CJEM Articles: Kate Hanneman
Displaying 1-2 of 2 results
-
July
2010
12
4
Jennifer Vergel de Dios, Kate Hanneman, Steven Marc Friedman
Objective: We sought to characterize patients who are referred from the emergency department (ED) to specialty clinics but do not complete the referral, and to identify reasons for their failure to follow up.
Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out over 3 months of patients who were discharged from the ED of a teaching hospital with referral to internal medicine, cardiology or neurology clinics, but who did not complete the referral. Information on demographics, barriers to care and reasons for not completing the referral was obtained through a standardized telephone interview.
Results: Of 171 ED referrals, 42 (24.6%) were not completed. Interviews were completed for 71.4% (30 patients). Of the nonattenders, 80% were functional in English and most had high school (73.1%) or university (60.7%) education. Virtually all (93.0%) interviewees could get to hospital by themselves or have someone take them. Only 42.9% (12 patients) understood why the emergency physician (EP) requested consultation, and 42.9% (12 patients) described EP instructions as poor or fair. Primary reasons for noncompletion of consult were patient choice (46.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 27.1%–66.2%), physical or social barriers (13.3%, 95% CI 0.0%–27.2%), communication failure (20%, 95% CI 4.0%–36.0%) and consultant’s refusal of the consultation (20% [95% CI 4.0%–36.0%]). All consultant refusals were from one internal medicine clinic, representing 42% (8/19) of ED referrals to that clinic. None of the 6 patients interviewed who were declined consultation was aware that their consultation had been refused.
Conclusion: Patients discharged by the EP with referral to specialty clinics frequently do not complete the consultation. Causes for failure to follow up relate to patient decision, inadequate or poorly understood discharge information, and system factors. Institutional audits of patients who fail to complete follow-up may reveal unanticipated barriers to care.
-
September
2008
10
5
David Provan, Kate Hanneman, Shannon Moore, Steven M. Friedman
Objective: We sought to determine whether patients or their families could identify adverse events in the emergency department (ED), to characterize patient reports of errors and to compare patient reports to events recorded by health care providers.
Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in a quaternary care inner city teaching hospital with approximately 40 000 annual visits. ED patients were recruited for participation in a standardized interview within 24 hours of ED discharge and a follow-up interview 3-7 days after discharge. Responses regarding events were tabulated and compared with physician and nurse notations in the medical record and hospital event reporting system.
Results: Of 292 eligible patients, 201 (69%) were interviewed within 24 hours of ED discharge, and 143 (71% of interviewees) underwent a follow-up interview 3-7 days after discharge. Interviewees did not differ from the base ED population in terms of age, sex or language. Analysis of patient interviews identified 10 adverse events (5% incident rate; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.41%-8.96%), 8 near misses (4% incident rate; 95% CI 1.73%-7.69%) and no medical errors. Of the 10 adverse events, 6 (60%) were characterized as preventable (2 raters; κ = 0.78, standard error [SE] 0.20; 95% CI 0.39-1.00; p = 0.01). Adverse events were primarily related to delayed or inadequate analgesia. Only 4 out of 8 (50%) near misses were intercepted by hospital personnel. The secondary interview elicited 2 out of 10 adverse events and 3 out of 8 near misses that had not been identified in the primary interview. No designation (0 out of 10) of an adverse event was recorded in the ED medical record or in the confidential hospital event reporting system.
Conclusion: ED patients can identify adverse events affecting their care. Moreover, many of these events are not recorded in the medical record. Engaging patients and their family members in identification of errors may enhance patient safety.
