The Emergency Department: Rising wait times, costs, and possible remedies

Emergency Departments (EDs) and Emergency Rooms (ERs) are designed to manage trauma, respond to disasters, and serve as the initial care for those with serious illnesses. However, because of many factors, the ED has become the doorway to the hospital and a “catch-all net” for patients including those with non-urgent needs. This increase in the population in the ED has lead to an increase in wait times for patients. It has been well documented that there has been a constant and consistent rise in the number of patients that frequent the ED (National Center for Health Statistics, 2002); the wait time for patients in the ED has increased (Pitts, Niska, Xu, & Burt, 2008); and the cost of the treatment in the ER has risen (Everett Clinic, 2008). Because the ED was designed to treat patients who need quick diagnoses and may be in potential life-threatening circumstances, management of time can be the ultimate enemy. If a system was implemented to decrease wait times in the ED, decrease the use of ED resources, and decrease costs endured by patients seeking care, better outcomes for patients and patient satisfaction could be achieved. The goal of this research was to explore potential changes and/or alternatives to relieve the burden endured by the ED. In order to explore these options, data was collected by conducting one-on-one interviews with seven physicians closely tied to a Level 1 ED (Emergency Room physicians, Trauma Surgeons and Primary Care physicians). A qualitative analysis was performed on the responses of one-on-one interviews with the aforementioned physicians. The interviews were standardized, open-ended questions that probe what makes an effective ED, possible solutions to improving patient care in the ED, potential remedies for the mounting problems that plague the ED, and the feasibility of bringing Primary Care Physicians to the ED to decrease the wait times experienced by the patient. From the responses, it is clear that there needs to be more research in this area, several areas need to be addressed, and a variety of solutions could be implemented. The most viable option seems to be making the ED its own entity (similar to the clinic or hospital) that includes urgent clinics as a part of the system, in which triage and better staffing would be the most integral part of its success.^

COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ARKANSAS' LONG-TERM CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT (MEDICAID, CHANELLING, COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT)

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the Arkansas Long-Term Care Demonstration Project upon Arkansas' Medicaid expenditures and upon the clients it serves. A Retrospective Medicaid expenditure study component used analyses of variance techniques to test for the Project's effects upon aggregated expenditures for 28 demonstration and control counties representing 25 percent of the State's population over four years, 1979-1982.^ A second approach to the study question utilized a 1982 prospective sample of 458 demonstration and control clients from the same 28 counties. The disability level or need for care of each patient was established a priori. The extent to which an individual's variation in Medicaid utilization and costs was explained by patient need, presence or absence of the channeling project's placement decision or some other patient characteristic was examined by multiple regression analysis. Long-term and acute care Medicaid, Medicare, third party, self-pay and the grand total of all Medicaid claims were analyzed for project effects and explanatory relationships.^ The main project effect was to increase personal care costs without reducing nursing home or acute care costs (Prospective Study). Expansion of clients appeared to occur in personal care (Prospective Study) and minimum care nursing home (Retrospective Study) for the project areas. Cost-shifting between Medicaid and Medicare in the project areas and two different patterns of utilization in the North and South projects tended to offset each other such that no differences in total costs between the project areas and demonstration areas occurred. The project was significant ((beta) = .22, p < .001) only for personal care costs. The explanatory power of this personal care regression model (R('2) = .36) was comparable to other reported health services utilization models. Other variables (Medicare buy-in, level of disability, Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI), net monthly income, North/South areas and age) explained more variation in the other twelve cost regression models. ^

Costs and quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics

Medication reconciliation, with the aim to resolve medication discrepancy, is one of the Joint Commission patient safety goals. Medication errors and adverse drug events that could result from medication discrepancy affect a large population. At least 1.5 million adverse drug events and $3.5 billion of financial burden yearly associated with medication errors could be prevented by interventions such as medication reconciliation. This research was conducted to answer the following research questions: (1a) What are the frequency range and type of measures used to report outpatient medication discrepancy? (1b) Which effective and efficient strategies for medication reconciliation in the outpatient setting have been reported? (2) What are the costs associated with medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (3) What is the quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (4) Is medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics cost-effective from the clinic perspective? Study designs used to answer these questions included a systematic review, cost analysis, quality assessments, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Data sources were published articles in the medical literature and data from a prospective workflow study, which included 150 patients and 1,238 medications. The systematic review confirmed that the prevalence of medication discrepancy was high in ambulatory care and higher in primary care settings. Effective strategies for medication reconciliation included the use of pharmacists, letters, a standardized practice approach, and partnership between providers and patients. Our cost analysis showed that costs associated with medication reconciliation practice were not substantially different between primary care clinics using or not using electronic medical records (EMR) ($0.95 per patient per medication in EMR clinics vs. $0.96 per patient per medication in non-EMR clinics, p=0.78). Even though medication reconciliation was frequently practiced (97-98%), the quality of such practice was poor (0-33% of process completeness measured by concordance of medication numbers and 29-33% of accuracy measured by concordance of medication names) and negatively (though not significantly) associated with medication regimen complexity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for concordance of medication number per patient per medication and concordance of medication names per patient per medication were both 0.08, favoring EMR. Future studies including potential cost-savings from medication features of the EMR and potential benefits to minimize severity of harm to patients from medication discrepancy are warranted. ^