Person:

Aaronson, Emily

Background: As global emergency care grows, practical and effective performance measures are needed to ensure high quality care. Our objective was to systematically catalog and classify metrics that have been used to measure the quality of emergency care in resource-limited settings. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the gray literature using standardized terms. The references of included articles were also reviewed. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts for relevance; full text was then reviewed by three researchers. A structured data extraction tool was used to identify and classify metrics into one of six Institute of Medicine (IOM) quality domains (safe, timely, efficient, effective, equitable, patient-centered) and one of three of Donabedian’s structure/process/outcome categories. A fourth expert reviewer blinded to the initial classifications re-classified all indicators, with a weighted kappa of 0.89. Results: A total of 1705 articles were screened, 95 received full text review, and 34 met inclusion criteria. One hundred eighty unique metrics were identified, predominantly process (57 %) and structure measures (27 %); 16 % of metrics were related to outcomes. Most metrics evaluated the effectiveness (52 %) and timeliness (28 %) of care, with few addressing the patient centeredness (11 %), safety (4 %), resource-efficiency (3 %), or equitability (1 %) of care. Conclusions: The published quality metrics in emergency care in resource-limited settings primarily focus on the effectiveness and timeliness of care. As global emergency care is built and strengthened, outcome-based measures and those focused on the safety, efficiency, and equitability of care need to be developed and studied to improve quality of care and resource utilization. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12245-015-0088-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: Our goal was to develop and validate an index to predict in-hospital mortality in older adults after non-traumatic emergency department (ED) intubations. Methods: We used Vizient administrative data from hospitalizations of 22,374 adults ≥75 years who underwent non-traumatic ED intubation from 2008–2015 at nearly 300 U.S. hospitals to develop and validate an index to predict in-hospital mortality. We randomly selected one half of participants for the development cohort and one half for the validation cohort. Considering 25 potential predictors, we developed a multivariable logistic regression model using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method to determine factors associated with in-hospital mortality. We calculated risk scores using points derived from the final model’s beta coefficients. To evaluate calibration and discrimination of the final model, we used Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square test and receiver-operating characteristic analysis and compared mortality by risk groups in the development and validation cohorts. Results: Death during the index hospitalization occurred in 40% of cases. The final model included six variables: history of myocardial infarction, history of cerebrovascular disease, history of metastatic cancer, age, admission diagnosis of sepsis, and admission diagnosis of stroke/ intracranial hemorrhage. Those with low-risk scores (<6) had 31% risk of in-hospital mortality while those with high-risk scores (>10) had 58% risk of in-hospital mortality. The Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square of the model was 6.47 (p=0.09), and the c-statistic was 0.62 in the validation cohort. Conclusion: The model may be useful in identifying older adults at high risk of death after ED intubation.

Introduction: Morbidity and mortality conferences (M+M) are a traditional part of residency training and mandated by the Accreditation Counsel of Graduate Medical Education. This study’s objective was to determine the goals, structure, and the prevalence of practices that foster strong safety cultures in the M+Ms of U.S. emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. Methods: The authors conducted a national survey of U.S. EM residency program directors. The survey instrument evaluated five domains of M+M (Organization and Infrastructure; Case Finding; Case Selection; Presentation; and Follow up) based on the validated Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality Safety Culture survey. Results: There was an 80% (151/188) response rate. The primary objectives of M+M were discussing adverse outcomes (53/151, 35%), identifying systems errors (47/151, 31%) and identifying cognitive errors (26/151, 17%). Fifty-six percent (84/151) of institutions have anonymous case submission, with 10% (15/151) maintaining complete anonymity during the presentation and 21% (31/151) maintaining partial anonymity. Forty-seven percent (71/151) of programs report a formal process to follow up on systems issues identified at M+M. Forty-four percent (67/151) of programs report regular debriefing with residents who have had their cases presented. Conclusion: The structure and goals of M+Ms in EM residencies vary widely. Many programs lack features of M+M that promote a non-punitive response to error, such as anonymity. Other programs lack features that support strong safety cultures, such as following up on systems issues or reporting back to residents on improvements. Further research is warranted to determine if M+M structure is related to patient safety culture in residency programs.