Literature DB >> 16627843

Announcing the emergent patient in the emergency department: a randomised trial.

G Arendts1, S Elgafi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine which of three commonly used methods for notifying medical staff of the arrival of an emergent case to the triage area of an emergency department (ED) is optimal.
METHODS: Prospective, randomised trial. Patients arriving with conditions rated as emergencies (triage category 2) were randomised to one of three notification arms: by microphone, by telephone, or by computer. The proportion of patients seen by a doctor within 10 minutes of arrival to the ED in each arm was compared.
RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients were enrolled. The proportion seen within 10 minutes for patients announced by microphone was significantly greater than those announced by telephone or computer (67.0% v 63.2% v 57.3%, respectively; chi2 6.30, p = 0.04). No method achieved the benchmark proportion of 80% of patients seen within 10 minutes of arrival.
CONCLUSIONS: A microphone announcement heard by overhead speakers should be incorporated with other strategies to improve the timeliness of medical assessment of emergent cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16627843      PMCID: PMC2564091          DOI: 10.1136/emj.2005.026831

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Med J        ISSN: 1472-0205            Impact factor:   2.740


  8 in total

1.  The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; Iain Chalmers; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-02-05       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  Allocation concealment and blinding: when ignorance is bliss.

Authors:  Peta M Forder; Val J Gebski; Anthony C Keech
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2005-01-17       Impact factor: 7.738

3.  Rapid process redesign in a university-based emergency department: decreasing waiting time intervals and improving patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Daniel W Spaite; Fran Bartholomeaux; John Guisto; Elizabeth Lindberg; Becky Hull; Alicia Eyherabide; Sally Lanyon; Elizabeth A Criss; Terence D Valenzuela; Carol Conroy
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.721

4.  Response times to visual and auditory alarms during anaesthesia.

Authors:  R W Morris; S R Montano
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 1.669

5.  Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; David A Grimes
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-02-23       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Reduced access block causes shorter emergency department waiting times: An historical control observational study.

Authors:  Robert Dunn
Journal:  Emerg Med (Fremantle)       Date:  2003-06

7.  Waiting times in California's emergency departments.

Authors:  Susan Lambe; Donna L Washington; Arlene Fink; Marianne Laouri; Honghu Liu; Jessica Scura Fosse; Robert H Brook; Steven M Asch
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.721

8.  Effect of a rapid assessment clinic on the waiting time to be seen by a doctor and the time spent in the department, for patients presenting to an urban emergency department: a controlled prospective trial.

Authors:  M W Ardagh; J Elisabeth Wells; Katherine Cooper; Rosa Lyons; Rosemary Patterson; Paul O'Donovan
Journal:  N Z Med J       Date:  2002-07-02
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.