Search this website

Richard Robinson, MD

Subscribe to Richard Robinson, MD feed Richard Robinson, MD
NCBI: db=pubmed; Term=(robinson rd[Author]) AND (John Peter Smith[Affiliation] OR JPS Health Network[Affiliation] OR JPS [Affiliation] NOT Japan Pancreas Society[Affiliation])
Updated: 5 days 18 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]

HEART Score Risk Stratification of Low-Risk Chest Pain Patients in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Wed, 02/06/2019 - 09:11
Related Articles

HEART Score Risk Stratification of Low-Risk Chest Pain Patients in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Feb 01;:

Authors: Laureano-Phillips J, Robinson RD, Aryal S, Blair S, Wilson D, Boyd K, Schrader CD, Zenarosa NR, Wang H

Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to appraise the evidence in regard to the diagnostic accuracy of a low-risk History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) score for prediction of major adverse cardiac events in emergency department (ED) patients. These included 4 subgroup analyses: by geographic region, the use of a modified low-risk HEART score (traditional HEART score [0 to 3] in addition to negative troponin results), using conventional versus high-sensitivity troponin assays in the HEART score, and a comparison of different post-ED-discharge patient follow-up intervals.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database for studies on the diagnostic performance of low-risk HEART scores to predict major adverse cardiac events among ED chest pain patients. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, assessed the quality of studies with both an adapted Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool and an internally developed tool that combined components of the Quality in Prognostic Studies; Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies; and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated.
RESULTS: There were 25 studies published from 2010 to 2017, with a total of 25,266 patients included in the final meta-analysis, of whom 9,919 (39.3%) were deemed to have low-risk HEART scores (0 to 3). Among patients with low-risk HEART scores, short-term major adverse cardiac events (30 days to 6 weeks) occurred in 2.1% of the population (182/8,832) compared with 21.9% of patients (3,290/15,038) with non-low-risk HEART scores (4 to 10). For patients with HEART scores of 0 to 3, the pooled sensitivity of short-term major adverse cardiac event predictions was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 0.98), specificity was 0.42 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.49), positive predictive value was 0.19 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.24), negative predictive value was 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 0.99), positive likelihood ratio was 1.66 (95% CI 1.50 to 1.85), and negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.15). Subgroup analysis showed that lower short-term major adverse cardiac events occurred among North American patients (0.7%), occurred when modified low-risk HEART score was used (0.8%), or occurred when high-sensitivity troponin was used for low-risk HEART score calculations (0.8%).
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, despite its use in different patient populations, the troponin type used, and timeline of follow-up, a low-risk HEART score had high sensitivity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio for predicting short-term major adverse cardiac events, although risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity were high.

PMID: 30718010 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Risks predicting prolonged hospital discharge boarding in a regional acute care hospital.

Wed, 01/30/2019 - 08:31
Related Articles

Risks predicting prolonged hospital discharge boarding in a regional acute care hospital.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 01 30;18(1):59

Authors: Shaikh SA, Robinson RD, Cheeti R, Rath S, Cowden CD, Rosinia F, Zenarosa NR, Wang H

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prolonged hospital discharge boarding can impact patient flow resulting in upstream Emergency Department crowding. We aim to determine the risks predicting prolonged hospital discharge boarding and their direct and indirect effects on patient flow.
METHODS: Retrospective review of a single hospital discharge database was conducted. Variables including type of disposition, disposition boarding time, case management consultation, discharge medications prescriptions, severity of illness, and patient homeless status were analyzed in a multivariate logistic regression model. Hospital charges, potential savings of hospital bed hours, and whether detailed discharge instructions provided adequate explanations to patients were also analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 11,527 admissions was entered into final analysis. The median discharge boarding time was approximately 2 h. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) of patients transferring to other hospitals was 7.45 (95% CI 5.35-10.37), to court or law enforcement custody was 2.51 (95% CI 1.84-3.42), and to a skilled nursing facility was 2.48 (95% CI 2.10-2.93). AOR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.71) if the disposition order was placed during normal office hours (0800-1700). AOR of early case management consultation was 1.52 (95% CI 1.37-1.68) versus 1.73 (95% CI 1.03-2.89) for late consultation. Eighty-eight percent of patients experiencing discharge boarding times within 2 h of disposition expressed positive responses when questioned about the quality of explanations of discharge instructions and follow-up plans based on satisfaction surveys. Similar results (86% positive response) were noted among patients whose discharge boarding times were prolonged (> 2 h, p = 0.44). An average charge of $6/bed/h was noted in all hospital discharges. Maximizing early discharge boarding (≤ 2 h) would have resulted in 16,376 hospital bed hours saved thereby averting $98,256.00 in unnecessary dwell time charges in this study population alone.
CONCLUSION: Type of disposition, case management timely consultation, and disposition to discharge dwell time affect boarding and patient flow in a tertiary acute care hospital. Efficiency of the discharge process did not affect patient satisfaction relative to the perceived quality of discharge instruction and follow-up plan explanations. Prolonged disposition to discharge intervals result in unnecessary hospital bed occupancy thereby negatively impacting hospital finances while delivering no direct benefit to patients.

PMID: 29378577 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]