Key High‐efficiency Practices of Emergency Department Providers: A Mixed‐methods Study

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine specific provider practices associated with high provider efficiency in community emergency departments (EDs).

Methods

A mixed‐methods study design was utilized to identify key behaviors associated with efficiency. Stage 1 was a convenience sample of 16 participants (ED medical directors, nurses, advanced practice providers, and physicians) identified provider efficiency behaviors during semistructured interviews. Ninety‐nine behaviors were identified and distilled by a group of three ED clinicians into 18 themes. Stage 2 was an observational study of 35 providers was performed in four (30,000‐ to 55,000‐visit) community EDs during two 4‐hour periods and recorded in minute‐by‐minute observation logs. In Stage 3, each behavior or practice from Stage 1 was assigned a score within each observation period. Behaviors were tested for association with provider efficiency (relative value units/hour) using linear univariate generalized estimating equations with an identity link, clustered on ED site.

Results

Five ED provider practices were found to be positively associated with efficiency: average patient load, using name of team member, conversations with health care team, visits to patient rooms, and running the board. Two behaviors, “inefficiency practices,” demonstrated significant negative correlations: non–work‐related tasks and documentation on patients no longer in the ED.

Conclusions

Average patient load, running the board, conversations with team member, and using names of team members are associated with enhanced provider productivity. Identification of behaviors associated with efficiency can be utilized by medical directors, clinicians, and trainees to improve personal efficiency or counsel team members.

     

Navigating systems ideas for health practice: Towards a common learning device

Systems thinking and reference to complexity science have gained currency in health sector practice and research. The extent to which such ideas might represent a mere passing fad or might more usefully be mobilized to tackle wicked problems in health systems is a concern underpinning this paper. Developing the usefulness of the systems idea requires appreciating how systems ideas are used essentially as constructs conceptually bounded by practitioners. Systems are used for purposes of understanding and engaging the reality of health issues, with the intent of transforming the reality into one that is more manageable, equitable, and sustainable. We examine some manifestations of the systems idea in health practice and the traditions of systems practice that variously make use of them. This provides a platform for proposing a systems thinking in (health) practice heuristic: a learning device supporting how different tools and methods can address “wicked problems” in health praxis. The device is built on the use of “conversation” as a metaphor to help practitioners use systems ideas in tandem with existing disciplinary and professional skills and methods. We consider how the application of the heuristic requires, and helps to develop, human characteristics of humility, empathy, and recognition of fallibility.     

Anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation: Perspectives from the clinical experience of a U.S. panel of physicians

1 Background and objective

Worldwide adoption of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) for preventing sudden cardiac death continues to increase, as longer‐term evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the S‐ICD expands. As a relatively new technology, comprehensive anesthesia guidance for the management of patients undergoing S‐ICD placement is lacking. This article presents advantages and disadvantages of different periprocedural sedation and anesthesia options for S‐ICD implants including general anesthesia, monitored anesthesia care, regional anesthesia, and nonanesthesia personnel administered sedation and analgesia.

2 Methods

Guidance, for approaches to anesthesia care during S‐ICD implantation, is presented based upon literature review and consensus of a panel of high‐volume S‐ICD implanters, a regional anesthesiologist, and a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist with significant S‐ICD experience. The panel developed suggested actions for perioperative sedation, anesthesia, surgical practices, and a decision algorithm for S‐ICD implantation.

3 Conclusions

While S‐ICD implantation currently requires higher sedation than transvenous ICD systems, the panel consensus is that general anesthesia is not required or is obligatory for the majority of patients for the experienced S‐ICD implanter. The focus of the implanting physician and the anesthesia services should be to maximize patient comfort and take into consideration patient‐specific comorbidities, with a low threshold to consult the anesthesiology team.