John S. Garrett M.D.

Garrett, J. S., S. Sonnamaker, Y. Daoud, H. Wang and D. Graybeal (2018). “Critical Event Intervals in Determining Candidacy for Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Stroke.” J Clin Med Res 10(7): 582-587.

Full text of this article.

Background: The aim of the study was to determine the optimal set point for the critical event benchmarks described in stroke guidelines and validate the ability of these goals to predict successful administration of intravenous thrombolysis within 60 min of hospital arrival. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous thrombolysis following presentation to the emergency department. The national benchmarks for time intervals associated with the completion of critical events required to determine candidacy for thrombolysis were evaluated for the ability to predict successful administration of thrombolysis within 60 min of hospital arrival. Optimal time interval cut points were then estimated using regression and receiver-operator characteristic curve analysis and compared to guidelines. Results: Of the 523 patients included in the analysis, 229 (43.8%) received intravenous thrombolysis within 60 min of hospital arrival. Of the patients who met the critical event interval goals described in guidelines, only 51.6% received thrombolysis within 60 min. The optimized cut points suggested by the regression analysis aligned with the guideline benchmarks with the only substantial difference being a shortened goal of arrival to neuroimaging start time of 19 min. This difference did not impact the overall predictive value. Conclusion: The critical event benchmarks proposed in this study by logistic regression closely correlate with the critical event benchmarks described in the AHA/ASA acute stroke guidelines.

Dahlquist, R. T., K. Reyner, R. D. Robinson, A. Farzad, J. Laureano-Phillips, J. S. Garrett, J. M. Young, N. R. Zenarosa and H. Wang (2018). “Standardized Reporting System Use During Handoffs Reduces Patient Length of Stay in the Emergency Department.” J Clin Med Res 10(5): 445-451.

Full text of this article.

Background: Emergency department (ED) shift handoffs are potential sources of delay in care. We aimed to determine the impact that using standardized reporting tool and process may have on throughput metrics for patients undergoing a transition of care at shift change. Methods: We performed a prospective, pre- and post-intervention quality improvement study from September 1 to November 30, 2015. A handoff procedure intervention, including a mandatory workshop and personnel training on a standard reporting system template, was implemented. The primary endpoint was patient length of stay (LOS). A comparative analysis of differences between patient LOS and various handoff communication methods were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Communication methods were entered a multivariable logistic regression model independently as risk factors for patient LOS. Results: The final analysis included 1,006 patients, with 327 comprising the pre-intervention and 679 comprising the post-intervention populations. Bedside rounding occurred 45% of the time without a standard reporting during pre-intervention and increased to 85% of the time with the use of a standard reporting system in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). Provider time (provider-initiated care to patient care completed) in the pre-intervention period averaged 297 min, but decreased to 265 min in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). After adjusting for other communication methods, the use of a standard reporting system during handoff was associated with shortened ED LOS (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 - 0.90, P < 0.05). Conclusions: Standard reporting system use during emergency physician handoffs at shift change improves ED throughput efficiency and is associated with shorter ED LOS.

Dahlquist, R. T., K. Reyner, R. D. Robinson, A. Farzad, J. Laureano-Phillips, J. S. Garrett, J. M. Young, N. R. Zenarosa and H. Wang (2018). “Standardized Reporting System Use During Handoffs Reduces Patient Length of Stay in the Emergency Department.” J Clin Med Res 10(5): 445-451.

Full text of this article.

Background: Emergency department (ED) shift handoffs are potential sources of delay in care. We aimed to determine the impact that using standardized reporting tool and process may have on throughput metrics for patients undergoing a transition of care at shift change. Methods: We performed a prospective, pre- and post-intervention quality improvement study from September 1 to November 30, 2015. A handoff procedure intervention, including a mandatory workshop and personnel training on a standard reporting system template, was implemented. The primary endpoint was patient length of stay (LOS). A comparative analysis of differences between patient LOS and various handoff communication methods were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Communication methods were entered a multivariable logistic regression model independently as risk factors for patient LOS. Results: The final analysis included 1,006 patients, with 327 comprising the pre-intervention and 679 comprising the post-intervention populations. Bedside rounding occurred 45% of the time without a standard reporting during pre-intervention and increased to 85% of the time with the use of a standard reporting system in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). Provider time (provider-initiated care to patient care completed) in the pre-intervention period averaged 297 min, but decreased to 265 min in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). After adjusting for other communication methods, the use of a standard reporting system during handoff was associated with shortened ED LOS (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 - 0.90, P < 0.05). Conclusions: Standard reporting system use during emergency physician handoffs at shift change improves ED throughput efficiency and is associated with shorter ED LOS.

Garrett, J. S., C. Berry, H. Wong, H. Qin and J. A. Kline (2018). “The effect of vertical split-flow patient management on emergency department throughput and efficiency.” Am J Emerg Med. Jan 11. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: To address emergency department overcrowding operational research seeks to identify efficient processes to optimize flow of patients through the emergency department. Vertical flow refers to the concept of utilizing and assigning patients virtual beds rather than to an actual physical space within the emergency department to care of low acuity patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of vertical flow upon emergency department efficiency and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Prospective pre/post-interventional cohort study of all intend-to-treat patients presenting to the emergency department during a two-year period before and after the implementation of a vertical flow model. RESULTS: In total 222,713 patient visits were included in the analysis with 107,217 patients presenting within the pre-intervention and 115,496 in the post-intervention groups. The results of the regression analysis demonstrate an improvement in throughput across the entire ED patient population, decreasing door to departure time by 17min (95% CI 15-18) despite an increase in patient volume. No statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction scores were found between the pre- and post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of a vertical split flow model was associated with improved ED efficiency.

Roden-Foreman, J. W., M. M. Bennett, E. E. Rainey, J. S. Garrett, M. B. Powers and A. M. Warren (2017). “Secondary traumatic stress in emergency medicine clinicians.” Cogn Behav Ther 46(6): 522-532.

Full text of this article.

Previously called Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS), secondary exposure to trauma is now considered a valid DSM-5 Criterion A stressor for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previous studies have found high rates of STS in clinicians who treat traumatically injured patients. However, little research has examined STS among Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs). The current study enrolled EM providers (N = 118) working in one of 10 hospitals to examine risk factors, protective factors, and the prevalence of STS in this understudied population. Most of the participants were physicians (72.9%), Caucasian (85.6%), and male (70.3%) with mean age of 39.7 (SD = 8.9). Overall, 12.7% of the sample screened positive for STS with clinical levels of intrusion, arousal, and avoidance symptom clusters, and 33.9% had at least one symptom cluster at clinical levels. Low resilience and a history of personal trauma were positively associated with positive STS screens and STS severity scores. Borderline significance suggested that female gender and spending >/=10% of one’s time with trauma patients could be additional risk factors. Findings suggest that resilience-building interventions may be beneficial.