Literature DB >> 31060861

Association between adopting emergency department crowding interventions and emergency departments' core performance measures.

Amir Alishahi Tabriz1, Justin G Trogdon2, Bruce J Fried3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the association between adopting emergency department (ED) crowding interventions and emergency departments' core performance measures.
METHODS: We analyzed the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) data from 2007 to 2015. The outcome variables are ED length of stay for discharged and admitted patients, boarding time, wait time and percentage of patients who left ED before being seen (LWBS). The independent variables are whether or not a hospital adopted each of the 20 crowding interventions. Controlling for patient-level, hospital level and temporal confounders we analyze and report results using multivariable logit model.
RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2015, NHAMCS collected data for 269,721 ED visit encounters, representing a nationwide of about 1.18 billion separate ED visits. Of 20 crowding interventions we tested, using adopting bedside registration (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.75-0.98, P < .05), electronic dashboard (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.76-0.98, P < .05), kiosk check-in technology (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41-0.83, P < .001), physician based triage (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.73-0.99, P < .05) full capacity protocol (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.79-0.99, P < .05) are associated with decrease in the odds of prolonged wait time. Adopting kiosk check-in (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.35-0.85, P < .05) is associated with a decrease in the odds of prolonged boarding time. Using wireless communication devices (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.57-0.97, P < .05), bedside registration (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.094, P < .05) and pooled nursing (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.72-0.98, P < .05) are associated with decrease in the odds of a patient LWBS.
CONCLUSIONS: Majority of interventions did not significantly associated with ED' core performance measures.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Crowding; Emergency department length of stay; Left without being seen; Outcome measures; Waiting time

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31060861     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.04.048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  5 in total

1.  Association of Financial Factors and Telemedicine Adoption for Heart Attack and Stroke Care Among Rural and Urban Hospitals: A Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Kea Turner; Dunc Williams; Nimmy Babu; Steve North; Christopher M Shea
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 5.033

2.  An Analysis of Waiting Time for Emergency Treatment and Optimal Allocation of Nursing Manpower.

Authors:  Pei-Hung Liao; William Chu; Chen-Shie Ho
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-28

3.  What is full capacity protocol, and how is it implemented successfully?

Authors:  Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Sarah A Birken; Christopher M Shea; Bruce J Fried; Peter Viccellio
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 7.327

4.  Comparing the Ability and Accuracy of mSOFA, qSOFA, and qSOFA-65 in Predicting the Status of Nontraumatic Patients Referred to a Hospital Emergency Department: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Abbasali Ebrahimian; Seyyed-Mohammad-Taghi Shahcheragh; Ali Fakhr-Movahedi
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-11

5.  Worth the wait: The impact of government funding on hospital emergency waiting times.

Authors:  Dana McQuestin; Masayoshi Noguchi
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 2.980

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.