English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

: Emergency department (ED) care allows for the rapid assessment of patient concerns, but often leads to tests being performed that are not finalized or reviewed prior to patients leaving the ED. The follow-up for these tests pending at discharge (TPADs), most commonly final diagnostic imaging (DI) reports and microbiology cultures, is a major medico-legal concern for ED providers and significant safety concern for patients. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature to identify existing ED quality assurance (QA) processes to address TPADs relating to final DI reports and microbiology cultures.  Methods : Comprehensive literature searches were developed with a medical librarian and conducted in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL from inception through May 8, 2018. Studies were included if they described an intervention or program designed to follow-up relevant ED TPADs, and excluded if they pertained to communication between departments or clinicians only rather than with patients. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers in two steps (title and abstract review, then full-text review), with all discrepancies resolved by consensus with a senior reviewer. The primary outcome was the description of any QA process to follow-up on TPADs and secondary outcomes included quantifiable results of successful interventions or programs.  Results : From the 11,685 articles identified, 58 were selected for full-text review, and 12 met eligibility criteria. In the included studies, the responsibility for following up on TPADs was owned by different members of the care team (e.g., ED physicians, nurses or radiologists) and recorded in a variety of ways (e.g., electronic medical record, paper chart, system designed for TPADs). Follow-up pathways with variable standardization were described, ranging from dedicated assignment for TPAD duties with protected/remunerated time to do so, to follow-up completion done by the first clinician to receive the TPAD result. Studies that evaluated their QA process implementation found that more patients were notified of abnormal test results, follow-up times decreased, and fewer unnecessary antibiotics were used.  Conclusion : A variety of QA processes have been implemented to follow up on ED TPADs in terms of personnel involved, charting and logistics, and when evaluated, they have improved patient care.

P093: Quality assurance programs for tests pending at discharge from emergency departments: a systematic review