4 results
LO37: Reducing hemolysis of coagulation blood samples in the emergency department
- H. Weatherby, V. Woolner, L. Chartier, S. Casey, C. Ong, E. Gaylord
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 22 / Issue S1 / May 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 May 2020, p. S20
- Print publication:
- May 2020
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Background: Hemolysis of blood samples is the leading cause of specimen rejection from hospital laboratories. It contributes to delays in patient care and disposition decisions. Coagulation tests (prothrombin time/international normalized ratio [PT/INR] and activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT]) are especially problematic for hemolysis in our academic hospital, with at least one sample rejected daily from the emergency department (ED). Aim Statement: We aimed to decrease the monthly rate of hemolyzed coagulation blood samples sent from the ED from a rate of 2.9% (53/1,857) to the best practice benchmark of less than 2% by September 1st, 2019. Measures & Design: Our outcome measure was the rate of hemolyzed coagulation blood samples. Our process measure was the rate of coagulation blood tests sent per 100 ED visits. Our balancing measure was the number of incident reports by clinicians when expected coagulation testing did not occur. We used monthly data for our Statistical Process Control (SPC) charts, as well as Chi square and Mann-Whitney U tests for our before-and-after evaluation. Using the Model for Improvement to develop our project's framework, we used direct observation, broad stakeholder engagement, and process mapping to identify root causes. We enlisted nursing champions to develop our Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles/interventions: 1) educating nurses on hemolysis and coagulation testing; 2) redesigning the peripheral intravenous and blood work supply carts to encourage best practice; and 3) removing PT/INR and aPTT from automatic inclusion in our electronic chest pain bloodwork panel. Evaluation/Results: The average rate of hemolysis remained unchanged from baseline (2.9%, p = 0.83). The average rate of coagulation testing sent per 100 ED visits decreased from 41.5 to 28.8 (absolute decrease 12.7 per 100, p < 0.05), avoiding $4,277 in monthly laboratory costs. The SPC chart of our process measure showed special cause variation with greater than eight points below the centerline. Discussion/Impact: Our project reduced coagulation testing, without changing hemolysis rates. Buy-in from frontline nurses was integral to the project's early success, prior to implementing our electronic approach – a solution ranked higher on the hierarchy of intervention effectiveness – to help sustainability. This resource stewardship project will now be spread to a nearby institution by utilizing similar approaches.
LO86: Improving time to analgesia administration for musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department.
- V. Woolner, R. Ahluwalia, H. Lum, K. Beane, J. De Leon, L. Chartier
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 21 / Issue S1 / May 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 May 2019, p. S39
- Print publication:
- May 2019
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Background: Greater than 80% of patient visits to emergency departments (EDs) are for a pain-related concerns. Approximately 38,000 patients per year have such complaints in our academic hospital ED. 3,300 (8.6%) of those visits are for musculoskeletal (MSK) pain (i.e. back or extremity injury/pain), which are typically triaged as low-acuity presentations, leading to longer times to clinician assessment. Delays to adequate analgesia result in unnecessary suffering, worse patient care and satisfaction, and increased patient complaints. Aim Statement: We aimed to reduce the time-to-analgesia (TTA; time from patient triage to receipt of analgesia) for patients with MSK pain in our ED by 55% (to under 60 minutes) in 9 months’ time (May 2018). Measures & Design: Our outcome measures were TTA (in minutes) and ED length of stay (LOS; in minutes). Process measures included nurses’ use of medical directive and rate of analgesia administration. Balancing measures included patient adverse events and time spent triaging for nurses. We utilized weekly data capture for the Statistical Process Control (SPC) chart, and we used Mann-Whitney U test for our before-and-after evaluation. Utilizing the Model for Improvement, we performed wide stakeholder engagement and root cause analyses, and we created a Pareto chart. This led to our Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles: 1) nurse-initiated analgesia (NIA) at triage; 2) new triage documentation aid for medication administration; 3) quick reference medical directive badge tag for nurses; 4) weekly targeted feedback of the project's progress at clinical team huddle. Evaluation/Results: TTA decrease from 129 minutes (n = 153) to 100 minutes (22.5%; n = 87, p < 0.05). ED LOS decreased from 580 minutes (n = 361) to 519 minutes (10.5%; n = 187; p = 0.77). Special cause variation was identified on the ED LOS SPC chart with eight consecutive points below the midline, after PDSA 1. The number of patients who received any analgesia increased from 42% (n = 361) to 47% (n = 187; p = 0.13). The number of patients who received medications via medical directives increased from 22% (n = 150) to 44% (n = 87; p < 0.001). Balancing measures were unchanged. Discussion/Impact: The significant reduction in the TTA and increase in the use of medical directives in the before-and-after analyses were likely due to our front-line focused improvements and deliberate nursing engagement. With continued success and sustainable processes, we are planning to spread our project to other EDs and broaden our initiative to all pain-related concerns.
LO92: Improving patient communication in an emergency department's rapid assessment zone
- A. Taher, F. Webster Magcalas, V. Woolner, S. Casey, D. Davies, L. Chartier
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 21 / Issue S1 / May 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 May 2019, p. S41
- Print publication:
- May 2019
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Background: Emergency Department (ED) communication between patients and clinicians is fraught with challenges. A local survey of 65 ED patients revealed low patient satisfaction with ED communication and resultant patient anxiety. Aim Statement: To increase patient satisfaction with ED communication and to decrease patient anxiety related to lack of ED visit information (primary aims), and to decrease clinician-perceived patient interruptions (secondary aim), each by one point on a 5-point Likert scale over a six-month period. Measures & Design: We performed wide stakeholder engagement, surveyed patients and clinicians, and conducted a patient focus group. An inductive analysis followed by a yield-feasibility-effort grid led to three interventions, introduced through sequential and additive Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. PDSA 1: clinician communication tool (Acknowledge-Empathize-Inform [AEI] tool), based on survey themes and a literature review, and introduced through a multi-modal education approach. PDSA 2: patient information pamphlets developed with stakeholder input. PDSA 3: new waiting room TV screen with various informational ED-specific videos. Measures were conducted through anonymous surveys: Primary aims towards the end of the patient ED stay, and the secondary aim at the end of the clinician shift. We used Statistical Process Control (SPC) charts with usual special cause variation rules. Two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests were used to assess for statistical significance between means (significance: p < 0.05). Evaluation/Results: Over five months, 232 patient and 104 clinician surveys were collected. Wait times, ED processes, timing of typical steps, and directions were reported as the most important communication gaps, they and were included in the interventions. Patient satisfaction improved from 3.28 (5 being best, all means; n = 65) to 4.15 (n = 59, p < 0.0001). Patient anxiety improved from 2.96 (1 being best; n = 65) to 2.31 (n = 59, p < 0.01). Clinician-perceived interruptions went from 4.33 (1 being best; n = 30) to 4.18 (n = 11, p = 0.98). SPC charts using Likert scales did not show special cause variation. Discussion/Impact: A sequential, additive approach undertaken with pragmatic and low-cost interventions based on both clinician and patient input led to increased patient satisfaction with communication and decreased patient anxiety due to lack of ED visit information after PDSA cycles. These approaches could easily be replicated in other EDs to improve the patient experience.
LO23: Reducing time to disposition for treat & release patients in the emergency department
- V. Woolner, S. Ensafi, J. De Leon, L. George, L. Chartier
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine / Volume 20 / Issue S1 / May 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 May 2018, p. S14
- Print publication:
- May 2018
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction: Treat and Release (T&R) patients are seen and discharged home from the emergency department (ED), and asked to return within 12-72 hours for follow-up care (e.g., ultrasound, repeat blood work). Our two academic teaching hospitals see approximately 2,000 T&R patients per year. Handover of care for T&R patientsdone through charting only and therefore dependent on the charts adequacy and completenessis crucial to the safety and quality of care they receive. An 18-month retrospective chart audit at our sites identified quality gaps, including suboptimal documentation that ultimately impedes patient disposition. Our projects aim was to reduce the time-to-disposition (TTD; time spent by patients between provider initial assessment and discharge from the ED) by a third (from 70min) in 6-months time (March 2017), a target felt to be both meaningful and realistic by our stakeholder team. Methods: Our primary outcome measure was the TTD (in minutes). Our process measure was the quality of documentation, using a modified version of QNOTE, a validated tool used to assess the quality of health-care documentation. PDSA cycles included: 1) Involvement of stakeholders for the creation and refinement of an improved T&R handover tool to cue more specific documentation; 2) Education of health-care providers (HCPs) about T&R patients; 3) Replacement of the previous T&R handover tool with a newly designed and mandatory tool (i.e. a forcing function); 4) Refinement of the process for T&R patients and chart hold-over. Results: Run charts for both the median TTD and median modified QNOTE scores over time demonstrate a shift (i.e., run chart rule) associated with the second and third clustered PDSA cycles. After the first three clusters of PDSA cycles (i.e., before-and-after), mean TTD was reduced by 40% (70min to 42min, p=0.005). The quality of documentation (mean modified QNOTE scores) was also significantly improved (all results p<0.0001): patient assessment from 81% to 92%, plan of care from 58% to 85% and follow-up plan from 67% to 90%. Conclusion: We reduced the time-to-disposition for T&R patients by identifying gaps in the quality of documentation of their chart. Using iterative PDSA cycles, we improved their time-to-disposition through improved communication between health-care providers and a new T&R handover tool working as a forcing function. Other centers could use similar assessment methods and interventions to improve the care of T&R patients.