A Retrospective Comparison of Emergency Department Throughput Before and After Instituting a Waiting Room Evaluation Process.

Q3 Medicine
Acute Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.52964/AMJA.0987
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.

实施候诊室评估流程前后急诊科吞吐量的回顾性比较。
背景:COVID-19 大流行给医疗系统带来了压力,急诊科 (ED) 人满为患,劳动力短缺。这促使人们需要制定策略,在患者等待急诊室时对其进行评估和治疗:目的:描述在急诊科人员短缺和病人滞留的情况下候诊室评估流程和急诊科吞吐量:这是一项前后回顾性队列研究,评估了评估候诊室(aWR)流程启动前后的急诊室吞吐量。aWR 流程是急诊临床医生和辅助人员在急诊室没有床位的情况下,在急诊室候诊室对患者进行评估和治疗的一项联合工作。我们收集并分析了 aWR 启用前 6 个月和启用后 6 个月的吞吐量数据:结果:随着 aWR 流程的启动,患者到达医疗机构的时间和未就诊即离开的患者人数(LWBS)均有所下降。其余吞吐量指标保持不变。在启用 aWR 流程期间,威斯康星州医疗点的急诊室登机人数有所增加:aWR 流程可最大限度地减少 LWBS,并在人员短缺和急诊室寄宿人数增加的情况下缩短患者到达医疗机构的时间。该流程可能有助于其他急诊室吞吐量指标,但由于混杂因素较多,很难做出明确结论。在医疗保健形势严峻的时期,如大流行病和劳动力短缺的情况下,可以试用该流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acute Medicine
Acute Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信