ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2020
Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step-down unit.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of an advanced practice provider emergency department critical care step-down unit.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn response to concerns about patient care and safety, our urban, tertiary care, Level 1 trauma center adult emergency department (ED) created an advanced practice provider-staffed critical care step-down unit (CCSU). We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the CCSU's impact on patient care, safety, and ED operations.
methodsWe compared ED length of stay, return visits to the ED within 72 hours, billing code assignments (current procedural terminology evaluation and management [CPT E&M] codes), and quality of electronic health record documentation per QNOTE for the 2 years after the CCSU was initiated (CCSU period) versus before its initiation (pre-CCSU period).
resultsThere were 31,418 critical care ED patient visits in the pre-CCSU period and 33,396 in the CCSU period. Median ED length of stay did not change overall between the CCSU versus pre-CCSU period (∆1 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -2.4, 4.4] minutes), but decreased for patients who remained in the critical care suites (∆-4 [95% CI = -7.8, -0.2] minutes). 72-hour return ED visits also did not change overall (∆0% [95% CI = -0.1, 0]), but decreased for patients who remained in the critical care suites (∆0.4% [95% CI = -0.05, -0.4]). CPT E&M billing increased for highest-level visits (99,291: ∆1.3% [95% CI= 0.5, 2.0]). Quality of electronic health record documentation as measured by QNOTE also improved (∆11.5% [95% CI = 4.9, 18.1]).
conclusionThis ED's CCSU performance metrics indicate at least moderate improvement in ED length of stay, 72-hour return visits, critical care patient billing, and electronic health record documentation. EDs elsewhere can consider implementation of this advanced practice provider-staffed solution to improvement in critical care in ED.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.