Biomedical subjects

Thomas J Flottemesch

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas J Flottemesch.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Developing models for patient flow and daily surge capacity research.

Between 1993 and 2003, visits to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) increased by 26%, to a total of 114 million visits annually. At the same time, the number of U.S. EDs decreased by more than 400, and almost 200,000 inpatient hospital beds were taken out of service. In this context, the adequacy of daily surge capacity within the system is clearly an important issue. However, the research agenda on surge capacity thus far has focused primarily on large-scale disasters, such as pandemic influenza or a serious bioterrorism event. The concept of daily surge capacity and its relationship to the broader research agenda on patient flow is a relatively new area of investigation. In this article, the authors begin by describing the overlap between the research agendas on daily surge capacity and patient flow. Next, they propose two models that have potential applications for both daily surge capacity and hospitalwide patient-flow research. Finally, they identify potential research questions that are based on applications of the proposed research models.

Crowding↗

PubMed2006

An independent evaluation of four quantitative emergency department crowding scales.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) overcrowding has become a frequent topic of investigation. Despite a significant body of research, there is no standard definition or measurement of ED crowding. Four quantitative scales for ED crowding have been proposed in the literature: the Real-time Emergency Analysis of Demand Indicators (READI), the Emergency Department Work Index (EDWIN), the National Emergency Department Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS) scale, and the Emergency Department Crowding Scale (EDCS). These four scales have yet to be independently evaluated and compared. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study were to formally compare four existing quantitative ED crowding scales by measuring their ability to detect instances of perceived ED crowding and to determine whether any of these scales provide a generalizable solution for measuring ED crowding. METHODS: Data were collected at two-hour intervals over 135 consecutive sampling instances. Physician and nurse agreement was assessed using weighted kappa statistics. The crowding scales were compared via correlation statistics and their ability to predict perceived instances of ED crowding. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were calculated at site-specific cut points and at the recommended thresholds. RESULTS: All four of the crowding scales were significantly correlated, but their predictive abilities varied widely. NEDOCS had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROC) (0.92), while EDCS had the lowest (0.64). The recommended thresholds for the crowding scales were rarely exceeded; therefore, the scales were adjusted to site-specific cut points. At a site-specific cut point of 37.19, NEDOCS had the highest sensitivity (0.81), specificity (0.87), and positive predictive value (0.62). CONCLUSIONS: At the study site, the suggested thresholds of the published crowding scales did not agree with providers' perceptions of ED crowding. Even after adjusting the scales to site-specific thresholds, a relatively low prevalence of ED crowding resulted in unacceptably low positive predictive values for each scale. These results indicate that these crowding scales lack scalability and do not perform as designed in EDs where crowding is not the norm. However, two of the crowding scales, EDWIN and NEDOCS, and one of the READI subscales, bed ratio, yielded good predictive power (AROC >0.80) of perceived ED crowding, suggesting that they could be used effectively after a period of site-specific calibration at EDs where crowding is a frequent occurrence.

Crowding↗

PubMed2006

Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: methods.

Decision makers want to know which healthcare services matter the most, but there are no well-established, practical methods for providing evidence-based answers to such questions. Led by the National Commission on Prevention Priorities, the authors update the methods for determining the relative health impact and economic value of clinical preventive services. Using new studies, new preventive service recommendations, and improved methods, the authors present a new ranking of clinical preventive services in the companion article. The original ranking and methods were published in this journal in 2001. The current methods report focuses on evidence collection for a priority setting exercise, guidance for which is effectively lacking in the literature. The authors describe their own standards for searching, tracking, and abstracting literature for priority setting. The authors also summarize their methods for making valid comparisons across different services. This report should be useful to those who want to understand additional detail about how the ranking was developed or who want to adapt the methods for their own purposes.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed2006

Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis.

BACKGROUND: Decision makers at multiple levels need information about which clinical preventive services matter the most so that they can prioritize their actions. This study was designed to produce comparable estimates of relative health impact and cost effectiveness for services considered effective by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. METHODS: The National Commission on Prevention Priorities (NCPP) guided this update to a 2001 ranking of clinical preventive services. The NCPP used new preventive service recommendations up to December 2004, improved methods, and more complete and recent data and evidence. Each service received 1 to 5 points on each of two measures--clinically preventable burden and cost effectiveness--for a total score ranging from 2 to 10. Priorities for improving delivery rates were established by comparing the ranking with what is known of current delivery rates nationally. RESULTS: The three highest-ranking services each with a total score of 10 are discussing aspirin use with high-risk adults, immunizing children, and tobacco-use screening and brief intervention. High-ranking services (scores of 6 and above) with data indicating low current utilization rates (around 50% or lower) include: tobacco-use screening and brief intervention, screening adults aged 50 and older for colorectal cancer, immunizing adults aged 65 and older against pneumococcal disease, and screening young women for Chlamydia. CONCLUSION: This study identifies the most valuable clinical preventive services that can be offered in medical practice and should help decision-makers select which services to emphasize.

Adult↗