1
Using ED Overcrowding Assessment Tools to Improve Care and Throughput Webinar
May 29, 2014
CHA Webinar
Welcome
Liz Mekjavich
California Hospital Association
2
Continuing Education Offered for this Program
Health Care Executives — CHA is authorized to award 2 hours of pre-approved ACHE Qualified Education Credit (non-ACHE) for this program.
Nursing — Provider approved by the California Board of Registered Nursing, Provider Number CEP 11924 for 2.2 contact hours.
3
Continuing Education Requirements
Full attendance, completion of online survey, and attestation of attendance is required to receive CEs for this webinar. CEs are complimentary for registrant. If additional participants under the same registration would like to be awarded CEs, a fee of $20 per person, will apply. Post-event survey will be sent to registrant and provide information on how to apply online for additional CEs.
4
3
Program Overview
BJ Bartleson
California Hospital Association
Faculty: Dr. Steven Weiss
Steven Weiss, MD, is an experienced clinician, educator and researcher in the field of Emergency Medicine. With more than 100 publications to his name, he is well known for his work in ED crowding, injury prevention and emergency medical services. In 2002, Dr. Weiss coordinated and designed the National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale (NEDOCS) study which represented eight major academic institutions nationwide. Since that time he has been involved in numerous ED crowding studies including, most recently, the Community Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale (CEDOCS) study in California.
6
4
The Community Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale
Steven Weiss, MDUniversity of New Mexico Health Sciences Center
Understand the development of the NEDOCS scale
Be aware of the partnership between us and CHA and understand the development of the CEDOCS scoring tool
Objectives
5
9
Introduction
EDs provide an important public service mission
Overcrowding diminishes the capability of the ED to manage emergencies effectively
Institute of Medicine now concludes that ED crowding constitutes a national crisis
Increased Volumes
Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 9/.06 CDC.gov
6
11
Solutions
A. EMS Practices=input
B. ED Practices=throughput
C. Hospital Practices=output
Real-Time Throughput Monitoring
NEDOCS EDWIN READI EDCS ED Occupancy
7
Study Progression
1. NEDOCS derivation study
2. NEDOCS vs. EDWIN and prospective validation
3. Comparing NECOCS to LWBS
14
Introduction
No gold standard
No standardized scale or definition
“We do not know what overcrowding is but we know it when we see it!”
8
Methods – Sample
Hospitals included UC Davis, CA Jackson Memorial, FL SUNY Stonybrook, NY Temple U, PA Sinai-Grace Hospital, MI Brigham Womens, MA Harbor UCLA, CA
Methods – Outcome Variable
Each scored on a six-point Likert scale 1=Not busy 2=busy 3=extremely busy but not overcrowded 4=overcrowded 5=Severely overcrowded 6=Dangerously overcrowded
Compared for consistency Averaged equally into an Outcome Variable
9
Methods — Objective Data Criteria
Reflects various portions in ED patient management (i.e., triage, treatment, and disposition)
Is readily available and easily quantifiable
The results are reproducible between observers, and
Represent a “snapshot” of the ED
Variables Collected
18
Fixed variables Descriptors Time variables Count variables Ratio variables
10
19
NEDOCS score
The reduced model of overcrowding
Number of ED patients
Number of respirators in use in the ED
Total admits in the ED
Waiting room time for last patient called
Longest admit time
20
11
21
Comparison with EDWIN
EDWIN is defined as
Σniti/Na(BT-BA), ni = number of patients in the ED in triage category
ti ti = triage category based on ESI categories(1-5, 5
being most acute)
Na = number of attending physicians on duty
BT = number of treatment bays
BA = number of admitted/Obs patients in the ED
22
LWBS
Overcrowding was found in 44% of our sampling times
There was a significant correlation between LWBS and the NEDOCS score
Correlation was best for LWBS and overcrowding scale two hours after patient registration
12
23
Limitations
Lack of a true gold standard definition
Differences in definition of terms such as “diversion” and “critical care patients”
Pediatric EDs not specifically addressed
Generalizable only to other academic EDs
Community hospitals not specifically addressed
Prospective Validation ofscale
Stage 3B
Academic EDOvercrowding Scale
Community EDOvercrowding scale
Development of Full scale (Site Evaluation form)
Stage 1A
Development of Full scale (Site Evaluation form)
Stage 1B
Evaluation of Full scale andReduced scale development
Stage 2A
Evaluation of Full scale andReduced scale development
Stage 2B
Prospective Validation ofscale
Stage 3A
Fusion of the scales for evaluation of entirecommunity ED overcrowding issues.
Stage 4
Application of scale to complex issues 1. Patients leaving prior to full medical care. 2. Medical Errors 3. Diversion 4. Patient ED Acuity levels. 5. Patient Satisfaction Stage 5
13
25
CHA
Community hospitals not specifically addressed
We need a scale that is specific to the issues in California
How do we do this?
Consultation Phase for Me
26
Methods used in NEDOCS explained
Starting independent variables suggested
Methods of collecting the outcome variable were described
14
Variables Collected
27
Fixed Variables 4Descriptors 2Time variables 3Count Variables 9Ratio Variables 2
Total Variables considered 20
Fixed Variables Collected (4)
28
Hospital size/ED visits per year
Number of ED beds
Number of hospital beds
Percent occupancy of inpatient beds routinely used (recorded once daily)
15
29
Day of the week Time of the day
Descriptors Collected (2)
30
Time Variables Collected (3)
Longest time psychiatric patient is waiting in ED
Longest time patient is waiting to be seen in the ED
Longest time an admitted patient is still waiting in the ED
16
31
Count Variables Collected (9)
Number of pts in waiting room
Number of pts in the triage area (“Tweeners”)
Number of pts in the ED
Number of admitted and transfer pts in the ED
Number of psych pts in the ED
Number of nurses with direct care responsibilities
Total number of licensed nurses in the ED
Number of admitted critical care pts in the ED
Number of patients on ventilators in the ED
32
Ratio Variables (2)
ED pts-to-ED bed ratio Admitted pts to hospital bed
ratio
17
13 Total Hospital (Red=lowest, Bold=Highest)
Hospnum
Annual ER Visits(1000s)
Licensed Beds
Licensed ED Beds
Acute Routinely-
Used Inpatient
BedsTrauma center
(level)Base
Hospital
Annual Admissions
(1000s)1 31 64 26 62 - Yes 52 56 320 27 194 2 Yes 163 66 290 28 286 2 No 114 19 100 7 69 - Yes 55 41 460 36 423 - Yes 186 47 220 36 221 2 Yes 127 30 170 12 118 2 No 108 46 350 34 304 2 Yes 189 44 270 20 140 - Yes 11
10 43 200 19 114 - Yes 911 52 640 49 407 2 Yes 1812 49 380 36 316 - Yes 1713 67 310 34 313 2 Yes 16_
34
Methods
Each hospital had a data collector who ensured completion of this form every four hours for a two week period
18
35
Analysis Phase for Me
De-identified dataset sent to me for evaluation
36
What is R2
R2 is the coefficient of variability If the correlation coefficient is 0.5
the coefficient of variability is 0.25 If the correlation coefficient is 0.7
the coefficient of variability is 0.49 It means the variable explains 25%
and 49% of the final variable in the outcome
19
37
Variables
CorrelationED Numbers
Percent hospital occupancy (%) -0.01Total ED patients 0.55In waiting room 0.50Admitted and transfer patients 0.34Critical care patients 0.27Psychiatric pts 0.08In the triage area (Tweeners) 0.23On ventilators 0.08
38
Variables
Correlation
ED Times (hours-nearest 0.25 hr)
Longest admit time 0.23
Longest admit time for a psychiatric patient 0.00
Longest waiting room wait time 0.35
ED Staffing
# of staffed licensed nurses 0.20
# of direct care nurses 0.20
20
35% of sampling times had at least 1 psychiatric patient on hold
Median of 2 patients (1, 2)
Median time was 8 hrs (4, 14hrs)
Maximum was 27 patients and 109 hours waiting in the ED
The Psychiatric Patients
39
40
21
41
5-Variable Model
P R2
Critical care ED patients 0 0.463
ED visits per year 0 0.444
Longest wait time for admitted pt
0 0.409
Number of waiting room patients
0 0.361
ED patient-to-ED bed ratio 0 0.000
42
Determination of ER Visits/Year in the Model
3 degrees of Freedom -R2=0.474
22
43
5-Variable Final Model
Final Model r2 = 0.474 Full Model r2 = 0.501 Final model accounts for
0.474/0.501 = 95% of the full model
NEDOCS Number of ED beds
Number of hosp beds
ED patients
Respirators
Admits in the ED
Admitted patient wait time
Waiting room wait time
NEDOCS vs CEDOCS
CEDOCS Number of ED beds
Number of ED visits/year
ED patients
Critical care patients
Waiting room patients
Admitted patient wait time44
23
45
Correlation Values
VAS OUTCOMER2
CEDOCS 0.47
NEDOCS 0.39
Full Model 0.50R2 comparison to Overcrowding
NEDOCS – 78%CEDOCS – 95%
46
24
47
Website
http://hsc.unm.edu/emermed/ CEDOCS NEDOCS
Thank you
Steven Weiss, MD(505) 514-5087 [email protected]
48
25
Faculty: Aaron Wolff, RN
Aaron Wolff, RN, is the Trauma Service Line and Pre-Hospital Care manager for Dignity Health at the Mercy Medical Center in Redding. Mr. Wolff has held several positions for Dignity Health including corporate manager of Performance Improvement and director of Emergency and Trauma Service at Mercy Medical Center and director of Emergency Services and Endoscopy at the Redding Medical Center in Redding. Mr. Wolff is a registered nurse, public health nurse and a board certified emergency nurse.
49
P R E S E N T E D B Y:
Version 8.0 (June 2011)
Dignity Health
Emergency
Department
Over-
Crowding
Score
Aaron Wolff
26
What is DEDOCS: An analytic tool for assessing Emergency Department Saturation
• DEDOCS uses a mathematical formula to objectively determine the level of saturation of Emergency Department resources
• Standardizes the assessment and communication of “We are too busy”
• Links the assessment to evidence-based actions that will improve operational efficiency, care quality and capacity to accommodate business growth
• Tracks patterns of saturation and mitigation actions to support forecasting and action planning
51
Clinical purpose for using DEDOCS tool
52
Emergency Department Saturation and boarding is identified by The Joint
Commission, IHI, ENA and ACEP as a leading cause of
errors and negative outcomesfor Emergency Department patients
27
Regulatory Indications: Joint Commission Flow LD.04.03.11
Elements of Performance
53
• EP1: a process that supports the flow of patients throughout the hospital
• EP4: criteria guide to initiate ambulance diversion• EP5: measure and set goals for the components of
the patient flow process– Hospital leaders will need to use data and metrics in
a more systematic process. It is imperative for hospital leaders to monitor and manage the patient flow process throughout the entire organization
54
EP 6 (goes into effect January 1, 2014) measure and set goals for mitigating and managing the boarding of emergency department patients
EP 7 require the staffs or individuals who manage the patient flow processes to review the measurement results
EP 8 leaders (include, medical staff ,governing body, CNE, senior managers…) take action to improvepatient flow processes when goals are not achieved
Joint Commission Flow LD.04.03.11Elements of Performance
28
55
Calculating Saturation
When entering data the calculation is automated to produce a final score and level.
56
1
1. Click the Debrief Add2. Click Browse and
locate document3. Click Add and put in a
brief description
2
3
29
57
• Debrief Form Example: Must be completed for all Levels 4, 5 & 6
• May be in Word, Adobe or Excel
• Each site should create and include whatever is relevant based on their ED Decompression / Patient Throughput processes
Follow up debrief required for Levels 4, 5 & 6
58
To Review or Update a Debrief
1. Search, Open Entry and Click on View
2. Click on Open to see document
1
2
30
Daily Review – ED Manager and/or Director
59
Go to the Search Screen for a Quick Snapshot of the last 24 – 28 hours. Most recent Original Entry is first.
Could have multiple pages, so be certain to click Next to see more entries
You can click on any Entry and see the details or make updates
60
31
Automated Email Messages
61
# Template Recipient Description
1 Missing Entry ED Manager(s) for facility E-mail sent 120 minutes after expected entry has not been entered
2 Missing Debrief ED Manager(s) for facility E-mail sent 24 hours after saturation event with level >=4 and no debrief attached
3 No Assigned ED Manager Site Administrator(s) for facility E-mail sent when facility has no configured ED Manager(s). Only one e-mail is sent per week.
4 No Assigned Administrator System Administrator E-mail sent when facility has no configured ED Manager(s) or Site Administrator(s). Only one e-mail is sent per week.
• 1 & 2 sent to individuals designated as ED Managers• 3 to site process directors• 4 to system administrators
Example of Email Notification for Missed Entry
62
Example of Email Notification for Missed Debrief
32
2
63
Running a Report1. Click on reports in the
Menu Bar2. Select the date range and
the type of Report and click Generate.
1
64
When Dialog Box appears choose to Open or Save
Once the Report is Generated you can use in Excel like any other report file
33
Sample Reports and Reacting to Trends
65
Adding a User to your Facility
66
Navigate to the Facility Administration Page
Click on the Add Row link
34
Other Facility Administrator Functions
67
You will need to enter the following information for your facility:
• Total number of Functional Inpatient Beds in your facility. This should never be more than the total licensed beds
• Total number of beds designated for Emergency Services (could include trauma, psych, etc.) not including “hallway beds”
• Total number (if any) of Critical Care Beds allocated in ED from the Total in previous field. Recommendation from NEDOCS and in California pending legislation is not greater than 4
Defining the User Role
68
Select the role
35
Linking ASSESSMENT to ACTIONS
69
Summary of Value
Indicated for care quality management
Highlights growth opportunity Efficiency in “Load Leveling” Objective analysis of service promise probability
Fulfills regulatory requirements
Guides decisions related to InQuicker opportunity and service promises
70
37
Questions
Online questions:Type your question in the Q & A box, hit enter
Phone questions:To ask a question hit 14 To remove a question hit 13
Upcoming Programs
• Hospital Finance and Reimbursement SeminarsJune 5 – June 11, three programs
• Hospital Presumptive Eligibility WebinarJune 19, Sacramento
• Disaster Planning for California HospitalsSeptember 22 – 24, Sacramento
• Physician Leadership ProgramSeptember – April 2015, seven programs
74
38
Thank You and Evaluation
Thank you for participating in today’s program. An online evaluation will be sent to you shortly.
Reminder: evaluation completion is required to receive continuing education credits.
For education questions, contact Liz Mekjavich at (916) 552-7500 or [email protected].
75
Top Related