P105: Patient outcome feedback in emergency medicine. (2nd June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pinto, F.; B-Lajoie, M.
• Is Part Of: CJEM. Volume 18(2016:Jan.)Supplement 1
• Page Start: S113
• Page End: S113
• Publication Date: 2016-06-02
• Subjects: outcome feedback, -- treatment outcome, -- patient care; Emergency Treatment -- Periodicals; Emergency Medicine -- Periodicals; Emergency medical services -- Canada -- Periodicals; Medical emergencies -- Canada -- Periodicals; Emergency medical services; Medical emergencies; Canada; Periodicals; 616.02505
• DOI: 10.1017/cem.2016.281
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1481-8035

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Emergency medicine (EM) is characterized by one time patient encounters where the end diagnosis is often unknown. Seeking patient outcome feedback, (POF) which is defined as following a patient's clinical course once they leave your care, is crucial as it can highlight a discord between an intended verses actual result, thus spurring clinical change. This study seeks to determine whether EM staff and residents currently seek POF, the types of patients followed and the barriers faced.Methods: An online survey was administered to all EM staff and residents (CCFP-EM and FRCP) working at a tertiary academic hospital to determine their current practices and attitudes towards POF.Results: A total of 72 responses were received, of which 41 were residents and 31 were staff, for an overall response rate of 95%. If feedback was sought, the most commonly used tools were looking up imaging results (52%) and talking to EM colleagues (42%). The patients most frequently followed were those with a poor outcome during their ED admission, sick patients with unclear final diagnosis or unplanned returns within 48 hours (55%, 58%, 34% respectively). However, up to 30% of respondents never or rarely sought out POF even in these situations (16%, 19% and 30% respectively). Patients least commonly followed were those where the diagnosis was more certain. Respondents identified many barriers, primarily being time (83%), not being notified about bouncebacks (79%) and remembering which patients to follow (70%). Barriers were amplified for residents as they had a harder time accessing or automatically receiving POF. The most useful tools not currently available, would be being able to easily create electronic tracking lists, being automatically sent discrepant imaging reports and automatic notification of patients who return to the ED within 48hrs. Also, automatic follow up information on patients who experienced a negative outcome or on sick patients with unclear diagnosis is desired.Conclusion: POF is a useful and crucial practice for clinical care, but is currently not often performed. The most commonly used tools are those that are easiest to access, and POF was mainly performed on patients with either negative results or unclear diagnoses. Thus, identifying the types of patients deemed most relevant for receiving POF and addressing the major barriers faced by clinicians can help improve the frequency with which POF is sought, potentially improving patient care.