Erica Qureshi, Brett Burstein, Kelly Cummins, Garth Meckler, Jessica Moe, Steven P Miller, Quynh Doan
{"title":"儿科急诊科重定向对手术的影响:一项匹配的横断面研究。","authors":"Erica Qureshi, Brett Burstein, Kelly Cummins, Garth Meckler, Jessica Moe, Steven P Miller, Quynh Doan","doi":"10.1111/acem.70151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Programs redirecting patients with non-urgent presentations from Emergency Departments (EDs) to the community (ED2C), by providing them a booked community appointment in lieu of waiting for ED care, may reduce ED crowding. We sought to evaluate the department- and patient-level impact of an ED2C program in an urban tertiary pediatric ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a matched cross-sectional study to describe patients redirected by a pediatric ED2C program and determine if the program changed ED operations. Days with the program were matched on day type (weekday vs. weekend) and department volume (±10%) to days when ED patients were not being redirected. Measures of ED flow and utilization on days with and without the program were compared using t-tests and linear regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 6164 patients eligible for the ED2C program for 53 days that redirection was offered, 900 were redirected (14.6%). On average, 17.7 (SD 8.5) patients were redirected and 92.4 (SD 23.7) eligible patients were not redirected each day the ED2C was in operation. Patients who were redirected had a significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) than those who were eligible but not redirected (2.9 ± 2.0 h vs. 8.5 ± 4.3 h, p-value < 0.0001). Three patients who were redirected (0.3%) and 11 eligible but not redirected (0.2%) returned to the ED and were hospitalized. Average median departmental LOS, time to physician assessment, daily proportion hospitalized patients, proportion of patients left without being seen, and ED return visits did not differ on days with and without the program.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A small proportion of eligible patients were redirected. These patients experienced a lower LOS, without increasing the proportion of return visits. ED operations were unchanged. Refining eligibility criteria for pediatric redirection with an emphasis on patient safety is necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Operational Impact of Redirection From the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Matched Cross-Sectional Study.\",\"authors\":\"Erica Qureshi, Brett Burstein, Kelly Cummins, Garth Meckler, Jessica Moe, Steven P Miller, Quynh Doan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acem.70151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Programs redirecting patients with non-urgent presentations from Emergency Departments (EDs) to the community (ED2C), by providing them a booked community appointment in lieu of waiting for ED care, may reduce ED crowding. We sought to evaluate the department- and patient-level impact of an ED2C program in an urban tertiary pediatric ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a matched cross-sectional study to describe patients redirected by a pediatric ED2C program and determine if the program changed ED operations. Days with the program were matched on day type (weekday vs. weekend) and department volume (±10%) to days when ED patients were not being redirected. Measures of ED flow and utilization on days with and without the program were compared using t-tests and linear regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 6164 patients eligible for the ED2C program for 53 days that redirection was offered, 900 were redirected (14.6%). On average, 17.7 (SD 8.5) patients were redirected and 92.4 (SD 23.7) eligible patients were not redirected each day the ED2C was in operation. Patients who were redirected had a significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) than those who were eligible but not redirected (2.9 ± 2.0 h vs. 8.5 ± 4.3 h, p-value < 0.0001). Three patients who were redirected (0.3%) and 11 eligible but not redirected (0.2%) returned to the ED and were hospitalized. Average median departmental LOS, time to physician assessment, daily proportion hospitalized patients, proportion of patients left without being seen, and ED return visits did not differ on days with and without the program.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A small proportion of eligible patients were redirected. These patients experienced a lower LOS, without increasing the proportion of return visits. ED operations were unchanged. Refining eligibility criteria for pediatric redirection with an emphasis on patient safety is necessary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70151\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70151","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:将非急症患者从急诊科(EDs)转到社区(ED2C)的方案,通过为他们提供预约的社区预约而不是等待急诊科护理,可以减少急诊科的拥挤。我们试图评估ED2C项目在城市三级儿科ED中对科室和患者水平的影响。方法:我们进行了一项匹配的横断面研究,描述了儿科ED2C项目重定向的患者,并确定该项目是否改变了ED手术。使用该计划的天数在天数类型(工作日与周末)和科室数量(±10%)上与ED患者未被重定向的天数相匹配。使用t检验和线性回归模型比较有和没有计划的日子ED流量和利用率。结果:6164例符合ED2C项目53天重定向的患者中,900例(14.6%)重定向。平均每天有17.7例(SD 8.5)患者被重定向,92.4例(SD 23.7)符合条件的患者未被重定向。重定向患者的住院时间(LOS)明显短于符合条件但未重定向的患者(2.9±2.0 h vs 8.5±4.3 h, p值)。结论:一小部分符合条件的患者被重定向。这些患者的LOS较低,但未增加复诊的比例。ED手术没有变化。完善儿科重定向的资格标准,强调患者安全是必要的。
Operational Impact of Redirection From the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Matched Cross-Sectional Study.
Background: Programs redirecting patients with non-urgent presentations from Emergency Departments (EDs) to the community (ED2C), by providing them a booked community appointment in lieu of waiting for ED care, may reduce ED crowding. We sought to evaluate the department- and patient-level impact of an ED2C program in an urban tertiary pediatric ED.
Methods: We conducted a matched cross-sectional study to describe patients redirected by a pediatric ED2C program and determine if the program changed ED operations. Days with the program were matched on day type (weekday vs. weekend) and department volume (±10%) to days when ED patients were not being redirected. Measures of ED flow and utilization on days with and without the program were compared using t-tests and linear regression models.
Results: Of the 6164 patients eligible for the ED2C program for 53 days that redirection was offered, 900 were redirected (14.6%). On average, 17.7 (SD 8.5) patients were redirected and 92.4 (SD 23.7) eligible patients were not redirected each day the ED2C was in operation. Patients who were redirected had a significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) than those who were eligible but not redirected (2.9 ± 2.0 h vs. 8.5 ± 4.3 h, p-value < 0.0001). Three patients who were redirected (0.3%) and 11 eligible but not redirected (0.2%) returned to the ED and were hospitalized. Average median departmental LOS, time to physician assessment, daily proportion hospitalized patients, proportion of patients left without being seen, and ED return visits did not differ on days with and without the program.
Conclusions: A small proportion of eligible patients were redirected. These patients experienced a lower LOS, without increasing the proportion of return visits. ED operations were unchanged. Refining eligibility criteria for pediatric redirection with an emphasis on patient safety is necessary.
期刊介绍:
Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine.
The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more.
Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.