Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Quality Performance Measures Track ED

By ACEP Now | on June 1, 2009 | 0 Comment
From the College
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

For example, they are often blamed for long ED stays and delays in inpatient admission that result from shortages of beds or personnel in other hospital departments.

You Might Also Like
  • NQF Measures Join Growing List Of Quality Improvement Efforts
  • The State of Emergency Medicine Quality Measures
  • Emergency Medicine Quality Measures
Explore This Issue
ACEP News: Vol 28 – No 06 – June 2009

One new measure, in particular, gets at the heart of that boarding function by recording the median time from admit decision to time of departure from the ED for patients admitted to inpatient status. This measure and two additional measures—recording median time from ED arrival to ED departure both for patients admitted to the facility and those discharged from the ED—were originally submitted to NQF for consideration by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Additional throughput measures would record time of first contact in the ED to being seen by a physician or provider and percent of patients leaving without being seen by a physician.

Although some EDs are already keeping track of this information, Dr. Beck said, “what the measures do is set specifications around when the clock starts and what needs to be measured. This makes it precise.”

Throughput Performance May Become Part of CMS Reporting

At least two of the throughput measures endorsed by NQF are likely to be included in CMS reporting and performance initiatives by 2011 or sooner, according to ACEP’s Director of Quality and Health IT, Angela Franklin.

“Whenever CMS wants to use performance measures, it is required by statute to go through a consensus body [such as NQF],” Ms. Franklin said.

For starters, door-to-departure and decision-to-departure measures for ED patients who are admitted as inpatients have been included in the “Specifications Manual for National Hospital Inpatient Quality Measures” that went online in April 2009 (www.qualitynet.org). They are also expected to be included in proposed Inpatient Prospective Payment System rule published in April 2009.

Following a 60-day comment period, “CMS will have to decide if they want to tie hospital annual payment update to reporting of these two measures,” Ms. Franklin said.

While most signs point that way, some parties, including the American Hospital Association, have argued that hospital EDs have different demands placed on them depending on the communities they serve, and that some sort of risk adjustment should be built into the measures.

Along with the throughput measures, NQF endorsed five measures of clinical care. They include management protocols for severe sepsis and septic shock, confirmation of endotrachael tube placement, and documentation of weight in kilograms for children 13 years old or younger.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page

Topics: Operations

Related

  • Management of ED Crowding versus Mass Casualty Incidents: Is There an Ethical Difference?

    August 4, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Scripps Mercy Hospital San Diego’s Unique ED Culture Breeds Innovation

    July 3, 2025 - 2 Comments
  • Opinion: Demand Up, Beds Down—The Emergency Dept. Crowding Crisis

    June 17, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

About the Author

ACEP Now

View this author's posts »

No Responses to “Quality Performance Measures Track ED”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603