<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: </title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/03/people-are-dying-because-of-emergency.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/03/people-are-dying-because-of-emergency.html</link>
	<description>medical blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:50:13 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Carsten</title>
		<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/03/people-are-dying-because-of-emergency.html/comment-page-1#comment-52317</link>
		<dc:creator>Carsten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/03/18081.html#comment-52317</guid>
		<description>Anonymous: While you may not have liked the fact that you had to wait for your care, I don&#039;t believe poor triage was to blame in your case.  Having worked triage in an ED before, an ear infection would be triaged as Class II, which means non-emergent.  The purpose of triage is to prioritize patients so that those with life-threatening or potentially life-threatening complaints get treated first.  Even Class III patients routinely wait four hours to see a doctor, and they actually may have something that could kill them.  This was not so in your case, and I don&#039;t think a 2-hour wait was unreasonable.  Unfortunately, the public seems to think that they can walk into any ER and be treated immediately, simply because &lt;i&gt;they think&lt;/i&gt; they have an emergency.  I do empathize with patients, and would like them seen and treated as quickly as possible, with the current on-slaught of non-emergent patients and limited staff/resources, it simply is not feasible to treat everyone as they walk in the doors.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;And expanding capacity does not seem to alleviate the problem.  A couple of years back, the ED where I work doubled the number of treatment rooms, as well as staff.  Now we are getting 3 times the number of patients presenting to be seen, so instead of ameliorating the problem,  increasing capacity exacerbated it.  The old adage &quot;If you build it, they will come&quot; seems applicable here.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;There are two ideas that seem to have worked:&lt;br/&gt;In California, where you would have been waiting 18+ hours for your ear infection, those with primary care/non-emergency complaints are given the option of a clinic appointment in 24-48 hours, instead of sitting in the waiting room.  70% accepted, significantly reducing the wait times for the remaining &quot;urgent&quot; patients.&lt;br/&gt;And in Kentucky, Medicaid patients must first call their on-call primary care physician to get permission to go to the ER for non-imminently life-threatening conditions.  This has reduced innapropriate ED visits by 60%.&lt;br/&gt;These programs were both started around 10 years ago, but unfortunately haven&#039;t found wider adoption. (That I am aware of.)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;And finally, to address the fact that you thought the ER you visited was seemingly quiet.  It is quite possible that you didn&#039;t see much external activity, maybe it was because all staff members were in a single room with an arrest resuscitation or other critically ill patient, leading to your needing to wait.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Just food for thought :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anonymous: While you may not have liked the fact that you had to wait for your care, I don&#8217;t believe poor triage was to blame in your case.  Having worked triage in an ED before, an ear infection would be triaged as Class II, which means non-emergent.  The purpose of triage is to prioritize patients so that those with life-threatening or potentially life-threatening complaints get treated first.  Even Class III patients routinely wait four hours to see a doctor, and they actually may have something that could kill them.  This was not so in your case, and I don&#8217;t think a 2-hour wait was unreasonable.  Unfortunately, the public seems to think that they can walk into any ER and be treated immediately, simply because <i>they think</i> they have an emergency.  I do empathize with patients, and would like them seen and treated as quickly as possible, with the current on-slaught of non-emergent patients and limited staff/resources, it simply is not feasible to treat everyone as they walk in the doors.  </p>
<p>And expanding capacity does not seem to alleviate the problem.  A couple of years back, the ED where I work doubled the number of treatment rooms, as well as staff.  Now we are getting 3 times the number of patients presenting to be seen, so instead of ameliorating the problem,  increasing capacity exacerbated it.  The old adage &#8220;If you build it, they will come&#8221; seems applicable here.</p>
<p>There are two ideas that seem to have worked:<br />In California, where you would have been waiting 18+ hours for your ear infection, those with primary care/non-emergency complaints are given the option of a clinic appointment in 24-48 hours, instead of sitting in the waiting room.  70% accepted, significantly reducing the wait times for the remaining &#8220;urgent&#8221; patients.<br />And in Kentucky, Medicaid patients must first call their on-call primary care physician to get permission to go to the ER for non-imminently life-threatening conditions.  This has reduced innapropriate ED visits by 60%.<br />These programs were both started around 10 years ago, but unfortunately haven&#8217;t found wider adoption. (That I am aware of.)</p>
<p>And finally, to address the fact that you thought the ER you visited was seemingly quiet.  It is quite possible that you didn&#8217;t see much external activity, maybe it was because all staff members were in a single room with an arrest resuscitation or other critically ill patient, leading to your needing to wait.</p>
<p>Just food for thought <img src='http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/03/people-are-dying-because-of-emergency.html/comment-page-1#comment-52316</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/03/18081.html#comment-52316</guid>
		<description>Part of the problem is poor triage.  I have personally experienced going to a not-very-busy ER far from my home (near my college over wimnter break) and receiving nothing but a couple of questions in the first two hours.  I had an ear infection, a lot of ear pain, and a headache.  I left and drove for six agonizing (and no-doubt dangerous) hours to get home where my doctor would treat me immediately.  I don&#039;t know what was going on in that seemingly-quiet ER, but it wasn&#039;t good medicine!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Part of the problem is poor triage.  I have personally experienced going to a not-very-busy ER far from my home (near my college over wimnter break) and receiving nothing but a couple of questions in the first two hours.  I had an ear infection, a lot of ear pain, and a headache.  I left and drove for six agonizing (and no-doubt dangerous) hours to get home where my doctor would treat me immediately.  I don&#8217;t know what was going on in that seemingly-quiet ER, but it wasn&#8217;t good medicine!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carsten</title>
		<link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2005/03/people-are-dying-because-of-emergency.html/comment-page-1#comment-52313</link>
		<dc:creator>Carsten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2005/03/18081.html#comment-52313</guid>
		<description>I agree that ED overcrowding and overutilization for primary care problems has reached epidemic proportions.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;From a paper I wrote in college:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Leaving before being seen by a physician also caused the patients’ health to worsen – 21% of patients who left and returned within 2 days required hospitalization – a rate double that of the normal ED population. (Pierce, 1990, 755)  Grumbach also reported the same phenomenon.  When contacted 1 – 2 weeks after their ED visit, patients who left the ED without seeing a doctor were twice as likely to report a deterioration in health status as those who did see a physician. (Grumbach, 1993, 372)  In this case, the long waits turned patients away from care that they actually needed.  Lucas and Sanford found in their study that 60% of visits by frequent ED patients were for existing or recurrent medical problems. (Lucas, 1998, 563)  So the patients do need medical care, they just did not need it urgently.  Hence, a primary care provider would likely better manage these conditions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that ED overcrowding and overutilization for primary care problems has reached epidemic proportions.</p>
<p>From a paper I wrote in college:</p>
<p>Leaving before being seen by a physician also caused the patients’ health to worsen – 21% of patients who left and returned within 2 days required hospitalization – a rate double that of the normal ED population. (Pierce, 1990, 755)  Grumbach also reported the same phenomenon.  When contacted 1 – 2 weeks after their ED visit, patients who left the ED without seeing a doctor were twice as likely to report a deterioration in health status as those who did see a physician. (Grumbach, 1993, 372)  In this case, the long waits turned patients away from care that they actually needed.  Lucas and Sanford found in their study that 60% of visits by frequent ED patients were for existing or recurrent medical problems. (Lucas, 1998, 563)  So the patients do need medical care, they just did not need it urgently.  Hence, a primary care provider would likely better manage these conditions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
