Introduction: Retrospective studies suggest that a rapid initiation of treatment results in a better prognosis for patients in the emergency department. There could be a difference between the actual medication administration time and the documented time in the electronic health record. In this study, the difference between the observed medication administration time and documentation time was investigated. Patient and nurse characteristics were also tested for associations with observed time differences. Methods: In this prospective study, emergency nurses were followed by observers for a total of 3 months. Patient inclusion was divided over 2 time periods. The difference in the observed medication administration time and the corresponding electronic health record documentation time was measured. The association between patient/nurse characteristics and the difference in medication administration and documentation time was tested with a Spearman correlation or biserial correlation test. Results: In 34 observed patients, the median difference in administration and documentation time was 6.0 minutes (interquartile range 2.0-16.0). In 9 (26.5%) patients, the actual time of medication administration differed more than 15 minutes with the electronic health record documentation time. High temperature, lower saturation, oxygen-dependency, and high Modified Early Warning Score were all correlated with an increasing difference between administration and documentation times. Discussion: A difference between administration and documentation times of medication in the emergency department may be common, especially for more acute patients. This could bias, in part, previously reported time-to-treatment measurements from retrospective research designs, which should be kept in mind when outcomes of retrospective time-to-treatment studies are evaluated.
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
BackgroundSpecialist palliative care teams are consulted during hospital admission for advice on complex palliative care. These consultations need to be timely to prevent symptom burden and maintain quality of life. Insight into specialist palliative care teams may help improve the outcomes of palliative care.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, we analyzed qualitative and quantitative data of palliative care consultations in a six-month period (2017 or 2018) in four general hospitals in the northwestern part of the Netherlands. Data were obtained from electronic medical records.ResultsWe extracted data from 336 consultations. The most common diagnoses were cancer (54.8%) and organ failure (26.8%). The estimated life expectancy was less than three months for 52.3% of all patients. Within two weeks after consultation, 53.2% of the patients died, and the median time until death was 11 days (range 191) after consultation. Most patients died in hospital (49.4%) but only 7.5% preferred to die in hospital. Consultations were mostly requested for advance care planning (31.6%). End-of-life preferences focused on last wishes and maintaining quality of life.ConclusionThis study provides detailed insight into consultations of palliative care teams and shows that even though most palliative care consultations were requested for advance care planning, consultations focus on end-of-life care and are more crisis-oriented than prevention-oriented. Death often occurs too quickly after consultation for end-of-life preferences to be met and these preferences tend to focus on dying. Educating healthcare professionals on when to initiate advance care planning would promote a more prevention-oriented approach. Defining factors that indicate the need for timely palliative care team consultation and advance care planning could help timely identification and consultation.
MULTIFILE
