The Impacts of Starting the Admission Order with the ED Physician

Increasing pressure to improve emergency department (ED) throughput has led many hospitals to adopt workflows in which ED physicians initiate inpatient or outpatient observation orders prior to a full evaluation by the attending physician.

While this approach is often intended to start the clock for care progression, reduce ED congestion by organizing patients who require hospitalization, and align with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services- (CMS)-related door-to-decision expectations, it introduces significant downstream risks that impact compliance, revenue integrity, and operational efficiency.

At its core, this practice raises concerns about whether admission determinations are being made with sufficient clinical context to support the medical necessity required for hospitalization.

Under guidance from CMS, inpatient admission decisions must be based on medical necessity and the reasonable expectation that a patient will require hospital care spanning at least two midnights, as outlined in the Two-Midnight Rule. CMS further expects that the admitting practitioner has adequate knowledge of the patient’s condition to support this determination, and that this expectation is clearly documented in the medical record.

While ED physicians are clinically capable of initiating care, they often do not yet have the full diagnostic workup, longitudinal history, or specialty-specific insight that the attending physician can provide once the patient has been more comprehensively evaluated. Initiating an inpatient order prematurely may therefore result in a status that is not fully supported by medical necessity at the time it is written.

Compounding this issue is the misalignment of internal performance metrics and regulatory intent. CMS-defined ED throughput measures focus on the entire patient journey, including the median time from ED arrival to ED departure for admitted patients, as well as the interval from the decision to admit to the patient’s physical departure from the ED.

These measures are designed to evaluate access, timeliness, and system flow; however, in practice, they may unintentionally incentivize premature admission orders to demonstrate efficiency, rather than ensuring accurate clinical decision-making. While ED throughput metrics may appear improved, patients may remain boarded in the ED for extended periods, hours or even days, waiting to be officially hospitalized, highlighting a disconnect between metric performance and actual care delivery.

One of the most prevalent consequences of ED-initiated admission orders is increased status conversions. By starting the process with the ED physician to capture the timing of the order, the clinical review for appropriate admission status becomes secondary, occurring after the fact by utilization management (UM), physician advisors, and the attending physician. This sequencing increases the likelihood of status conversions, as well as Condition Code 44s (CC44s).

While CC44 is an appropriate compliance mechanism, overutilization is often a signal of systemic issues in admission practices. Each occurrence requires additional physician involvement, administrative effort, and documentation, further contributing to operational burden.

These frequent status changes create confusion for bed placement teams, disrupt workflow, and ultimately reflect inefficiencies in front-end decision-making, rather than true improvements in throughput.

Another unintended consequence is the premature communication of patient status to payers. Many hospitals initiate authorization requests or send notices of admission shortly after an inpatient order is placed. When that order is entered by the ED physician and later changed following UM or physician advisor review, payers receive inconsistent information regarding the patient’s status.

This can result in rework, delays in authorization, and increased denial risk, particularly in an environment where payers are enforcing shorter timelines for clinical submission and concurrent review.

In conclusion, while ED physician-initiated admission orders may be intended to improve throughput, they often introduce unintended consequences that negatively impact compliance, revenue cycle performance, and care coordination. CMS guidance is clear that inpatient admissions must be supported by medical necessity and appropriate physician judgment.

Physician advisors and UM teams should consider the return on investment of moving further upstream to influence ED admission decision processes, ensuring that status determinations are accurate, timely, and supported from the outset.