Fast Track Dialysis 2: Improving Protocolized Management of Hemodialysis Patients in an Emergency Department Observation Unit

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Christopher O’Donnell MD , Traci Leong PhD , Kyle James MD , George Hughes MD , Daniel Wood MD , Tahsin Masud MD , Sarah Nicholls DNP , Vena Crichlow MA , Michael A Ross MD , Nicole Franks MD
{"title":"Fast Track Dialysis 2: Improving Protocolized Management of Hemodialysis Patients in an Emergency Department Observation Unit","authors":"Christopher O’Donnell MD ,&nbsp;Traci Leong PhD ,&nbsp;Kyle James MD ,&nbsp;George Hughes MD ,&nbsp;Daniel Wood MD ,&nbsp;Tahsin Masud MD ,&nbsp;Sarah Nicholls DNP ,&nbsp;Vena Crichlow MA ,&nbsp;Michael A Ross MD ,&nbsp;Nicole Franks MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jemermed.2025.08.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>There is little literature comparing efficiency between Hospitalist (HMS) and Emergency Department (ED) clinician management for end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients based on type of observation unit.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the impact of a communication and triage protocol, Fast Track Dialysis 2, (FTD2) on the primary outcomes of total and ED length of stay (LOS), charges, and observation time of ESRD patients managed by ED clinicians in a closed Type 1 observation unit versus a HMS-run Type 3 unit or ED-run Type 2 unit.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Retrospective chart analysis of ESRD patients requiring urgent hemodialysis at tertiary and quaternary academic hospitals under an ED managed FTD program versus an HMS managed program and a usual care ED program. Two-sample T-tests were used to compare geographic means.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Respectively, there were 77 and 143 encounters at institutions 1 and 2 in the historical cohort and 161 and 225 encounters in the intervention cohorts. Institution 1 showed a significantly reduced overall LOS (13.2 h vs 10.5 h, <em>p &lt;</em> 0<em>.</em>01), ED LOS (2.9 h vs 2.2 h, <em>p &lt;</em> 0<em>.</em>01), and no difference in charges ($5,642 vs $5,361, <em>p =</em> 0<em>.</em>37). Institution 2 had no significant change in overall LOS (17.9 h vs 17.3 h, <em>p =</em> 0<em>.</em>65) due to significantly increased ED LOS (3.5 h vs 2.4 h, <em>p &lt;</em> 0<em>.</em>01) when implementing FTD2. Institution 2 had a significant reduction in charges ($27,314 vs $8,391, <em>p &lt;</em> 0<em>.</em>01) when implementing FTD2.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Introduction of FTD2 in the ED for ESRD patients is associated with reduced charges and is non-inferior in terms of total observation time.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"78 ","pages":"Pages 389-399"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467925003178","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is little literature comparing efficiency between Hospitalist (HMS) and Emergency Department (ED) clinician management for end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients based on type of observation unit.

Objective

To compare the impact of a communication and triage protocol, Fast Track Dialysis 2, (FTD2) on the primary outcomes of total and ED length of stay (LOS), charges, and observation time of ESRD patients managed by ED clinicians in a closed Type 1 observation unit versus a HMS-run Type 3 unit or ED-run Type 2 unit.

Methods

Retrospective chart analysis of ESRD patients requiring urgent hemodialysis at tertiary and quaternary academic hospitals under an ED managed FTD program versus an HMS managed program and a usual care ED program. Two-sample T-tests were used to compare geographic means.

Results

Respectively, there were 77 and 143 encounters at institutions 1 and 2 in the historical cohort and 161 and 225 encounters in the intervention cohorts. Institution 1 showed a significantly reduced overall LOS (13.2 h vs 10.5 h, p < 0.01), ED LOS (2.9 h vs 2.2 h, p < 0.01), and no difference in charges ($5,642 vs $5,361, p = 0.37). Institution 2 had no significant change in overall LOS (17.9 h vs 17.3 h, p = 0.65) due to significantly increased ED LOS (3.5 h vs 2.4 h, p < 0.01) when implementing FTD2. Institution 2 had a significant reduction in charges ($27,314 vs $8,391, p < 0.01) when implementing FTD2.

Conclusions

Introduction of FTD2 in the ED for ESRD patients is associated with reduced charges and is non-inferior in terms of total observation time.
快速透析2:改进急诊科观察单元血液透析患者的协议化管理
基于观察单元类型,比较医院医师(HMS)和急诊科(ED)临床医师对终末期肾脏疾病(ESRD)患者管理效率的文献很少。目的比较沟通和分诊方案快速透析2 (FTD2)对急诊科临床医生管理的ESRD患者在封闭的1型观察单元、hms运行的3型观察单元或ED运行的2型观察单元的总住院时间和急诊科住院时间(LOS)、收费和观察时间的影响。方法回顾性分析在三级和四级学术医院接受ED管理的FTD方案、HMS管理方案和常规护理ED方案的ESRD患者的紧急血液透析情况。采用双样本t检验比较地理均值。结果在历史队列中,在第1和第2机构分别有77次和143次就诊,在干预队列中分别有161次和225次就诊。机构1显示总体LOS (13.2 h vs 10.5 h, p < 0.01), ED LOS (2.9 h vs 2.2 h, p < 0.01)显著降低,收费无差异(5642美元vs 5361美元,p = 0.37)。机构2在实施FTD2时,由于ED LOS显著增加(3.5 h vs 2.4 h, p < 0.01),总体LOS没有显著变化(17.9 h vs 17.3 h, p = 0.65)。机构2在实施FTD2后,费用显著降低(27,314美元对8,391美元,p < 0.01)。结论在ESRD患者的ED中引入FTD2与降低电荷相关,并且在总观察时间方面没有劣势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Emergency Medicine
Journal of Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
339
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to both the academic and practicing emergency physician. JEM, published monthly, contains research papers and clinical studies as well as articles focusing on the training of emergency physicians and on the practice of emergency medicine. The Journal features the following sections: • Original Contributions • Clinical Communications: Pediatric, Adult, OB/GYN • Selected Topics: Toxicology, Prehospital Care, The Difficult Airway, Aeromedical Emergencies, Disaster Medicine, Cardiology Commentary, Emergency Radiology, Critical Care, Sports Medicine, Wound Care • Techniques and Procedures • Technical Tips • Clinical Laboratory in Emergency Medicine • Pharmacology in Emergency Medicine • Case Presentations of the Harvard Emergency Medicine Residency • Visual Diagnosis in Emergency Medicine • Medical Classics • Emergency Forum • Editorial(s) • Letters to the Editor • Education • Administration of Emergency Medicine • International Emergency Medicine • Computers in Emergency Medicine • Violence: Recognition, Management, and Prevention • Ethics • Humanities and Medicine • American Academy of Emergency Medicine • AAEM Medical Student Forum • Book and Other Media Reviews • Calendar of Events • Abstracts • Trauma Reports • Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信