Cargando…
Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step‐down unit
OBJECTIVE: In response to concerns about patient care and safety, our urban, tertiary care, Level 1 trauma center adult emergency department (ED) created an advanced practice provider‐staffed critical care step‐down unit (CCSU). We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the CCSU's impact on pa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7493497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33000062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12094 |
_version_ | 1783582577521590272 |
---|---|
author | Murphy, Lisa Paolucci, Gino Pittenger, Laura Akande, Morayo Marks, Sarah J. Merchant, Roland C. |
author_facet | Murphy, Lisa Paolucci, Gino Pittenger, Laura Akande, Morayo Marks, Sarah J. Merchant, Roland C. |
author_sort | Murphy, Lisa |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: In response to concerns about patient care and safety, our urban, tertiary care, Level 1 trauma center adult emergency department (ED) created an advanced practice provider‐staffed critical care step‐down unit (CCSU). We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the CCSU's impact on patient care, safety, and ED operations. METHODS: We compared ED length of stay, return visits to the ED within 72 hours, billing code assignments (current procedural terminology evaluation and management [CPT E&M] codes), and quality of electronic health record documentation per QNOTE for the 2 years after the CCSU was initiated (CCSU period) versus before its initiation (pre‐CCSU period). RESULTS: There were 31,418 critical care ED patient visits in the pre‐CCSU period and 33,396 in the CCSU period. Median ED length of stay did not change overall between the CCSU versus pre‐CCSU period (∆1 [95% confidence interval (CI) = −2.4, 4.4] minutes), but decreased for patients who remained in the critical care suites (∆‐4 [95% CI = −7.8, −0.2] minutes). 72‐hour return ED visits also did not change overall (∆0% [95% CI = −0.1, 0]), but decreased for patients who remained in the critical care suites (∆0.4% [95% CI = −0.05, −0.4]). CPT E&M billing increased for highest‐level visits (99,291: ∆1.3% [95% CI= 0.5, 2.0]). Quality of electronic health record documentation as measured by QNOTE also improved (∆11.5% [95% CI = 4.9, 18.1]). CONCLUSION: This ED's CCSU performance metrics indicate at least moderate improvement in ED length of stay, 72‐hour return visits, critical care patient billing, and electronic health record documentation. EDs elsewhere can consider implementation of this advanced practice provider‐staffed solution to improvement in critical care in ED. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7493497 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74934972020-09-29 Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step‐down unit Murphy, Lisa Paolucci, Gino Pittenger, Laura Akande, Morayo Marks, Sarah J. Merchant, Roland C. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open The Practice of Emergency Medicine OBJECTIVE: In response to concerns about patient care and safety, our urban, tertiary care, Level 1 trauma center adult emergency department (ED) created an advanced practice provider‐staffed critical care step‐down unit (CCSU). We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the CCSU's impact on patient care, safety, and ED operations. METHODS: We compared ED length of stay, return visits to the ED within 72 hours, billing code assignments (current procedural terminology evaluation and management [CPT E&M] codes), and quality of electronic health record documentation per QNOTE for the 2 years after the CCSU was initiated (CCSU period) versus before its initiation (pre‐CCSU period). RESULTS: There were 31,418 critical care ED patient visits in the pre‐CCSU period and 33,396 in the CCSU period. Median ED length of stay did not change overall between the CCSU versus pre‐CCSU period (∆1 [95% confidence interval (CI) = −2.4, 4.4] minutes), but decreased for patients who remained in the critical care suites (∆‐4 [95% CI = −7.8, −0.2] minutes). 72‐hour return ED visits also did not change overall (∆0% [95% CI = −0.1, 0]), but decreased for patients who remained in the critical care suites (∆0.4% [95% CI = −0.05, −0.4]). CPT E&M billing increased for highest‐level visits (99,291: ∆1.3% [95% CI= 0.5, 2.0]). Quality of electronic health record documentation as measured by QNOTE also improved (∆11.5% [95% CI = 4.9, 18.1]). CONCLUSION: This ED's CCSU performance metrics indicate at least moderate improvement in ED length of stay, 72‐hour return visits, critical care patient billing, and electronic health record documentation. EDs elsewhere can consider implementation of this advanced practice provider‐staffed solution to improvement in critical care in ED. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7493497/ /pubmed/33000062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12094 Text en © 2020 The Authors. JACEP Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American College of Emergency Physicians. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | The Practice of Emergency Medicine Murphy, Lisa Paolucci, Gino Pittenger, Laura Akande, Morayo Marks, Sarah J. Merchant, Roland C. Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step‐down unit |
title | Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step‐down unit |
title_full | Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step‐down unit |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step‐down unit |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step‐down unit |
title_short | Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step‐down unit |
title_sort | evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step‐down unit |
topic | The Practice of Emergency Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7493497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33000062 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12094 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT murphylisa evaluationofanadvancedpracticeprovideremergencydepartmentcriticalcarestepdownunit AT paoluccigino evaluationofanadvancedpracticeprovideremergencydepartmentcriticalcarestepdownunit AT pittengerlaura evaluationofanadvancedpracticeprovideremergencydepartmentcriticalcarestepdownunit AT akandemorayo evaluationofanadvancedpracticeprovideremergencydepartmentcriticalcarestepdownunit AT markssarahj evaluationofanadvancedpracticeprovideremergencydepartmentcriticalcarestepdownunit AT merchantrolandc evaluationofanadvancedpracticeprovideremergencydepartmentcriticalcarestepdownunit |