scholarly journals Design and implementation of a temporary emergency department‐intensive care unit patient care model during the COVID‐19 pandemic surge

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
pp. 1255-1260
Author(s):  
Byron C. Drumheller ◽  
Darren P. Mareiniss ◽  
Ryan C. Overberger ◽  
Erin E. Sabolick
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Intensive Care Unit Patient ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Design And Implementation

Emergency department boarding times for patients admitted to intensive care unit: Patient and organizational influences

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-111
Author(s):  
Phyllis Montgomery ◽  
Michelle Godfrey ◽  
Sharolyn Mossey ◽  
Michael Conlon ◽  
Patricia Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Intensive Care Unit Patient ◽  
Organizational Influences

scholarly journals Improving handoff efficiency from emergency department to intensive care

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Kelsey J. Hart ◽  
Denise Gormley
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Intensive Care Unit Patient ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Process Analysis ◽  
Bedside Nurse ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
One Year ◽  
Implementation Data

The emergency department to intensive care unit nurse handoff process was found to be inefficient in a Midwest community hospital, resulting in prolonged admission times. The purpose of this project was to determine if implementation of a standardized bedside nurse handoff process would affect admission efficiency. Efficiency of nurse handoff, efficiency of emergency department to intensive care unit admissions, and rates of intensive care unit patient boarding in the emergency department were examined. A task force composed of staff nurses developed a standardized bedside nurse handoff process following guidelines from the literature. This new handoff process incorporated the evidence-based concepts of bedside report, standardization, and electronic medical record. Stakeholder and staff buy-in were obtained, and the process was implemented. Outcomes were evaluated six months prior to- and one-year post-implementation of the standardized bedside handoff process. Analysis of one-year post-implementation data revealed an improvement in average handoff time by 15 minutes, an improvement in average admission time by 17 minutes, and a reduction in intensive care unit patient boarding by 19.5%. By improving efficiency of the nurse handoff process, and therefore the admission process, the findings of this project have the potential to reduce patient boarding and improve the quality of patient care. This quality improvement project also contributes to a gap in the current body of evidence pertaining to interdepartmental nurse handoffs.

Coordination and Continuity of Intensive Care Unit Patient Care

2009 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 354-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Miller ◽  
Carlos Scheinkestel ◽  
Michele Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Intensive Care Unit Patient ◽  
Patient Care

Data based integration of critical illness and injury patient care from EMS to emergency department to intensive care unit

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 284-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Mears ◽  
Seth W Glickman ◽  
Fionna Moore ◽  
Charles B Cairns
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critical Illness ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Injury Patient

Data“-omics” and intensive care unit patient care*

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (7) ◽  
pp. 1823-1824
Author(s):  
Yong-Ming Yu
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Intensive Care Unit Patient ◽  
Patient Care

The Significance of Enteral Nutrition in the Intensive Care Unit Patient

1993 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce K. Keithley ◽  
Patti Eisenberg
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Intensive Care Unit Patient

scholarly journals Contamination of Healthcare Worker Personal Protective Equipment with MRSA Outside the Intensive Care Unit Setting

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s27-s28
Author(s):  
Gita Nadimpalli ◽  
Lisa Pineles ◽  
Karly Lebherz ◽  
J. Kristie Johnson ◽  
David Calfee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Care Group ◽  
Surveillance Culture ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Contact Precautions ◽  
Patient Interactions ◽  
The Right

Background: Estimates of contamination of healthcare personnel (HCP) gloves and gowns with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) following interactions with colonized or infected patients range from 17% to 20%. Most studies were conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting where patients had a recent positive clinical culture. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of MRSA transmission to HCP gloves and gown in non-ICU acute-care hospital units and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: Patients on contact precautions with history of MRSA colonization or infection admitted to non-ICU settings were randomly selected from electronic health records. We observed patient care activities and cultured the gloves and gowns of 10 HCP interactions per patient prior to doffing. Cultures from patients’ anterior nares, chest, antecubital fossa and perianal area were collected to quantify bacterial bioburden. Bacterial counts were log transformed. Results: We observed 55 patients (Fig. 1), and 517 HCP–patient interactions. Of the HCP–patient interactions, 16 (3.1%) led to MRSA contamination of HCP gloves, 18 (3.5%) led to contamination of HCP gown, and 28 (5.4%) led to contamination of either gloves or gown. In addition, 5 (12.8%) patients had a positive clinical or surveillance culture for MRSA in the prior 7 days. Nurses, physicians and technicians were grouped in “direct patient care”, and rest of the HCPs were included in “no direct care group.” Of 404 interactions, 26 (6.4%) of providers in the “direct patient care” group showed transmission of MRSA to gloves or gown in comparison to 2 of 113 (1.8%) interactions involving providers in the “no direct patient care” group (P = .05) (Fig. 2). The median MRSA bioburden was 0 log 10CFU/mL in the nares (range, 0–3.6), perianal region (range, 0–3.5), the arm skin (range, 0-0.3), and the chest skin (range, 0–6.2). Detectable bioburden on patients was negatively correlated with the time since placed on contact precautions (rs= −0.06; P < .001). Of 97 observations with detectable bacterial bioburden at any site, 9 (9.3%) resulted in transmission of MRSA to HCP in comparison to 11 (3.6%) of 310 observations with no detectable bioburden at all sites (P = .03). Conclusions: Transmission of MRSA to gloves or gowns of HCP caring for patients on contact precautions for MRSA in non-ICU settings was lower than in the ICU setting. More evidence is needed to help guide the optimal use of contact precautions for the right patient, in the right setting, for the right type of encounter.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document