BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission accreditation manual contains standards in improving organization performance related to report and review of patient care issues causing unexpected harm. In spite of regulations mandating reporting, it remains inconsistent, varying by provider type and hospital. Our purpose was to determine current attitudes, knowledge, and practice of error reporting among emergency department (ED) providers. METHODS: We administered a survey assessing ED staff practice regarding error reporting. Questions involved reporting of errors in which the practitioner was directly involved, errors the practitioner observed, and general awareness of reporting mandates. We also questioned individuals regarding fear of repercussions for reporting. RESULTS: Fifty-two surveys were returned. For most errors, providers were more likely to tell their supervisor about the issue than to tell the patient. Seventeen percent of respondents did not think that referring errors for review was their job. Only 31％ of respondents were aware of standardized institution-wide pathways to report errors. Any respondent who was aware of the institution-wide pathway also felt responsibility for error reporting. Thirty-three percent of the respondents were concerned about negative repercussions from reporting errors. In querying the hospital reporting system, 263 cases were referred for quality issues over the previous year, 51％ of them were referred by nurses, 27％ by medical technicians (MTs), 2％ by mid-level providers (MLPs), 1％ by physicians, and 19％ by other personnel. CONCLUSION: Although most of the ED staff are responsible for patient safety, most are not aware of systems available to assist in reporting, and even many do not utilize those systems.

BACKGROUND: In the recent past, propofol was temporarily removed from the emergency department (ED) for use in procedural sedation. We sought to determine which agents replaced it in clinical practice and the impact this change had on turnaround times (TAT) for sedated patients. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review at a level one trauma center. Patients receiving sedative agents (propofol, ketamine, midazolam, and etomidate) were identified by pharmacy codes, and their charts were then reviewed for demographics and TAT. Propofol was unavailable in the emergency department (ED) between May 2010 and February 2011. The study period extended from May 2009 until May 2011. Patients receiving sedation by non-emergency medicine physicians and those receiving sedation related to intubation were excluded. RESULTS: In total 2466 charts were reviewed and 209 met inclusion criteria. When propofol was available, the most commonly used sedative agent was etomidate (40％), followed by propofol (28％), ketamine (20％), and midazolam (6％). When propofol was unavailable, etomidate remained the most commonly used agent (43％), followed by ketamine (41％), and midazolam (11％). When propofol was available, the median TAT for sedated patients was 163 minutes compared to 178 minutes when propofol was unavailable (P=0.83). When propofol was the primary sedative agent used, the median TAT was 166 minutes as compared with a median TAT of 172 minutes for all other sedative agents combined (P=0.87). CONCLUSION: When propofol was unavailable, ketamine became a preferred ED sedation agent. Removal of propofol from the sedation armamentarium did not affect ED TAT.