Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:44:55.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does outcome feedback make you a better emergency physician? A systematic review and research framework proposal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Curtis F. Lavoie ,
Howard Schachter ,
Aviva T. Stewart  and
Jessie McGowan
Curtis F. Lavoie*
Affiliation:
Emergency Department, Hôpital Montfort, and the Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ont.
Howard Schachter
Affiliation:
Provincial Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute II, Ottawa, Ont.
Aviva T. Stewart
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.
Jessie McGowan
Affiliation:
Institute for Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
*
Emergency Department, Hôpital Montfort, 713 Montreal Rd., Ottawa ON K1K 3E9; [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

The organization of emergency medical care limits the ability of emergency physicians to know the outcomes of most of their patients after the patients leave the emergency department. This lack of outcome feedback may hinder the practice of emergency medicine (EM) by preventing “calibration” of the decision tools of practitioners. We sought to determine what is currently known about outcome feedback in EM, including its incidence, impact and modifiers.

Data source:

We searched the following databases: PreMED-LINE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, DARE, Health Technology Assessment Database and AMED. We performed manual searches on abstract databases, reference lists, various health information and research websites, and nonindexed journals.

Study selection:

Selection entailed a 2-step screening process to exclude articles not pertaining to outcome feedback in EM.

Data extraction:

Our search yielded 1128 bibliographic records, from which screening identified 7 relevant reports: 5 surveys, 1 system level evaluation and 1 intervention trial.

Data synthesis:

All studies were found to have “inadequate” or “unable to assess” reporting and study quality. Systems for outcome feedback to EM residents have been increasingly available since 1984, though they are perceived to be inadequate. Commonly used mechanisms for outcome feedback include automatic routing of discharge summaries, case conferences for admitted patients and telephone calls to patients or families for discharged patients. With respect to attending emergency physicians, no conclusions or clinical recommendations can be made given the level of available evidence.

Conclusion:

The potential importance of outcome feedback remains, at this time, underevaluated. We propose a research framework, and hypothesize that increasing outcome feedback would increase emergency physician diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic outcomes, clinical efficiency and job satisfaction. Future research in this area should include surveys and focus groups, as well as simulated or real-world intervention trials.

Keywords

treatment outcomequality of health careemergency medicinedecision support techniquesoutcome feedback
Type
State of the Art • À la fine pointe
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , November 2009 , pp. 545 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2009

References

REFERENCES

1.Croskerry, P. The feedback sanction. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:1232–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research [website]. Available: http://www.ahfmr.ab.ca/ (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
3.Health Quality Council of Alberta (formerly Alberta Health Services Utilization and Outcomes Commission) [website]. Available: http://www.hqca.ca (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
4.Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences [website]. Available: http://www.ices.on.ca (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
5.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health [website]. Available: http://cadth.ca/index.php/en/home (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
6.Health Technology Assessment International [website]. Available: http://www.htai.org (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
7.World Health Organization Health Evidence Network [website]. Available: http://www.euro.who.int/HEN (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
8.Centre for Clinical Effectiveness [Monash University website]. Available: http://www.med.monash.edu.au/healthservices/cce/ (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
9.New York Academy of Medicine (NYAM) — Grey Literature Report. Available: http://www.nyam.org/library/pages/grey _literature_report (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
10.Society for Academic Emergency Medicine [website]. Available: http://www.saem.org/saemdnn (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
11.Australasian College of Emergency Medicine. Available: http://www.acem.org.au (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
12.American College of Emergency Physicians. Available: http://www.acep.org (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
13.Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Available: http://www.caep.ca (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
14.British Association of Emergency Medicine. Available: http://www.emergencymed.org.uk (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar
15.Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Available from: http://www.saem.org/saemdnn/Meetings/PastAnnualMeetings/tabid/1045/Default.aspx (accessed 2009 Oct 6).Google Scholar
16.Adams, WH, Keller, RE. Postcare follow-up in emergency medicine residencies [abstract]. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:617.Google Scholar
17.Osborn, HH, Negron, T. Mechanisms of emergency department patient follow-up in emergency residency programs: a national survey [abstract]. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:485–6.Google Scholar
18.Wogan, JM. Emergency department follow-up of hospitalized patients. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:510–1.Google Scholar
19.Bentley, B, DeBehnke, D, Ma, O. Survey of follow-up systems in emergency medicine residencies: analysis and proposal. Acad Emerg Med 1994;1:1116–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Gaeta, TJ, Osborn, HH. Increasing compliance with the Residency Review Committee requirements for follow-up in academic emergency departments. Emergency Medicine Follow-up Study Group. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:510–5.Google Scholar
21.Chern, CH, How, CK, Wang, LM, et al. Decreasing clinically significant adverse events using feedback to emergency physicians of telephone follow-up outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:15–23.Google Scholar
22.Sadosty, AT, Stead, LG, Boie, ET, et al. Evaluation of the educational utility of patient follow-up. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:715–9.Google Scholar
23.Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine reviewer’s checklist. Section V E. 6. Chicago (IL): The Council; 2005, Available: http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/RRC_110/110_pdChecklist.pdf (accessed 2009 Sep 18).Google Scholar