-40
pubmed: 22209550
Emerg Med J. 2019 Feb;36(2):97-106
pubmed: 30510034
Acad Emerg Med. 2013 Jan;20(1):33-9
pubmed: 23570476
Aust Health Rev. 2004 Dec 13;28(3):285-91
pubmed: 15595910