Consumer experiences of emergency department pre-triage waiting period: A mixed-methods study.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Rebecca Sedgman, Noah Pallot, Annette Peart, Sebastian Wrobel, Joseph Miller, Liam Hackett, Katrina Maybury, Emogene Aldridge, Patrick J Owen, Paul Buntine
{"title":"Consumer experiences of emergency department pre-triage waiting period: A mixed-methods study.","authors":"Rebecca Sedgman, Noah Pallot, Annette Peart, Sebastian Wrobel, Joseph Miller, Liam Hackett, Katrina Maybury, Emogene Aldridge, Patrick J Owen, Paul Buntine","doi":"10.1016/j.auec.2025.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency department pre-triage waiting periods have received limited attention. We aimed to explore the pre-triage experiences and perspectives of consumers attending emergency departments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This mixed-methods cross-sectional study included 92 participants (patients, carers, and guardians) who attended one of three public hospital emergency departments in metropolitan Melbourne (Victoria, Australia). Quantitative self-report outcomes were waiting time (minutes) and number of previous emergency department visits. Qualitative outcomes (explored through content analysis) were consumer experiences and perspectives of emergency departments in general and the pre-triage waiting period specifically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants reported a median (IQR) waiting time since triage of 45 (100) minutes and 65 % (n = 60) experienced a pre-triage waiting time of 3-90 minutes. The most common perception of the pre-triage waiting period was an expectation to wait (n = 16, 17 %), yet 46 % (n = 42) reported difficulties during this period, such as other patients cutting in queue (n = 6, 6.5 %). Few positives were associated with the pre-triage waiting period and suggestions to improve this period tended to focus on facilitating a queuing system (n = 18, 20 %).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Consumers expected and understood triage, yet reported various difficulties and few positives during the pre-triage waiting period and suggested improvements to the current system, warranting investigation of interventions to improve queuing.</p>","PeriodicalId":55979,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2025.01.001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Emergency department pre-triage waiting periods have received limited attention. We aimed to explore the pre-triage experiences and perspectives of consumers attending emergency departments.

Methods: This mixed-methods cross-sectional study included 92 participants (patients, carers, and guardians) who attended one of three public hospital emergency departments in metropolitan Melbourne (Victoria, Australia). Quantitative self-report outcomes were waiting time (minutes) and number of previous emergency department visits. Qualitative outcomes (explored through content analysis) were consumer experiences and perspectives of emergency departments in general and the pre-triage waiting period specifically.

Results: Participants reported a median (IQR) waiting time since triage of 45 (100) minutes and 65 % (n = 60) experienced a pre-triage waiting time of 3-90 minutes. The most common perception of the pre-triage waiting period was an expectation to wait (n = 16, 17 %), yet 46 % (n = 42) reported difficulties during this period, such as other patients cutting in queue (n = 6, 6.5 %). Few positives were associated with the pre-triage waiting period and suggestions to improve this period tended to focus on facilitating a queuing system (n = 18, 20 %).

Conclusion: Consumers expected and understood triage, yet reported various difficulties and few positives during the pre-triage waiting period and suggested improvements to the current system, warranting investigation of interventions to improve queuing.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australasian Emergency Care
Australasian Emergency Care Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
82
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Australasian Emergency Care is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to supporting emergency nurses, physicians, paramedics and other professionals in advancing the science and practice of emergency care, wherever it is delivered. As the official journal of the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA), Australasian Emergency Care is a conduit for clinical, applied, and theoretical research and knowledge that advances the science and practice of emergency care in original, innovative and challenging ways. The journal serves as a leading voice for the emergency care community, reflecting its inter-professional diversity, and the importance of collaboration and shared decision-making to achieve quality patient outcomes. It is strongly focussed on advancing the patient experience and quality of care across the emergency care continuum, spanning the pre-hospital, hospital and post-hospital settings within Australasia and beyond.
×
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