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.^

Secondary data analysis of lead screening compliance in high-risk children

Introduction. Despite the ban of lead-containing gasoline and paint, childhood lead poisoning remains a public health issue. Furthermore, a Medicaid-eligible child is 8 times more likely to have an elevated blood lead level (EBLL) than a non-Medicaid child, which is the primary reason for the early detection lead screening mandate for ages 12 and 24 months among the Medicaid population. Based on field observations, there was evidence that suggested a screening compliance issue. Objective. The purpose of this study was to analyze blood lead screening compliance in previously lead poisoned Medicaid children and test for an association between timely lead screening and timely childhood immunizations. The mean months between follow-up tests were also examined for a significant difference between the non-compliant and compliant lead screened children. Methods. Access to the surveillance data of all childhood lead poisoned cases in Bexar County was granted by the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District. A database was constructed and analyzed using descriptive statistics, logistic regression methods and non-parametric tests. Lead screening at 12 months of age was analyzed separately from lead screening at 24 months. The small portion of the population who were also related were included in one analysis and removed from a second analysis to check for significance. Gender, ethnicity, age of home, and having a sibling with an EBLL were ruled out as confounders for the association tests but ethnicity and age of home were adjusted in the nonparametric tests. Results. There was a strong significant association between lead screening compliance at 12 months and childhood immunization compliance, with or without including related children (p<0.00). However, there was no significant association between the two variables at the age of 24 months. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the median of the mean months of follow-up blood tests among the non-compliant and compliant lead screened population for at the 12 month screening group but there was a significant difference at the 24 month screening group (p<0.01). Discussion. Descriptive statistics showed that 61% and 56% of the previously lead poisoned Medicaid population did not receive their 12 and 24 month mandated lead screening on time, respectively. This suggests that their elevated blood lead level may have been diagnosed earlier in their childhood. Furthermore, a child who is compliant with their lead screening at 12 months of age is 2.36 times more likely to also receive their childhood immunizations on time compared to a child who was not compliant with their 12 month screening. Even though there was no statistical significant association found for the 24 month group, the public health significance of a screening compliance issue is no less important. The Texas Medicaid program needs to enforce lead screening compliance because it is evident that there has been no monitoring system in place. Further recommendations include a need for an increased focus on parental education and the importance of taking their children for wellness exams on time.^