Melissa L. McCarthy

BACKGROUND: An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report defines six domains of quality of care: safety, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. The effect of emergency department (ED) crowding on these domains of quality has not been comprehensively evaluated. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to review the medical literature addressing the effects of ED crowding on clinically oriented outcomes (COOs). METHODS: We reviewed the English-language literature for the years 1989-2007 for case series, cohort studies, and clinical trials addressing crowding's effects on COOs. Keywords searched included "ED crowding,""ED overcrowding,""mortality,""time to treatment,""patient satisfaction,""quality of care," and others. RESULTS: A total of 369 articles were identified, of which 41 were kept for inclusion. Study quality was modest; most articles reflected observational work performed at a single institution. There were no randomized controlled trials. ED crowding is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality, longer times to treatment for patients with pneumonia or acute pain, and a higher probability of leaving the ED against medical advice or without being seen. Crowding is not associated with delays in reperfusion for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Insufficient data were available to draw conclusions on crowding's effects on patient satisfaction and other quality endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: A growing body of data suggests that ED crowding is associated both with objective clinical endpoints, such as mortality, as well as clinically important processes of care, such as time to treatment for patients with time-sensitive conditions such as pneumonia. At least two domains of quality of care, safety and timeliness, are compromised by ED crowding.

BACKGROUND: Limb salvage for severe trauma has replaced amputation as the primary treatment in many trauma centers. However, long-term outcomes after limb reconstruction or amputation have not been fully evaluated. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective, observational study to determine the functional outcomes of 569 patients with severe leg injuries resulting in reconstruction or amputation. The principal outcome measure was the Sickness Impact Profile, a multidimensional measure of self-reported health status (scores range from 0 to 100; scores for the general population average 2 to 3, and scores greater than 10 represent severe disability). Secondary outcomes included limb status and the presence or absence of major complications resulting in rehospitalization. RESULTS: At two years, there was no significant difference in scores for the Sickness Impact Profile between the amputation and reconstruction groups (12.6 vs. 11.8, P=0.53). After adjustment for the characteristics of the patients and their injuries, patients who underwent amputation had functional outcomes that were similar to those of patients who underwent reconstruction. Predictors of a poorer score for the Sickness Impact Profile included rehospitalization for a major complication, a low educational level, nonwhite race, poverty, lack of private health insurance, poor social-support network, low self-efficacy (the patient's confidence in being able to resume life activities), smoking, and involvement in disability-compensation litigation. Patients who underwent reconstruction were more likely to be rehospitalized than those who underwent amputation (47.6 percent vs. 33.9 percent, P=0.002). Similar proportions of patients who underwent amputation and patients who underwent reconstruction had returned to work by two years (53.0 percent and 49.4 percent, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with limbs at high risk for amputation can be advised that reconstruction typically results in two-year outcomes equivalent to those of amputation.

BACKGROUND: High-energy trauma to the lower extremity presents challenges with regard to reconstruction and rehabilitation. Failed efforts at limb salvage are associated with increased patient mortality and high hospital costs. Lower-extremity injury-severity scoring systems were developed to assist the surgical team with the initial decision to amputate or salvage a limb. The purpose of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the clinical utility of five lower-extremity injury-severity scoring systems. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty-six high-energy lower-extremity injuries were prospectively evaluated with use of five injury-severity scoring systems for lower-extremity trauma designed to assist in the decision-making process for the care of patients with such injuries. Four hundred and seven limbs remained in the salvage pathway six months after the injury. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated for the Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS); the Limb Salvage Index (LSI); the Predictive Salvage Index (PSI); the Nerve Injury, Ischemia, Soft-Tissue Injury, Skeletal Injury, Shock, and Age of Patient Score (NISSSA); and the Hannover Fracture Scale-97 (HFS-97) for ischemic and nonischemic limbs. The scores were analyzed in two ways: including and excluding limbs that required immediate amputation. RESULTS: The analysis did not validate the clinical utility of any of the lower-extremity injury-severity scores. The high specificity of the scores in all of the patient subgroups did confirm that low scores could be used to predict limb-salvage potential. The converse, however, was not true. The low sensitivity of the indices failed to support the validity of the scores as predictors of amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-extremity injury-severity scores at or above the amputation threshold should be cautiously used by a surgeon who must decide the fate of a lower extremity with a high-energy injury.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the psychological morbidity associated with limb-threatening injuries. It was hypothesized that a substantial proportion of patients who sustain a severe lower-limb injury will report serious psychological distress. METHODS: Adult patients who were admitted to one of eight level-I trauma centers for treatment of an injury threatening the lower limb were enrolled during their initial hospitalization. Patients were recontacted at three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months after the injury and asked to complete the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), a fifty-three-item, self-reported measure of psychological distress. Patients who screen positive on the BSI are considered likely to have a psychological disorder and should receive a mental health evaluation. Longitudinal regression techniques were used to model positive case status (i.e., likely to have a psychological disorder) as a function of patient, injury, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 569 patients enrolled, 545 (96%) completed at least one BSI and 385 (68%) completed all four. Forty-eight percent of the patients screened positive for a likely psychological disorder at three months after the injury, and this percentage remained high (42%) at twenty-four months. Two years after the injury, almost one-fifth of the patients reported severe phobic anxiety and/or depression. While these two subscales reflected the highest prevalence of severe psychological distress, none of the BSI subscales reflected the prevalence expected from a normal sample (i.e., 2% to 3%). Factors associated with a likely psychological disorder included poorer physical function, younger age, non-white race, poverty, a likely drinking problem, neuroticism, a poor sense of self-efficacy, and limited social support. Relatively few patients reported receiving any mental health services following the injury (12% at three months and 22% at twenty-four months). CONCLUSIONS: Severe lower-limb injury is associated with considerable psychological distress. More attention to the psychological as well as the physical health of patients who sustain a limb-threatening injury may be needed to ensure an optimal recovery following these devastating injuries.