CJEM Articles: survey

Objectives: To explore emergency department (ED) patient expectations regarding staff communication with patients, wait times, the triage process and information management.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional English-language telephone survey among patients aged 18 years or older who visited the EDs in the Calgary Health Region in 2002. Survey items were based on a preceding qualitative study.

Results: Of the 941 surveys, 837 were analyzed. Patients placed the highest importance on the explanation of test results (96.5%), a description of circumstances that would require the patient to return to the ED (94.4%), the use of plain language (92.1%) and the reason for the tests (90.8%). Seventy-six percent of patients felt that ED staff should update patients every 30 minutes or less, 51.3% expected patients with non-life threatening problems should wait <1 hour, and 58.3% expected that the tests should be done within 1 hour. Almost two-thirds of the patients (64.4%) believed that the most serious patients should be seen first; 59.3% felt that the seriousness of medical concern should be determined by a triage nurse, and 63.9% thought that their personal health records should be immediately available to the emergency physician without their consent. The actual length of stay was significantly longer than expected length of stay for all patient groups, with Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale Levels IV and V patients expecting a shorter wait than patients in more urgent triage groups. Triage level effects on other expectations were not observed.

Conclusions: ED patient expectations appear to be similar across all triage levels. Patients value effective communication and short wait times over many other aspects of care. They have expectations for short wait times that are met infrequently and are currently unattainable in many Canadian EDs. Although it may be neither feasible nor desirable to meet all patient expectations, increased focus on wait times and staff communication may increase both ED efficiency and patient satisfaction.

Background: To maintain continuity of care when a patient's care is transferred between physicians, continuity of patient information is required. This survey determined how, and how well, Ontario emergency departments (EDs) communicate patient information to physicians in the community.

Methods: We surveyed Ontario ED chiefs to determine the most common media and methods used for disseminating information. We measured the perceived quality of their system, which was regressed against the hospital teaching status and community size using generalized logits modelling. Finally, we elicited the components of an ideal communication system for the ED.

Results: One hundred and forty-three (85.6%) Ontario ED chiefs participated. The ED record of treatment was the most commonly used medium (95%). Postal service was the most common (55%) method of disseminating information. Thirty-three chiefs (23%) perceived the quality of communicating patient information from their ED as unsatisfactory or inadequate. This perception was significantly more prevalent in larger communities (excellent v. unsatisfactory [odds ratio (OR) 44.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.9-140] and satisfactory v. unsatisfactory [OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.6-5.1]) and in teaching hospitals (satisfactory v. unsatisfactory [OR 9.7, 95% CI 4.7-20.3]). Seventy-eight percent of responding chiefs felt that patient information should be disseminated using electronic means, either through email or server access.

Conclusions: To communicate patient information to community physicians, Ontario ED chiefs report that a copy of the ED record of treatment is sent by postal service. More than one-fifth of ED chiefs perceived communication from their department as unsatisfactory or inadequate. Studies that assess the completeness and accuracy of the record of treatment are required as a first step for measuring the quality of patient information communication in the Ontario ED system.

Objectives: Our objective was to determine the practice patterns of Canadian emergency physicians with respect to the management of traumatic corneal abrasions.

Methods: After developing our instrument and pilot testing it on a sample of emergency residents, we randomly surveyed 470 members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, using a modified Dillman technique. We distributed a pre-notification letter, an 18-item survey, and appropriate follow-up surveys to non-responders. Those members with an email address (n = 400) received a Web-based survey, and those without (n = 70) received a survey by post. The survey focused on the indications and utilization of analgesics (oral and topical), cycloplegics, eye patches and topical antibiotics.

Results: Our response rate was 64% (301/470), and the median age of respondents was 38 years. Most (77.7%) were male, 71.8% were full-time emergency physicians, 76.5% were emergency medicine certified, and 64.4% practised in teaching hospitals. Pain management preferences (offered usually or always) included oral analgesics (82.1%), cycloplegics (65.1%) and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (52.8%). Only 21.6% of respondents performed patching, and most (71.2%) prescribed topical antibiotics, particularly for contact lens wearers and patients with ocular foreign bodies. Two-thirds of the respondents provided tetanus toxoid if a foreign body was present, and 46.2% did so even if a foreign body was not present. Most respondents (88.0%) routinely arranged follow-up.

Conclusions: This national survey of emergency physicians demonstrates a lack of consensus on the management of traumatic corneal abrasions. Further study is indicated to determine the optimal treatment, particularly regarding the use of topical NSAIDs.

Objectives: To determine Canadian emergency physicians' estimates regarding the safety and efficiency of chest discomfort management in their emergency department (ED), and their attitudes toward and perception of the need for a chest discomfort clinical prediction rule that identifies very low risk patients who are safe to discharge after a brief ED assessment.
Methods: 300 members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) were randomly selected to receive a confidential mail survey, which invited them to provide information on current disposition of patients with chest discomfort and their opinions regarding the value of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with chest discomfort who are safe to discharge after a brief (~2 hour) assessment.
Results: Of the 300 physicians selected, 288 were eligible for the survey and 235 (82%) responded. Only 5% follow discharged patients to measure safe practice. Overall, 165 (70%) felt the proposed prediction rule would be very useful and 43 (18%) felt it would be useful. Almost all (94%) believed a prediction rule would be useful if it identified patients safe for discharge without increasing the current rate of missed acute myocardial infarction (estimated at 2%). Most respondents (59%) believed that a clinical prediction rule should suggest a course of action, while 30% felt it should convey a probability of disease.
Conclusions: Canadian emergency physicians support the concept of a clinical prediction rule for the early discharge of patients with chest discomfort. Most believe that such a rule would be useful if it identified patients who are safe for discharge after a brief assessment, while maintaining current levels of safety. Future research should be aimed at deriving a clinical prediction rule to identify low risk patients who can be safely discharged after a limited emergency department evaluation.