Emergency Health Services (EHS) : demand and service delivery models. monograph 3 : patients’ reasons and perceptions

Executive Summary Emergency health is a critical component of Australia’s health system and emergency departments (EDs) are increasingly congested from growing demand and blocked access to inpatient beds. The Emergency Health Services Queensland (EHSQ) study aims to identify the factors driving increased demand for emergency health and to evaluate strategies which may safely reduce the future demand growth. This monograph addresses the perspectives of users of both ambulance services and EDs. The research reported here aimed to identify the perspectives of users of emergency health services, both ambulance services and public hospital Emergency Departments and to identify the factors that they took into consideration when exercising their choice of location for acute health care. A cross-sectional survey design was used involving a survey of patients or their carers presenting to the EDs of a stratified sample of eight hospitals. A specific purpose questionnaire was developed based on a novel theoretical model which had been derived from analysis of the literature (Monograph 1). Two survey versions were developed: one for adult patients (self-complete); and one for children (to be completed by parents/guardians). The questionnaires measured perceptions of social support, health status, illness severity, self-efficacy; beliefs and attitudes towards ED and ambulance services; reasons for using these services, and actions taken prior to the service request. The survey was conducted at a stratified sample of eight hospitals representing major cities (four), inner regional (two) and outer regional and remote (two). Due to practical limitations, data were collected for ambulance and ED users within hospital EDs, while patients were waiting for or under treatment. A sample size quota was determined for each ED based on their 2009/10 presentation volumes. The data collection was conducted by four members of the research team and a group of eight interviewers between March and May 2011 (corresponding to autumn season). Of the total of 1608 patients in all eight emergency departments the interviewers were able to approach 1361 (85%) patients and seek their consent to participate in the study. In total, 911 valid surveys were available for analysis (response rate= 67%). These studies demonstrate that patients elected to attend hospital EDs in a considered fashion after weighing up alternatives and there is no evidence of deliberate or ill-informed misuse. • Patients attending ED have high levels of social support and self-efficacy that speak to the considered and purposeful nature of the exercise of choice. • About one third of patients have new conditions while two thirds have chronic illnesses • More than half the attendees (53.1%) had consulted a healthcare professional prior to making the decision. • The decision to seek urgent care at an ED was mostly constructed around the patient’s perception of the urgency and severity of their illness, reinforced by a strong perception that the hospital ED was the correct location for them (better specialised staff, better care for my condition, other options not as suitable). • 33% of the respondent held private hospital insurance but nevertheless attended a public hospital ED. Similarly patients exercised considered and rational judgements in their choice to seek help from the ambulance service. • The decision to call for ambulance assistance was based on a strong perception about the severity of the illness (too severe to use other means of transport) and that other options were not considered appropriate. • The decision also appeared influenced by a perception that the ambulance provided appropriate access to the ED which was considered most appropriate for their particular condition (too severe to go elsewhere, all facilities in one spot, better specialised and better care). • In 43.8% of cases a health care professional advised use of the ambulance. • Only a small number of people perceived that ambulance should be freely available regardless of severity or appropriateness. These findings confirm a growing understanding that the choice of professional emergency health care services is not made lightly but rather made by reasonable people exercising a judgement which is influenced by public awareness of the risks of acute health and which is most often informed by health professionals. It is also made on the basis of a rational weighing up of alternatives and a deliberate and considered choice to seek assistance from a service which the patient perceived was most appropriate to their needs at that time. These findings add weight to dispensing with public perceptions that ED and ambulance congestion is a result of inappropriate choice by patients. The challenge for health services is to better understand the patient’s needs and to design and validate services that meet those needs. The failure of our health system to do so should not be grounds for blaming the patient, claiming inappropriate patient choices.

Development of the Rapid Assessment, Prioritisation and Referral Tool (RAPaRT) for multidisciplinary teams in emergency care settings

Objective This investigation utilised the expertise of allied members of multidisciplinary teams working in emergency care settings to develop and validate a Rapid Assessment Prioritisation and Referral Tool (RAPaRT). This instrument is intended for use among patients (with non-life threatening acuity) presenting to emergency care settings to indicate when referral to an allied member of the multidisciplinary team is warranted. Method This three stage instrument development and validation study included: a Delphi panel process to determine key criteria to guide instrument development and identify potential items to be carried forward for testing (stage 1); a prospective cohort of consecutive admissions (n=153) to investigate item sensitivity and specificity and retain only the most suitable items (stage 2); then final consultation with the Delphi panel to ensure the final instrument was clinically amenable (stage 3). Results 23 potential items were identified following stage 1. At the completion of item sensitivity and specificity analysis and in consultation with the Delphi panel, seven items were retained in the instrument. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.803 for these seven items in predicting when a referral was warranted. Final consultation with the Delphi panel members also resulted in the addition of an open ended (eighth) item to allow description of any infrequent, but important, reason for referral. Conclusions The RAPaRT has demonstrated substantial promise as an efficient clinically amenable instrument to assist multidisciplinary teams in emergency care settings. Further research to investigate the wider implementation of the RAPaRT is warranted.

Can SNOMED CT as implemented in New South Wales, Australia be used for road trauma injury surveillance in emergency departments?

The introduction of Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms (Snomed CT) for diagnosis coding in emergency departments (EDs) in New South Wales (NSW) has implications for injury surveillance abilities. This study aimed to assess the consequences of its introduction, as implemented as part of the ED information system in NSW, for identifying road trauma-related injuries in EDs. It involved a retrospective analysis of road trauma-related injuries identified in linked police, ED and mortality records during March 2007 to December 2009. Between 53.7% to 78.4% of all Snomed CT classifications in the principal provisional diagnosis field referred to the type of injury or symptom experienced by the individual. Of the road users identified by police, 3.2% of vehicle occupants, 6% of motorcyclists, 10.0% of pedal cyclists and 5.2% of pedestrians were identified using Snomed CT classifications in the principal provisional diagnosis field. The introduction of Snomed CT may provide flexible terminologies for clinicians. However, unless carefully implemented in information systems, its flexibility can lead to mismatches between the intention and actual use of defined data fields. Choices available in Snomed CT to indicate either symptoms, diagnoses, or injury mechanisms need to be controlled and these three concepts need to be retained in separate data fields to ensure a clear distinction between their classification in the ED.

Structural quality indicators to support quality of care for older people with cognitive impairment in emergency departments

Objectives The purpose of this study was to identify the structural quality of care domains and to establish a set of structural quality indicators (SQIs) for the assessment of care of older people with cognitive impairment in emergency departments (EDs). Methods A structured approach to SQI development was undertaken including: 1) a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and gray literature focusing on identification of evidence-based interventions targeting structure of care of older patients with cognitive impairment and existing SQIs; 2) a consultative process engaging experts in the care of older people and epidemiologic methods (i.e., advisory panel) leading to development of a draft set of SQIs; 3) field testing of drafted SQIs in eight EDs, leading to refinement of the SQI set, and; 4) an independent voting process among the panelists for SQI inclusion in a final set, using preestablished inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results At the conclusion of the process, five SQIs targeting the management of older ED patients with cognitive impairment were developed: 1) the ED has a policy outlining the management of older people with cognitive impairment during the ED episode of care; 2) the ED has a policy outlining issues relevant to carers of older people with cognitive impairment, encompassing the need to include the (family) carer in the ED episode of care; 3) the ED has a policy outlining the assessment and management of behavioral symptoms, with specific reference to older people with cognitive impairment; 4) the ED has a policy outlining delirium prevention strategies, including the assessment of patients' delirium risk factors, and; 5) the ED has a policy outlining pain assessment and management for older people with cognitive impairment. Conclusions This article presents a set of SQIs for the evaluation of performance in caring for older people with cognitive impairment in EDs.