4.5 Article

The emergency department occupancy rate: A simple measure of emergency department crowding?

期刊

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 15-24

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.09.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. NLM NIH HHS [R21 LM 009002-02] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE [R21LM009002] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objective: We examine the validity of the emergency department (ED) occupancy rate as a measure of crowding by comparing it to the Emergency Department Work Index Score (EDWIN), a previously validated scale. Methods: A multicenter validation study was conducted according to ED visit data from 6 academic EDs for a 3-month period in 2005. Hourly ED occupancy rate (ie, total number of patients in ED divided by total number of licensed beds) and EDWIN scores were calculated. The correlation between the scales was determined and their validity evaluated by their ability to discriminate between hours when 1 or more patients left without being seen and hours when the ED was on ambulance diversion, using area under the curve (AUC) statistics estimated from the bootstrap method. Results: We calculated the ED occupancy rate and EDWIN for 2,208 consecutive hours at each of the 6 ElDs. The overall correlation between the 2 scales was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.60). The ED occupancy rate (AUC=0.73; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80) and the EDWIN (AUC=0.65; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.72) did not differ significantly in correctly identifying hours when patients left without being seen. The ED occupancy rate (AUC=0.78; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.80) and the EDWIN (AUC=0.70; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81) performed similarly for ED diversion hours. Conclusion: The ED occupancy rate and the EDWIN classified leaving without being seen and ambulance diversion hours with moderate accuracy. Although the ED occupancy rate is not ideal, its simplicity makes real-time assessment of crowding feasible for more EDs nationwide.

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