David Chenhan Wang1, Craig R Parry2, Michael Feldman3, George Tomlinson4, Josée Sarrazin5, Phyllis Glanc5. 1. 1 Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. 2 Department of Medical Imaging, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom. 3. 3 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. 4 Institute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada. 5. 5 Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify and integrate key emergency department (ED) and radiology department workflow time intervals within the ED length of stay (LOS) for patients presenting with acute abdomen who require CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 11-month retrospective review was performed of all patients presenting to the ED with an acute abdomen who required abdominal CT. Nine key time points associated with ED LOS and CT workflow were collected: triage, physician assessment, CT request, porter schedule, CT start, CT complete, provision of first CT report, ED disposition decision, and physical discharge. The median and 90th percentile times for each interval were reported. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent (2194/2292) of ED encounters during the study period met the inclusion criteria. The median ED LOS was 9.22 hours (90th percentile, 15.7 hours). Intervals associated with CT workflow accounted for 29% of the total LOS. Radiology turnaround time accounted for 32% of the entire CT workflow interval. Timeline analysis found three unique patterns of ED disposition: disposition after initial imaging report, disposition before report, and disposition before CT. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first to quantify the contribution of CT-related workflow time intervals within the context of ED LOS. We have shown that patients do not have identical ED transit pathways, and this may under- or overestimate time interval calculations. These results show the importance of site-specific ED LOS timeline analysis to identify potential targets for quality improvement and serve as baseline targets for measuring future quality improvement initiatives.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify and integrate key emergency department (ED) and radiology department workflow time intervals within the ED length of stay (LOS) for patients presenting with acute abdomen who require CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 11-month retrospective review was performed of all patients presenting to the ED with an acute abdomen who required abdominal CT. Nine key time points associated with ED LOS and CT workflow were collected: triage, physician assessment, CT request, porter schedule, CT start, CT complete, provision of first CT report, ED disposition decision, and physical discharge. The median and 90th percentile times for each interval were reported. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent (2194/2292) of ED encounters during the study period met the inclusion criteria. The median ED LOS was 9.22 hours (90th percentile, 15.7 hours). Intervals associated with CT workflow accounted for 29% of the total LOS. Radiology turnaround time accounted for 32% of the entire CT workflow interval. Timeline analysis found three unique patterns of ED disposition: disposition after initial imaging report, disposition before report, and disposition before CT. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first to quantify the contribution of CT-related workflow time intervals within the context of ED LOS. We have shown that patients do not have identical ED transit pathways, and this may under- or overestimate time interval calculations. These results show the importance of site-specific ED LOS timeline analysis to identify potential targets for quality improvement and serve as baseline targets for measuring future quality improvement initiatives.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT abdomen and pelvis; acute abdomen; emergency department; length of stay; medical imaging; turnaround time; wait times
Authors: Brian J Franklin; Kathleen Y Li; David M Somand; Keith E Kocher; Steven L Kronick; Vikas I Parekh; Eric Goralnick; A Tyler Nix; Nathan L Haas Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2021-05-24
Authors: Andrew C Miller; Abbas M Khan; Alberto A Castro Bigalli; Kerry A Sewell; Alexandra R King; Shadi Ghadermarzi; Yuxuan Mao; Shahriar Zehtabchi Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Carol J Peden; Geeta Aggarwal; Robert J Aitken; Iain D Anderson; Nicolai Bang Foss; Zara Cooper; Jugdeep K Dhesi; W Brenton French; Michael C Grant; Folke Hammarqvist; Sarah P Hare; Joaquim M Havens; Daniel N Holena; Martin Hübner; Jeniffer S Kim; Nicholas P Lees; Olle Ljungqvist; Dileep N Lobo; Shahin Mohseni; Carlos A Ordoñez; Nial Quiney; Richard D Urman; Elizabeth Wick; Christopher L Wu; Tonia Young-Fadok; Michael Scott Journal: World J Surg Date: 2021-03-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Hoon Ko; Jimi Huh; Kyung Won Kim; Heewon Chung; Yousun Ko; Jai Keun Kim; Jei Hee Lee; Jinseok Lee Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 5.428