Search this website

Charles Huggins, MD

Subscribe to Charles Huggins, MD feed Charles Huggins, MD
NCBI: db=pubmed; Term=(huggins c[Author]) AND (John Peter Smith[Affiliation] OR JPS Health Network[Affiliation] OR JPS [Affiliation] NOT Japan Pancreas Society[Affiliation])
Updated: 13 hours 58 min ago

Large observational study on risks predicting emergency department return visits and associated disposition deviations.

Thu, 05/02/2019 - 07:44
Related Articles

Large observational study on risks predicting emergency department return visits and associated disposition deviations.

Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2019 May 07;:

Authors: Huggins C, Robinson RD, Knowles H, Cizenski J, Mbugua R, Laureano-Phillips J, Schrader CD, Zenarosa NR, Wang H

Abstract
Objective: A common emergency department (ED) patient care outcome metric is 72-hour ED return visits (EDRVs). Risks predictive of EDRV vary in different studies. However, risk differences associated with related versus unrelated EDRV and subsequent EDRV disposition deviations (EDRVDD) are rarely addressed. We aim to compare the potential risk patterns predictive of related and unrelated EDRV and further determine those potential risks predictive of EDRVDD.
Methods: We conducted a large retrospective observational study from September 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. ED Patient demographic characteristics and clinical metrics were compared among patients of 1) related; 2) unrelated; and 3) no EDRVs. EDRVDD was defined as obvious disposition differences between initial ED visit and return visits. A multivariate multinomial logistic regression was performed to determine the independent risks predictive of EDRV and EDRVDD after adjusting for all confounders.
Results: A total of 63,990 patients were enrolled; 4.65% were considered related EDRV, and 1.80% were unrelated. The top risks predictive of EDRV were homeless, patient left without being seen, eloped, or left against medical advice. The top risks predictive of EDRVDD were geriatric and whether patients had primary care physicians regardless as to whether patient returns were related or unrelated to their initial ED visits.
Conclusion: Over 6% of patients experienced ED return visits within 72 hours. Though risks predicting such revisits were multifactorial, similar risks were identified not only for ED return visits, but also for return ED visit disposition deviations.

PMID: 31036785 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Status of Emergency Department Seventy-Two Hour Return Visits Among Homeless Patients.

Wed, 03/06/2019 - 17:13
Related Articles

Status of Emergency Department Seventy-Two Hour Return Visits Among Homeless Patients.

J Clin Med Res. 2019 Mar;11(3):157-164

Authors: Knowles H, Huggins C, Robinson RD, Mbugua R, Laureano-Phillips J, Trivedi SM, Kirby J, Zenarosa NR, Wang H

Abstract
Background: We aim to externally validate the status of emergency department (ED) appropriate utilization and 72-h ED returns among homeless patients.
Methods: This is a retrospective single-center observational study. Patients were divided into two groups (homeless versus non-homeless). Patients' general characteristics, clinical variables, ED appropriate utilization, and ED return disposition deviations were compared and analyzed separately.
Results: Study enrolled a total of 63,990 ED visits. Homeless patients comprised 9.3% (5,926) of visits. Higher ED 72-h returns occurred among homeless patients in comparison to the non-homeless patients (17% versus 5%, P < 0.001). Rate of significant ED disposition deviations (e.g., admission, triage to operation room, or death) on return visits were lower in homeless patients when compared to non-homeless patient populations (15% versus 23%, P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Though ED return rate was higher among homeless patients, return visit case management seems appropriate, indicating that 72-h ED returns might not be an optimal healthcare quality measurement for homeless patients.

PMID: 30834037 [PubMed]

Use of the SONET Score to Evaluate High Volume Emergency Department Overcrowding: A Prospective Derivation and Validation Study.

Wed, 01/30/2019 - 08:15
Related Articles

Use of the SONET Score to Evaluate High Volume Emergency Department Overcrowding: A Prospective Derivation and Validation Study.

Emerg Med Int. 2015;2015:401757

Authors: Wang H, Robinson RD, Garrett JS, Bunch K, Huggins CA, Watson K, Daniels J, Banks B, D'Etienne JP, Zenarosa NR

Abstract
Background. The accuracy and utility of current Emergency Department (ED) crowding estimation tools remain uncertain in EDs with high annual volumes. We aimed at deriving a more accurate tool to evaluate overcrowding in a high volume ED setting and determine the association between ED overcrowding and patient care outcomes. Methods. A novel scoring tool (SONET: Severely overcrowded-Overcrowded-Not overcrowded Estimation Tool) was developed and validated in two EDs with both annual volumes exceeding 100,000. Patient care outcomes including the number of left without being seen (LWBS) patients, average length of ED stay, ED 72-hour returns, and mortality were compared under the different crowding statuses. Results. The total number of ED patients, the number of mechanically ventilated patients, and patient acuity levels were independent risk factors affecting ED overcrowding. SONET was derived and found to better differentiate severely overcrowded, overcrowded, and not overcrowded statuses with similar results validated externally. In addition, SONET scores correlated with increased length of ED stay, number of LWBS patients, and ED 72-hour returns. Conclusions. SONET might be a better fit to determine high volume ED overcrowding. ED overcrowding negatively impacts patient care operations and often produces poor patient perceptions of standardized care delivery.

PMID: 26167302 [PubMed]

The inaccuracy of determining overcrowding status by using the national ED overcrowding study tool.

Wed, 01/30/2019 - 08:15
Related Articles

The inaccuracy of determining overcrowding status by using the national ED overcrowding study tool.

Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Oct;32(10):1230-6

Authors: Wang H, Robinson RD, Bunch K, Huggins CA, Watson K, Jayswal RD, White NC, Banks B, Zenarosa NR

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) crowding has become more common, and perceptions of crowding vary among different health care providers. The National Emergency Department Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS) tool is the most commonly used tool to estimate ED crowding but still uncertain of its reliability in different ED settings.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to determine the accuracy of using the NEDOCS tool to evaluate overcrowding in an extremely high-volume ED and assess the reliability and consistency of different providers' perceptions of ED crowding.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a 2-phase study. In phase 1, ED crowding was determined by the NEDOCS tool. The ED length of stay and number of patients who left without being seen were analyzed. In phase 2, a survey of simulated ED census scenarios was completed by different providers. The interrater and intrarater agreements of ED crowding were tested.
RESULTS: In phase 1, the subject ED was determined to be overcrowded more than 75% of the time in which nearly 50% was rated as severely overcrowded by the NEDOCS tool. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of the average length of stay and the number of left without being seen patients under different crowding categories. In phase 2, 88 surveys were completed. A moderate level of agreement between health care providers was reached (κ = 0.5402, P < .0001). Test-retest reliability among providers was high (r = 0.8833, P = .0007). The strength of agreement between study groups and the NEDOCS was weak (κ = 0.3695, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Using the NEDOCS tool to determine ED crowding might be inaccurate in an extremely high-volume ED setting.

PMID: 25176566 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]