Hao Wang1, Rohit P Ojha2, Richard D Robinson3, Bradford E Jackson2, Sajid A Shaikh4, Chad D Cowden3, Rath Shyamanand4, JoAnna Leuck3, Chet D Schrader3, Nestor R Zenarosa3. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Integrative Emergency Services Physician Group, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, TX. Electronic address: hwang01@jpshealth.org. 2. Center for Outcomes Research, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, TX; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, UNT Health Science Center School of Public Health, Fort Worth, TX. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Integrative Emergency Services Physician Group, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, TX. 4. Department of Information Technology, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, TX.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED) crowding is a barrier to timely care. Several crowding estimation tools have been developed to facilitate early identification of and intervention for crowding. Nevertheless, the ideal frequency is unclear for measuring ED crowding by using these tools. Short intervals may be resource intensive, whereas long ones may not be suitable for early identification. Therefore, we aim to assess whether outcomes vary by measurement interval for 4 crowding estimation tools. METHODS: Our eligible population included all patients between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2016, who were admitted to the JPS Health Network ED, which serves an urban population. We generated 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-hour ED crowding scores for each patient, using 4 crowding estimation tools (National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale [NEDOCS], Severely Overcrowded, Overcrowded, and Not Overcrowded Estimation Tool [SONET], Emergency Department Work Index [EDWIN], and ED Occupancy Rate). Our outcomes of interest included ED length of stay (minutes) and left without being seen or eloped within 4 hours. We used accelerated failure time models to estimate interval-specific time ratios and corresponding 95% confidence limits for length of stay, in which the 1-hour interval was the reference. In addition, we used binomial regression with a log link to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding confidence limit for left without being seen. RESULTS: Our study population comprised 117,442 patients. The time ratios for length of stay were similar across intervals for each crowding estimation tool (time ratio=1.37 to 1.30 for NEDOCS, 1.44 to 1.37 for SONET, 1.32 to 1.27 for EDWIN, and 1.28 to 1.23 for ED Occupancy Rate). The RRs of left without being seen differences were also similar across intervals for each tool (RR=2.92 to 2.56 for NEDOCS, 3.61 to 3.36 for SONET, 2.65 to 2.40 for EDWIN, and 2.44 to 2.14 for ED Occupancy Rate). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest limited variation in length of stay or left without being seen between intervals (1 to 4 hours) regardless of which of the 4 crowding estimation tools were used. Consequently, 4 hours may be a reasonable interval for assessing crowding with these tools, which could substantially reduce the burden on ED personnel by requiring less frequent assessment of crowding.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED) crowding is a barrier to timely care. Several crowding estimation tools have been developed to facilitate early identification of and intervention for crowding. Nevertheless, the ideal frequency is unclear for measuring ED crowding by using these tools. Short intervals may be resource intensive, whereas long ones may not be suitable for early identification. Therefore, we aim to assess whether outcomes vary by measurement interval for 4 crowding estimation tools. METHODS: Our eligible population included all patients between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2016, who were admitted to the JPS Health Network ED, which serves an urban population. We generated 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-hour ED crowding scores for each patient, using 4 crowding estimation tools (National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale [NEDOCS], Severely Overcrowded, Overcrowded, and Not Overcrowded Estimation Tool [SONET], Emergency Department Work Index [EDWIN], and ED Occupancy Rate). Our outcomes of interest included ED length of stay (minutes) and left without being seen or eloped within 4 hours. We used accelerated failure time models to estimate interval-specific time ratios and corresponding 95% confidence limits for length of stay, in which the 1-hour interval was the reference. In addition, we used binomial regression with a log link to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding confidence limit for left without being seen. RESULTS: Our study population comprised 117,442 patients. The time ratios for length of stay were similar across intervals for each crowding estimation tool (time ratio=1.37 to 1.30 for NEDOCS, 1.44 to 1.37 for SONET, 1.32 to 1.27 for EDWIN, and 1.28 to 1.23 for ED Occupancy Rate). The RRs of left without being seen differences were also similar across intervals for each tool (RR=2.92 to 2.56 for NEDOCS, 3.61 to 3.36 for SONET, 2.65 to 2.40 for EDWIN, and 2.44 to 2.14 for ED Occupancy Rate). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest limited variation in length of stay or left without being seen between intervals (1 to 4 hours) regardless of which of the 4 crowding estimation tools were used. Consequently, 4 hours may be a reasonable interval for assessing crowding with these tools, which could substantially reduce the burden on ED personnel by requiring less frequent assessment of crowding.
Authors: Ryan Kirby; Richard D Robinson; Sasha Dib; Daisha Mclarty; Sajid Shaikh; Radhika Cheeti; Amy F Ho; Chet D Schrader; Nestor R Zenarosa; Hao Wang Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2019-02-27