4.2 Article

Independent determinants of prolonged emergency department length of stay in a tertiary care centre: a prospective cohort study

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13049-018-0547-5

关键词

Emergency department; Overcrowding; Emergency department length of stay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Emergency department (ED) overcrowding is a potential threat for patient safety. We searched for independent determinants of prolonged ED length of stay (LOS) with the aim to identify factors which can be targeted to reduce ED LOS, which may help in preventing overcrowding. Methods: This prospective cohort study included consecutive ED patients in a Dutch tertiary care centre. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent determinants of ED LOS >4 h, including patient characteristics (demographics, referral type, acuity, (number of) presenting complaints and comorbidity), treating specialty, diagnostic testing, consultations, number of patients in the ED and disposition. Furthermore, we quantified the absolute time delays (measured in real-time) associated with the most important independent determinants of prolonged ED LOS. Results: In 1434 included patients independent determinants of prolonged ED LOS were number and type of presenting complaints, specialty, laboratory/radiology testing and consultations, and ICU admission. Modifiable determinants with the largest impact were blood testing; Adjusted odds ratio (AOR (95%-CI)); 3.45 (1.95-6.11), urine testing; 1.79 (1.21-2.63), radiology imaging; 3.02 (2.13-4.30), and consultation; 5.90 (4.08-8.54). Combined with the laboratory/radiology testing and/or consultations (requested in 1123 (78%) patients) the decision-making and discharge process consumed between 74 (42%) and 117 (66%) minutes of the total ED LOS of 177 (IQR: 129-225) minutes. Conclusions: In tertiary care EDs, ED LOS can be reduced if the process of laboratory/radiology testing and consulting is optimized and the decision-making and discharge procedures are accelerated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据