4.5 Review

Adverse Events in Emergency Department Boarding: A Systematic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING SCHOLARSHIP
卷 53, 期 4, 页码 458-467

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jnu.12653

关键词

Adverse events; boarding; emergency department; overcrowding

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Boarding in emergency departments may lead to decreased quality of care and increased adverse events.
Background Overcrowding in emergency departments (EDs) is a worldwide challenge. As a result of the increased demand for EDs, slow internal patient flow, and unavailability of hospital beds, patients are kept in the corridors, causing a boarding effect. Studies have associated boarding in EDs with unfavorable clinical outcomes and adverse events. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review was to describe the effects of ED boarding on the occurrence of adverse events. Design We followed the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist and registered this systematic review with PROSPERO (CRD42020117915). Methods Literature searches were performed using the databases PubMed, Scopus, Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (LILACS), Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane, as well as Google Scholar, OpenThesis, and the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations from September to November 2019. Cohort or case control studies that evaluated the occurrence of adverse events in patients who remained in an ED, waiting for a hospital bed, were included in the review. Results Seven studies met our eligibility criteria. Boarding in EDs may be related to a reduction in the quality of care, resulting in unfavorable clinical outcomes and adverse events. Conclusions Boarding in EDs may be related to increases in adverse incidents and events. Clinical Relevance The evidence in this review suggests that ED boarding increases the occurrence of unfavorable outcomes and identifies important considerations for future research.

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

4.5
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