4.1 Article

Why are we waiting? Patients' perspectives for accessing emergency department services with non-urgent complaints

Journal

INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY NURSING
Volume 29, Issue -, Pages 3-8

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ienj.2016.09.003

Keywords

Crowding; Emergency services, hospital; General practitioners; Decision making; Cross-sectional studies; Non-urgent presentations

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

[Background] Emergency departments world-wide report service demands which exceed resource availability. Themes such as crowding, non-urgent presentations, ambulance diversion and access block have been linked to complications in care, poorer patient outcomes, increased morbidity and staff burnout. People attending the emergency department with problems perceived as non-urgent are frequently attributed blame for increased service demand, yet little is known from the patients' perspective. [Method] This project utilised a descriptive cross-sectional waiting room survey of non-urgent patients to identify factors contributing to their decision making process to access ED services at a regional hospital in Tasmania, Australia. Data were analysed using a statistical software package and comparison made between the sample and population groups to determine broad representation. [Results] Patients' decision making processes were found to be influenced by convenience, perceived need and referral by a health care provider. Cost did not present as a significant factor. A high incidence of patients under 25 years of age were identified and musculoskeletal complaints were the most common complaint across all age groups. [Conclusion] Further consideration is required to determine how to best meet service demand to facilitate the provision of the right service at the right time to the right patient. Crown Copyright (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available