John Teijido, Benjamin Blackwood, Barry Knapp, Laura Strojny
{"title":"A Retrospective Comparison of Emergency Department Throughput Before and After Instituting a Waiting Room Evaluation Process.","authors":"John Teijido, Benjamin Blackwood, Barry Knapp, Laura Strojny","doi":"10.52964/AMJA.0987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic has strained the healthcare system with emergency department (ED) boarding and workforce shortages. This prompted the need for strategies to evaluate and treat patients while they waited for an ED room.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective is to describe a waiting room evaluation process and ED throughput in the setting of ED staffing shortages and boarding.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective before and after cohort study evaluating ED throughput before and after initiation of the assessed waiting room (aWR) process. The aWR process is a joint effort by emergency clinicians and ancillary staff to evaluate and treat patients in the ED waiting room when no ED bed is available. Throughput data 6 months before and 6 months after institution of aWR was collected and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The arrival to provider time and the number of patients who left without being seen (LWBS) decreased with initiation of the aWR process. The remainder of throughput metrics remained unchanged. There was more ED boarding at Wisconsin sites during the aWR process period.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The aWR process may minimize LWBS and improve arrival to provider time in the setting of staff shortages and more ED boarders. It may help other ED throughput metrics although numerous confounding factors make it difficult to make definitive conclusions. This process may be trialed during times of challenging healthcare landscape, such as pandemic conditions and with workforce shortages.</p>","PeriodicalId":39743,"journal":{"name":"Acute Medicine","volume":"23 3","pages":"127-131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52964/AMJA.0987","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has strained the healthcare system with emergency department (ED) boarding and workforce shortages. This prompted the need for strategies to evaluate and treat patients while they waited for an ED room.
Objectives: The objective is to describe a waiting room evaluation process and ED throughput in the setting of ED staffing shortages and boarding.
Methods: This is a retrospective before and after cohort study evaluating ED throughput before and after initiation of the assessed waiting room (aWR) process. The aWR process is a joint effort by emergency clinicians and ancillary staff to evaluate and treat patients in the ED waiting room when no ED bed is available. Throughput data 6 months before and 6 months after institution of aWR was collected and analyzed.
Results: The arrival to provider time and the number of patients who left without being seen (LWBS) decreased with initiation of the aWR process. The remainder of throughput metrics remained unchanged. There was more ED boarding at Wisconsin sites during the aWR process period.
Conclusions: The aWR process may minimize LWBS and improve arrival to provider time in the setting of staff shortages and more ED boarders. It may help other ED throughput metrics although numerous confounding factors make it difficult to make definitive conclusions. This process may be trialed during times of challenging healthcare landscape, such as pandemic conditions and with workforce shortages.
期刊介绍:
These are usually commissioned by the editorial team in accordance with a cycle running over several years. Authors wishing to submit a review relevant to Acute Medicine are advised to contact the editor before writing this. Unsolicited review articles received for consideration may be included if the subject matter is considered of interest to the readership, provided the topic has not already been covered in a recent edition. Review articles are usually 3000-5000 words and may include tables, pictures and other figures as required for the text. Include 3 or 4 ‘key points’ summarising the main teaching messages.