Sean Lawrence1, Clair Sullivan2,3,4,5, Nadia Patel3, Lyndall Spencer1, Michael Sinnott1,4, Rob Eley1,4. 1. Emergency Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2. Division of Medicine, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 3. Physician Training Unit, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 4. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 5. Mater Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to obtain a deeper understanding of the differing needs and expectations of inpatient and ED medical staff regarding the admission process for medical patients. DESIGN: Online questionnaire regarding their attitudes to and perceptions of various aspects of the admission process was used. SETTING: The setting is a tertiary 640-bed adult hospital with over 60 000 ED presentations per year and an inpatient admission rate of 30%. RESULTS: A total of 42 out of 56 (75%) internal medical trainees (IMT) felt that the ED admission workup standard was lower or much lower than the inpatient standard; however, 10 of 16 (62.5%) ED trainees (EDT) thought it was similar (P = 0.009). Regarding why IMT order additional tests in the ED, the major reason supported by IMT was to 'identify or exclude urgent pathology' (53/56, 96.4%); however, this reason ranked only fifth for EDT (2/16, 12.5%) who ranked 'to ensure nothing was missed' (12/15, 80%) first. A total of 24 out of 56 (42.8%) IMT felt that if ED admissions were enacted without IMT review, inappropriate admissions to hospital would occur regularly although only one of 16 EDT (6.3%) agreed (P = 0.025). A total of 14 out of 16 (87.5%) EDT but only 16 of 56 (23.2%) IMT were comfortable with admissions occurring without inpatient review in the ED (P < 0.001). The top two perceived barriers to a smooth and timely admission process for IMT were patient instability (34/43, 79.1%) and inadequate ED workup (37/49, 75.5%); for EDT, they were excessive IMT workload (11/14, 78.6%) and referral close to the end of an IMT shift (7/11, 63.6%). CONCLUSION: Substantial barriers to more harmonious admission processes exist. A 'paradigm shift' where roles and responsibilities are clear might be required. Defusing tension across the ED-inpatient interface should improve efficiency and ensure that patient outcomes remain the focus.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to obtain a deeper understanding of the differing needs and expectations of inpatient and ED medical staff regarding the admission process for medical patients. DESIGN: Online questionnaire regarding their attitudes to and perceptions of various aspects of the admission process was used. SETTING: The setting is a tertiary 640-bed adult hospital with over 60 000 ED presentations per year and an inpatient admission rate of 30%. RESULTS: A total of 42 out of 56 (75%) internal medical trainees (IMT) felt that the ED admission workup standard was lower or much lower than the inpatient standard; however, 10 of 16 (62.5%) ED trainees (EDT) thought it was similar (P = 0.009). Regarding why IMT order additional tests in the ED, the major reason supported by IMT was to 'identify or exclude urgent pathology' (53/56, 96.4%); however, this reason ranked only fifth for EDT (2/16, 12.5%) who ranked 'to ensure nothing was missed' (12/15, 80%) first. A total of 24 out of 56 (42.8%) IMT felt that if ED admissions were enacted without IMT review, inappropriate admissions to hospital would occur regularly although only one of 16 EDT (6.3%) agreed (P = 0.025). A total of 14 out of 16 (87.5%) EDT but only 16 of 56 (23.2%) IMT were comfortable with admissions occurring without inpatient review in the ED (P < 0.001). The top two perceived barriers to a smooth and timely admission process for IMT were patient instability (34/43, 79.1%) and inadequate ED workup (37/49, 75.5%); for EDT, they were excessive IMT workload (11/14, 78.6%) and referral close to the end of an IMT shift (7/11, 63.6%). CONCLUSION: Substantial barriers to more harmonious admission processes exist. A 'paradigm shift' where roles and responsibilities are clear might be required. Defusing tension across the ED-inpatient interface should improve efficiency and ensure that patient outcomes remain the focus.
Authors: Marissa A Hendrickson; Emma N Schempf; Ronald A Furnival; Jordan Marmet; Scott A Lunos; Abraham K Jacob Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2019-04-16
Authors: Lisa M Daniels; Atsushi Sorita; Deanne T Kashiwagi; Masashi Okubo; Evan Small; Eric C Polley; Adam P Sawatsky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Zahir Kanjee; Christine P Beltran; C Christopher Smith; Jason Lewis; Matthew M Hall; Carrie D Tibbles; Amy M Sullivan Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2021-11-05