Measuring the crowding of emergency departments: an assessment of the NEDOCS in Lombardy, Italy, and the development of a new objective indicator based on the waiting time for the first clinical assessment.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE BMC Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1186/s12873-024-01112-9
Fabiola Signorini, Giovanni Nattino, Carlotta Rossi, Walter Ageno, Felice Catania, Francesca Cortellaro, Giorgio Costantino, Andrea Duca, Giulia Irene Ghilardi, Stefano Paglia, Paolo Pausilli, Cristiano Perani, Giuseppe Sechi, Guido Bertolini
{"title":"Measuring the crowding of emergency departments: an assessment of the NEDOCS in Lombardy, Italy, and the development of a new objective indicator based on the waiting time for the first clinical assessment.","authors":"Fabiola Signorini, Giovanni Nattino, Carlotta Rossi, Walter Ageno, Felice Catania, Francesca Cortellaro, Giorgio Costantino, Andrea Duca, Giulia Irene Ghilardi, Stefano Paglia, Paolo Pausilli, Cristiano Perani, Giuseppe Sechi, Guido Bertolini","doi":"10.1186/s12873-024-01112-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no ubiquitous definition of Emergency Department (ED) crowding and several indicators have been proposed to measure it. The National ED Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS) score is among the most popular, even though it has been severely criticised. We used the waiting time for the physician's initial assessment to evaluate the performance of the NEDOCS and proposed a new crowding indicator based on this objective measure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To evaluate the NEDOCS, we used the 2022 data of all the Lombardy EDs and compared the distribution of waiting times across the five levels of the NEDOCS at ED arrival. To construct the new indicator, we estimated the centre-specific relationship between the total number of ED patients and the waiting time of those with minor or deferrable urgency. We defined seven classes of waiting times and calculated how many patients corresponded to an average waiting time in the classes. These centre-specific cutoffs were used to define the 7-level crowding indicator. The indicator was then compared to the NEDOCS score and validated on the first six months of 2023 data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients' waiting time did not increase at the increase of the NEDOCS score, suggesting the absence of a relationship between this score and the effect of ED crowding on the ED capacity of evaluating new patients. The indicator we propose is easy to estimate in real-time and based on centre-specific cutoffs, which depend on the volume of yearly accesses. We observed minimal agreement between the proposed indicator and the NEDOCS in most EDs, both in the development and validation datasets.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We proposed to quantify ED crowding using the waiting time for physician's initial assessment of patients with minor or deferrable urgency, which increases in crowding situations due to the prioritization of urgent patients. The centre-specific cutoffs avoid the problem of the heterogeneity of the volume of accesses and organization among EDs, while enabling a fair comparison between centres.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"24 1","pages":"196"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11488125/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01112-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is no ubiquitous definition of Emergency Department (ED) crowding and several indicators have been proposed to measure it. The National ED Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS) score is among the most popular, even though it has been severely criticised. We used the waiting time for the physician's initial assessment to evaluate the performance of the NEDOCS and proposed a new crowding indicator based on this objective measure.

Methods: To evaluate the NEDOCS, we used the 2022 data of all the Lombardy EDs and compared the distribution of waiting times across the five levels of the NEDOCS at ED arrival. To construct the new indicator, we estimated the centre-specific relationship between the total number of ED patients and the waiting time of those with minor or deferrable urgency. We defined seven classes of waiting times and calculated how many patients corresponded to an average waiting time in the classes. These centre-specific cutoffs were used to define the 7-level crowding indicator. The indicator was then compared to the NEDOCS score and validated on the first six months of 2023 data.

Results: Patients' waiting time did not increase at the increase of the NEDOCS score, suggesting the absence of a relationship between this score and the effect of ED crowding on the ED capacity of evaluating new patients. The indicator we propose is easy to estimate in real-time and based on centre-specific cutoffs, which depend on the volume of yearly accesses. We observed minimal agreement between the proposed indicator and the NEDOCS in most EDs, both in the development and validation datasets.

Conclusions: We proposed to quantify ED crowding using the waiting time for physician's initial assessment of patients with minor or deferrable urgency, which increases in crowding situations due to the prioritization of urgent patients. The centre-specific cutoffs avoid the problem of the heterogeneity of the volume of accesses and organization among EDs, while enabling a fair comparison between centres.

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
衡量急诊科的拥挤程度:对意大利伦巴第大区 NEDOCS 的评估,以及根据首次临床评估的等待时间制定新的客观指标。
背景:关于急诊科(ED)拥挤程度,目前还没有一个统一的定义,而且已经提出了多个衡量指标。国家急诊室拥挤程度研究(NEDOCS)是最流行的指标之一,尽管它受到了严厉的批评。我们使用医生初步评估的等待时间来评估 NEDOCS 的性能,并在此客观指标的基础上提出了新的拥挤指标:为了评估 NEDOCS,我们使用了伦巴第急诊室的 2022 年数据,并比较了急诊室到达时 NEDOCS 五个级别的等待时间分布。为了构建新指标,我们估算了急诊室患者总数与轻微或可推迟的急诊患者候诊时间之间的特定中心关系。我们定义了七个轮候时间等级,并计算了各等级平均轮候时间所对应的患者人数。这些针对特定中心的临界值被用来定义七级拥挤指标。然后将该指标与 NEDOCS 评分进行比较,并对 2023 年前六个月的数据进行验证:结果:患者的候诊时间并没有随着 NEDOCS 分数的增加而增加,这表明该分数与急诊室拥挤程度对急诊室评估新患者能力的影响之间没有关系。我们提出的指标易于实时估算,并基于特定中心的临界值,而临界值取决于每年的就诊量。我们观察到,在大多数急诊室,无论是在开发数据集还是验证数据集中,所提出的指标与 NEDOCS 之间的一致性都很小:我们建议使用医生对轻微或可推迟的急诊病人进行初步评估的等待时间来量化急诊室的拥挤程度。针对特定中心的临界值避免了急诊室就诊量和组织结构的异质性问题,同时还能对不同中心进行公平的比较。
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
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
期刊最新文献
External validation of the SCARE score in identifying acute coronary syndromes during medical regulation of chest pain. Investigating BLS instructors' ability to evaluate CPR performance: focus on compression depth, rate, and recoil. Empiric antibiotic therapy resistance and mortality in emergency department patients with bloodstream infection: a retrospective cohort study. Construction and evaluation of a triage assessment model for patients with acute non-traumatic chest pain: mixed retrospective and prospective observational study. Design and psychometric testing of a moral intelligence instrument for pre-hospital emergency medical services personnel: a sequential-exploratory mixed-method study.
×
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