Learn, Connect, Growth | Tingkatkan Mutu Pelayanan Kesehatan Indonesia

Comparative quality measures of emergency care: an outcome cockpit proposal to survey clinical processes in real life

Screen Shot 2017 10 25 at 1.45.02 PMBackground: Benchmarking of real-life quality of care may improve evaluation and comparability of emergency department (ED) care.

We investigated process management variables for important medical diagnoses in a large, well-defined cohort of ED patients and studied predictors for low quality of care.

Methods: We prospectively included consecutive medical patients with main diagnoses of community-acquired pneumonia, urinary tract infection (UTI), myocardial infarction (MI), acute heart failure, deep vein thrombosis, and COPD exacerbation and followed them for 30 days. We studied predictors for alteration in ED care (treatment times, satisfaction with care, readmission rates, and mortality) by using multivariate regression analyses.

Results: Overall, 2986 patients (median age 72 years, 57% males) were included. The median time to start treatment was 72 minutes (95% CI: 23 to 150), with a median length of ED stay (ED LOS) of 256 minutes (95% CI: 166 to 351). We found delayed treatment times and longer ED LOS to be independently associated with main medical admission diagnosis and time of day on admission (shortest times for MI and longest times for UTI). Time to first physician contact (–0.01 hours, 95% CI: –0.03 to –0.02) and ED LOS (–0.01 hours, 95% CI: –0.02 to –0.04) were main predictors for patient satisfaction.

Conclusion: Within this large cohort of consecutive patients seeking ED care, we found time of day on admission to be an important predictor for ED timeliness, which again predicted satisfaction with hospital care. Older patients were waiting longer for specific treatment, whereas polymorbidity predicted an increased ED LOS.

Keywords: quality measures, quality of care, emergency department, length of stay, patient satisfaction, benchmarking, health care service

 

By: Burgemeister S, Kutz A, Conca A, Holler T, Haubitz S, Huber A, Buergi U, Mueller B, Schuetz P

Source: https://www.dovepress.com/