Introduction: There is a growing interest in providing clinicians with performance reports via audit and feedback (A&F). Despite significant evidence exists to support A&F as a tool for self-reflection and identifying unperceived learning needs, there are many questions that remain such as the optimal content of the A&F reports, the method of dissemination for emergency physicians (EP) and the perceived benefit. The goal of the project was to 1. evaluate EP perceptions regarding satisfaction with A&F reports and its’ ability to stimulate physicians to identify opportunities for practice change and 2. identify areas for optimization of the A&F reports. Methods: EP practicing at any of the four adult hospital sites in Calgary were eligible. We conducted a web survey using a modified Dillman technique eliciting EP perspectives regarding satisfaction, usefulness and suggestions for improvement regarding the A&F reports. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and free-text were subjected to thematic analysis. Results: From 2015 onwards, EP could access their clinical performance data via an online dashboard. Despite the online reports being available, few physicians reviewed their reports stating access and perceived lack of utility as a barrier. In October 2016, we began disseminated static performance reports to all EP containing a subset of 10 clinical and operational performance metrics via encrypted e-mail. These static reports provided clinician with their performance with peer comparator data (anonymized), rationale and evidence for A&F, information on how to use the report and how to obtain continuing medical education credits for reviewing the report. Conclusion: Of 177 EP in Calgary, we received 49 completed surveys (response rate 28%). 86% of the respondents were very/satisfied with the report. 88% of EP stated they would take action based on the report including self-reflection (91%) and modifying specific aspects of their practice (63%). Respondents indicated that by receiving static reports, 77% were equally or more likely to visit the online version of the eA&F tool. The vast majority of EP felt that receiving the A&F reports on a semi-annual basis was preferred. Three improvements were made to the eA&F based on survey results: 1) addition of trend over time data, 2) new clinical metrics, and 3) optimization of report layout. We also initiated a separate, real-time 72-hour bounceback electronic notification system based on the feedback. EP value the dissemination of clinical performance indicators both in static report and dashboard format. Eliciting feedback from clinicians allows iterative optimization of eA&F. Based on these results, we plan to continue to provide physicians with A&F reports on a semi-annual basis.

Introduction: The 72-hr unscheduled return visit (URV) of an emergency department (ED) patient is often used as a key performance indicator in Emergency Medicine. Patients with unscheduled return visits and admission to hospital (URVA) may represent a distinct subgroup of URVs compared to unscheduled return visits with no admission (URVNA). Methods: A retrospective cohort study of all 72-hr URVs in adults across nine EDs in the Edmonton Zone (EZ) over a one-year period (Jan 1 2015 Dec 31 2015) was performed using ED information system data. URVA and URVNA populations were compared and a multivariable analysis identified predictors of URVA. Results: Analysis of 40,870 total URV records, including 3,363 URVAs, revealed predictors of URVA on the index visit including older age (>65 yrs, OR 3.6), fewer annual ED visits (<4 visits, OR 2.0), higher disease acuity (CTAS 2, OR 2.6), gastrointestinal presenting complaint (OR 2.2), presenting to a large referral hospital (OR 1.4), and more hours spent in the ED (>12 hours, OR 2.0). A decrease in CTAS score (increase in disease acuity) upon return visit was also a risk factor (-1 CTAS level, OR 2.6). ED crowding at the index visit, as indicated by occupancy level, was not a predictor. Conclusion: We demonstrate that URVA patients comprise a distinct subgroup of 72-hr URVs across an entire health region. Risk factors for URVA are present at the index visit suggesting that patients at high risk for URVA may be identifiable prior to admission.

An extraordinary number of health care quality and patient safety indicators have been developed for hospitals and other health care institutions; however, few meaningful indicators exist for comprehensive assessment of hospital emergency management. Although health care institutions have invested considerable resources in emergency management preparedness, the need for universally accepted, evidence-based performance metrics to measure these efforts remains largely unfulfilled. We suggest that this can be remediated through the application of traditional health care quality paradigms, coupled with novel analytic approaches to develop meaningful performance data in hospital emergency management. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3:57–60)