1 / 29

CEM/IFEM Symousium: Quality and Safety in Emergency Care November 15th, 2011   Michael Schull, MD

Mitigating threats to high quality, safe patient care created by ED overcrowding: The Canadian Perspective. CEM/IFEM Symousium: Quality and Safety in Emergency Care November 15th, 2011   Michael Schull, MD. Disclosures. Advisor to Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

moshe
Download Presentation

CEM/IFEM Symousium: Quality and Safety in Emergency Care November 15th, 2011   Michael Schull, MD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Mitigating threats to high quality, safe patient care created by ED overcrowding: The Canadian Perspective CEM/IFEM Symousium: Quality and Safety in Emergency Care November 15th, 2011   Michael Schull, MD

  2. Disclosures • Advisor to Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care • No industry funding • Funded by several Canadian Federal research agencies

  3. Objectives: • To provide a perspective on efforts to reduce risks associated with ED overcrowding in Canada • (as opposed to providing the perspectives of a Canadian…)

  4. Summary, take home, money slide • Where system-wide efforts have taken place to mitigate ED overcrowding in Canada, the target has been reduction in overall ED length-of-stay (waiting time) • ED LOS = waiting time = total time in ED

  5. Common interventions to reduce ED LOS • Waiting time targets • Public reporting • Pay-for-performance incentives • LEAN-type interventions to improve ED and in-patient flow, and speed hospital discharges • Sanctions for poor performance

  6. Variation in ED waiting time targets

  7. Have we got this right? • Is targeting reductions in overall ED LOS the right approach? • Mixed views on use of ED waiting time as a quality/safety indicator • Should we rather target high acuity conditions with time sensitive treatments (STEMI, stroke, sepsis)?

  8. Question: are ED patients who were not admitted to hospital at greater risk of death or hospitalization within 7 days of ED departure when they visited an ED during a shift with long ED waiting times? Design: 5 years of data, all higher volume EDs, controlled for important confounders, databases included death certificates so could include deaths in community as well.

  9. Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) by DEGREE OF CROWDING for death and hospitalization within 7 days of an ED visit, all discharged high acuity patients

  10. If overall waiting times are bad, does that make waiting time targets good? • Longer ED waiting times associated with serious adverse events, but that doesn’t mean that better performance on current ED waiting time targets will improve outcomes….

  11. Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) by TARGET ATTAINMENT for death and hospitalization within 7 days of an ED visit, all discharged high acuity patients Not yet peer-reviewed!

  12. “Informal” vs formal LEAN-type efforts to improve patient flow • Many hospitals working to improve waiting times, and some have brought in consultants for LEAN or Six Sigma programs to improve patient flow • Might this convey some safety advantage, or put excess emphasis on efficiency at the expense of patient safety?

  13. “Informal” vs formal LEAN-type efforts to improve patient flow • Ontario launched ED Process Improvement Program at 90 hospitals from 2009-2011 in 4 waves • 8-month, consultant led model, ED, in-patient and discharge teams to improve flow • Evaluated in comparison with control sites, looking at effect on waiting times and patien safety

  14. Independent effect of LEAN-type intervention compared with control hospitals (wave 3) Better Worse

  15. To develop a consensus on a prioritized and parsimonious set of evidence-based quality of care indicators for EDs. The process was led by a nationally representative committees (reps from administration, EM, health information, government, and provincial quality councils). A comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify candidate indicators CJEM 2011; 13(5)

  16. Top priority indicators by ranking

  17. Gaps in existing indicators • Patient satisfaction/experience • Healthy workplace • Elder care • Hospital-community integration

  18. So we have indicators…could somebody please use them? • Limited adoption at a system level, though many hospitals measure some of the indicators. • Extent of sharing of data across sites is unknown, but likely limited • Limited “shelf-life”, sundown clauses?

  19. Would managing more indicators help mitigate crowding? • Doubtful: focusing solely on potential adverse consequences of crowding by measuring multiple focused indicators might lead to a piecemeal approach to ED patient care based on chief complaint or diagnosis. • Need balanced approach: focus on overall waiting times AND condition-specific ones

  20. But are we forgetting more remote effects of crowding after leaving our EDs? • Solutions for ED crowding lie largely outside the ED…similarly, should we be looking beyond our EDs when thinking about quality/safety? • E.g. Failure to ensure adequate follow-up for our discharged patients?

  21. Follow-up outpatient care within 30 days of ED discharge for an acute exacerbation of CHF, COPD or Diabetes, all EDs, Ontario, 2005-2008 Source: Schull et al. ICES unpublished

  22. Care model post-ED discharge for CHF and 1 year mortality, all Ontario EDs, 2004-2006 Source: Lee et al. Circulation November 2, 2010 vol. 122 no. 18 1806-1814

  23. But are we forgetting more remote effects of crowding after leaving our EDs? • What about remote adverse consequences of decisions made in the ED…such as causing cancer. • (mis)use of ionizing radiation among ED patients

  24. Rate of CT utilization among all ED patients, USA vs Ontario (2003-2008) Berdahl C et al. SAEM 2011

  25. Thank you! We’d like to open the floor to shorter speeches disguised as questions.

  26. Change in Median ED Waiting Time Post-LEAN-type intervention (wave 3)

  27. Change in Median ED Waiting Time Post-LEAN-type intervention (wave 3)

  28. Change in Median ED Waiting Time Post-LEAN-type intervention (wave 3)

  29. Change in Median ED Waiting Time Post-LEAN-type intervention (wave 3) Heterogeneity is not noise! While these hospitals did worse? Why did these hospitals do better?

More Related