BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) crowding and inpatient boarding lead to lengthy wait times for patients, which may cause them to choose to leave without being seen. A new initiative to improve communication with patients is to provide an estimated wait time with a "time tracker" display, but it is unclear whether ED patients would welcome this. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of ED patients who would favor a time tracker display. METHODS: This survey-based study was conducted from March to July 2010 at an urban academic center. After being triaged, patients were asked to answer a multiple-choice questionnaire, asking their preference toward a time tracker display. RESULTS: Of the 375 patients who were approached, 340 (91%) participated. Two hundred fourteen of them (63%) preferred an ED with a time tracker, 53 (16%) were unsure, and 73 (21%) did not prefer an ED with a time tracker. Patients with low-acuity conditions (Emergency Severity Index [ESI] 4 or 5) were 1.2 times more likely (95% confidence interval 1.0-1.4) to favor a time tracker than those with higher acuity (ESI 3). Preference was not related to race, age, insurance status, or employment. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients in our study preferred an ED with a time tracker display (63% for vs. 21% against). Support for a time tracker was higher among patients triaged with lower ESI levels (4 or 5). A time tracker is viewed positively by many patients and may be a beneficial addition in the ED waiting room.
BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) crowding and inpatient boarding lead to lengthy wait times for patients, which may cause them to choose to leave without being seen. A new initiative to improve communication with patients is to provide an estimated wait time with a "time tracker" display, but it is unclear whether ED patients would welcome this. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of ED patients who would favor a time tracker display. METHODS: This survey-based study was conducted from March to July 2010 at an urban academic center. After being triaged, patients were asked to answer a multiple-choice questionnaire, asking their preference toward a time tracker display. RESULTS: Of the 375 patients who were approached, 340 (91%) participated. Two hundred fourteen of them (63%) preferred an ED with a time tracker, 53 (16%) were unsure, and 73 (21%) did not prefer an ED with a time tracker. Patients with low-acuity conditions (Emergency Severity Index [ESI] 4 or 5) were 1.2 times more likely (95% confidence interval 1.0-1.4) to favor a time tracker than those with higher acuity (ESI 3). Preference was not related to race, age, insurance status, or employment. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients in our study preferred an ED with a time tracker display (63% for vs. 21% against). Support for a time tracker was higher among patients triaged with lower ESI levels (4 or 5). A time tracker is viewed positively by many patients and may be a beneficial addition in the ED waiting room.
Authors: Khaled N Alrajhi; Nawfal A Aljerian; Rand N Alazaz; Lama B Araier; Lujane S Alqahtani; Shaden O Almushawwah Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 1.484