Interventions to improve emergency department throughput and care delivery indicators: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1111/acem.14946
Elias Youssef, Roshanak Benabbas, Brittany Choe, Donald Doukas, Hope A Taitt, Rajesh Verma, Shahriar Zehtabchi
{"title":"Interventions to improve emergency department throughput and care delivery indicators: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Elias Youssef, Roshanak Benabbas, Brittany Choe, Donald Doukas, Hope A Taitt, Rajesh Verma, Shahriar Zehtabchi","doi":"10.1111/acem.14946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency department (ED) crowding has repercussions on acute care, contributing to prolonged wait times, length of stay, and left without being seen (LWBS). These indicators are regarded as systemic shortcomings, reflecting a failure to provide equitable and accessible acute care. The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving ED care delivery indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing ED interventions aimed at reducing key metrics of time to provider (TTP), time to disposition (TTD), and LWBS. We excluded disease-specific trials (e.g., stroke). We used Cochrane's revised tool to assess the risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations to rate the quality of evidence. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and Cochrane Q test for heterogeneity. Data were summarized as means (±SD) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other major databases. A total of 1850 references were scanned and 20 RCTs were selected for inclusion. The trials reported at least one of the three outcomes of TTD, TTP, or LWBS. Most interventions focused on triage liaison physician and point-of-care (POC) testing. Others included upfront expedited workup (ordering tests before full evaluation by a provider), scribes, triage kiosks, and sending notifications to consultants or residents. POC testing decreased TTD by an average of 5-96 min (high heterogeneity) but slightly increased TTP by a mean difference of 2 min (95% CI 0.6-4 min). Utilizing a triage liaison physician reduced TTD by 28 min (95% CI 19-37 min; moderate-quality evidence) and was more effective in reducing LWBS than routine triage (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.88; moderate quality).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Operational strategies such as POC testing and triage liaison physicians could mitigate the impact of ED crowding and appear to be effective. The current evidence supports these strategies when tailored to the appropriate practice environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"789-804"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","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.14946","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding has repercussions on acute care, contributing to prolonged wait times, length of stay, and left without being seen (LWBS). These indicators are regarded as systemic shortcomings, reflecting a failure to provide equitable and accessible acute care. The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving ED care delivery indicators.

Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing ED interventions aimed at reducing key metrics of time to provider (TTP), time to disposition (TTD), and LWBS. We excluded disease-specific trials (e.g., stroke). We used Cochrane's revised tool to assess the risk of bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations to rate the quality of evidence. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and Cochrane Q test for heterogeneity. Data were summarized as means (±SD) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other major databases. A total of 1850 references were scanned and 20 RCTs were selected for inclusion. The trials reported at least one of the three outcomes of TTD, TTP, or LWBS. Most interventions focused on triage liaison physician and point-of-care (POC) testing. Others included upfront expedited workup (ordering tests before full evaluation by a provider), scribes, triage kiosks, and sending notifications to consultants or residents. POC testing decreased TTD by an average of 5-96 min (high heterogeneity) but slightly increased TTP by a mean difference of 2 min (95% CI 0.6-4 min). Utilizing a triage liaison physician reduced TTD by 28 min (95% CI 19-37 min; moderate-quality evidence) and was more effective in reducing LWBS than routine triage (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.88; moderate quality).

Conclusions: Operational strategies such as POC testing and triage liaison physicians could mitigate the impact of ED crowding and appear to be effective. The current evidence supports these strategies when tailored to the appropriate practice environment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改善急诊科吞吐量和护理服务指标的干预措施:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:急诊科(ED)拥挤对急症护理产生了影响,导致等待时间延长、住院时间延长和未就诊(LWBS)。这些指标被视为系统性缺陷,反映出未能提供公平、便捷的急诊护理。我们的目标是评估旨在改善急诊室护理服务指标的干预措施的有效性:这是一项对随机对照试验(RCT)进行的系统性回顾和荟萃分析,这些试验评估了急诊室干预措施,旨在缩短患者就诊时间(TTP)、处置时间(TTD)和LWBS等关键指标。我们排除了针对特定疾病(如中风)的试验。我们使用 Cochrane 的修订工具来评估偏倚风险,并使用《建议、评估、发展和评价分级》来评定证据质量。荟萃分析采用随机效应模型和异质性 Cochrane Q 检验。数据总结为连续变量的平均值(±SD)和风险比(RR)及 95% 置信区间(CI):我们检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和其他主要数据库。共扫描了 1850 篇参考文献,筛选出 20 项 RCT 纳入其中。这些试验至少报告了 TTD、TTP 或 LWBS 三项结果中的一项。大多数干预措施侧重于分诊联络医生和护理点(POC)检测。其他干预措施包括前期快速检查(在医疗服务提供者进行全面评估前开具检查单)、抄写员、分诊信息亭以及向顾问或住院医师发送通知。POC 检测平均减少了 5-96 分钟的 TTD(异质性高),但略微增加了 2 分钟的 TTP(95% CI 0.6-4 分钟)。与常规分诊相比,使用分诊联络医生可将 TTD 缩短 28 分钟(95% CI 19-37 分钟;中等质量证据),并更有效地减少 LWBS(RR 0.76,95% CI 0.66-0.88;中等质量):POC检测和分诊联络医生等操作策略可减轻急诊室拥挤的影响,而且似乎是有效的。目前的证据表明,这些策略适合于适当的实践环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Can first impressions predict patient outcomes? Epidemiology of sepsis presentations and management among United States emergency departments from 2016 to 2023. Ruling out pulmonary embolism safely: Standardized reporting of the failure rate. Opening invisible wounds. Failure rate of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule for adults 35 years or younger: Findings from the RIETE Registry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1