Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
-
Comparative Study
A Comparison of Care Delivered in Hospital-based and Freestanding Emergency Departments.
We compare case mix, hospitalization rates, length of stay (LOS), and resource use in independent freestanding emergency departments (FSEDs) and hospital-based emergency departments (H-EDs). ⋯ In this sample of FSEDs, a greater proportion of younger patients with fewer comorbidities and more injuries and respiratory system diseases were evaluated, and almost all patients had private health insurance. When restricted to < 65 years, privately insured, and nonambulance patients in both samples, LOS was considerably shorter and hospital admission rates lower at FSEDs, as well as the use of some diagnostic testing. This study is limited as diagnoses codes may not fully capture severity and patients who perceived greater need of hospital admission may have chosen a H-ED over FSEDs.
-
We aimed to clarify the definition, epidemiology, and pathophysiology of excited delirium syndrome (ExDS) and to summarize evidence-based treatment recommendations. ⋯ The overall quality of studies was poor. A universally recognized definition is lacking, remaining mostly syndromic and based on clinical subjective criteria. High mortality rate may be due to definition inconsistency and reporting bias. Our results suggest that ExDS is a real clinical entity that still kills people and that has probably specific mechanisms and risk factors. No comparative study has been performed to conclude whether one treatment approach is preferable to another in the case of ExDS.
-
Cognitive support technologies that support clinical decisions and practices in the emergency department (ED) have the potential to optimize patient care. However, limited uptake by clinicians can prevent successful implementation. A better understanding of acceptance of these technologies from the clinician perspective is needed. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize diverse, emerging evidence on clinicians' acceptance of point-of-care (POC) cognitive support technology in the ED. ⋯ Findings from this scoping review suggest that while ED clinicians acknowledge the utility and value of using POC cognitive support technology, actual use of such technology can be low. Further, few studies have evaluated the acceptance and use of POC technologies in routine care. Prospective studies that evaluate how ED clinicians appraise and consider POC technology use in clinical practice are now needed with diverse clinician samples. While this review identified multiple factors contributing to technology acceptance, determining how clinician, technical, patient, and organizational factors mediate or moderate acceptance should also be a priority.