Dataset Information

Availability of Emergency Department Wait Times Information: A Patient-Centered Needs Assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Many Emergency Departments (ED) publish wait times; however, the patient perspective in what information is requested and the quantity of information to post is limited.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study at a tertiary care academic center. First, we conducted focus groups of 7 patients. We then generated themes following content analysis to create a patient survey. We administered in-person surveys to patients in ED waiting rooms at sites randomized for survey administration. We used preassigned shifts utilized for even patient perspective representation of the 24 hours-a-day/7 days-a-week service. We included waiting room patients over 18 years of age and excluded patients directly referred to a specialty service or who did not speak French or English. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics.

Results

We identified nine dominant focus group themes: wait time definition, wait time notification, communication, education, patient expectations, utilization of the ED, patient behaviour, physical comfort, and patient empowerment. Of the 240 patient questionnaires administered, 81.3% of respondents wanted to know ED wait times before hospital arrival hospital and 90.8% wanted ED wait times posted in the waiting room. Website (46.7%) was the most popular choice for publishing wait times outside the ED. Within the ED, patients had no preference regarding display modality, if times were displayed (39.6%). Overall, 76.7% stated that their satisfaction with the ED would be improved if wait times were posted.

Conclusion

ED patients strongly supported having access to wait time information. Patients believed having wait time information will have a positive impact on their overall ED satisfaction.

SUBMITTER: Calder-Sprackman S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8084678 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHealth care and government organizations call for routine collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) information in the clinical setting, yet patient preferences for collection methods remain unknown.ObjectiveTo assess of the optimal patient-centered approach for SOGI collection in the emergency department (ED) setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis matched cohort study (Emergency Department Query for Patient-Centered Approaches to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity [EQUALITY] Study) of 4 EDs on the east coast of the United States sequentially tested 2 different SOGI collection approaches between February 2016 and March 2017. Multivariable ordered logistic regression was used to assess whether either SOGI collection method was associated with higher patient satisfaction with their ED experience. Eligible adults older than 18 years who identified as a sexual or gender minority (SGM) were enrolled and then matched 1 to 1 by age (aged ≥5 years) and illness severity (Emergency Severity Index score ±1) to patients who identified as heterosexual and cisgender (non-SGM), and to patients whose SOGI information was missing (blank field). Patients who identified as SGM, non-SGM, or had a blank field were invited to complete surveys about their ED visit. Data analysis was conducted from April 2017 to November 2017.InterventionsTwo SOGI collection approaches were tested: nurse verbal collection during the clinical encounter vs nonverbal collection during patient registration. The ED physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and registrars received education and training on sexual or gender minority health disparities and terminology prior to and throughout the intervention period.Main outcomes and measuresA detailed survey, developed with input of a stakeholder advisory board, which included a modified Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit score and additional patient satisfaction measures.ResultsA total of 540 enrolled patients were analyzed; the mean age was 36.4 years and 66.5% of those who identified their gender were female. Sexual or gender minority patients had significantly better Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit scores with nonverbal registrar form collection compared with nurse verbal collection (mean [SD], 95.6 [11.9] vs 89.5 [20.5]; P = .03). No significant differences between the 2 approaches were found among non-SGM patients (mean [SD], 91.8 [18.9] vs 93.2 [13.6]; P = .59) or those with a blank field (92.7 [15.9] vs 93.6 [14.7]; P = .70). After adjusting for age, race, illness severity, and site, SGM patients had 2.57 (95% CI, 1.13-5.82) increased odds of a better Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit score category during form collection compared with verbal collection.Conclusions and relevanceSexual or gender minority patients reported greater comfort and improved communication when SOGI was collected via nonverbal self-report. Registrar form collection was the optimal patient-centered method for collecting SOGI information in the ED.

Project description:Clinical handovers of patient care among healthcare professionals is vulnerable to the loss of important clinical information. A verbal report is typically provided by paramedics and documented by emergency department (ED) triage nurses. Paramedics subsequently complete a patient care report which is submitted electronically. This emergency medical system (EMS) patient care report often contains details of paramedic assessment and management that is not all captured in the nursing triage note. EMS patient care reports are often unavailable for review by emergency physicians and nurses. Two processes occur in the distribution of EMS patient care reports. The first is an external process to the ED that is influenced by the prehospital emergency medical system and results in the report being faxed to the ED. The second process is internal to the ED that requires clerical staff to distribute the fax report to accompany patient charts. A baseline audit measured the percentage of EMS patient care reports that were available to emergency physicians at the time of initial patient assessments and showed a wide variation in the availability of EMS reports. Also measured were the time intervals from patient transfer from EMS to ED stretcher until the EMS report was received by fax (external process measure) and the time from receiving the EMS fax report until distribution to patient chart (internal process measure). These baseline measures showed a wide variation in the time it takes to receive the EMS reports by fax and to distribute reports. Improvement strategies consisted of: 1. Educating ED clerical staff about the importance of EMS reports 2. Implementing a new process to minimize ED clerical staff handling of EMS reports for nonactive ED patients 3. Elimination of the automatic retrieval of old hospital charts and their distribution for ED patients 4. Introduction of an electronic dashboard for patients arriving by ambulance to facilitate more efficient distribution of EMS reports. Implementation of change strategies did not result in a significant improvement in the percentage of EMS reports available to emergency physicians at the time of initial patient assessment. However, tracking both external and internal processes that influence EMS report availability showed the internal process time from fax report receipt to distribution significantly improved. This improvement reflected the change strategies that were all directed at improving the internal process. EMS patient care reports are more efficiently processed and distributed in the ED due to change strategies implemented that targeted the ED's internal process of EMS report distribution. The external process responsible for transmitting EMS reports to the ED is the limiting factor that prevents consistent timely access of EMS reports by emergency physicians and will require dedicated improvement strategies.

Project description:IntroductionFew studies have examined the impact of emergency department (ED) social interventions on patient outcomes and revisits, especially in underserved populations. Our objective in this study was to characterize a volunteer initiative that provided community medical and social resources at ED discharge and its effect on ED revisit rates and adherence to follow-up appointments at a large, county hospital ED.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis of ED patients who received medical and social resources and an educational intervention at discharge between September 2017-June 2018. Demographic information, the number of ED return visits, and outpatient follow-up appointment adherence within 30 and 90 days of ED discharge were obtained from electronic health records. We obtained data regarding patient utilization of resources via telephone follow-up communication. We used logistic regression analyses to evaluate associations between patient characteristics, reported resource utilization, and revisit outcomes.ResultsMost patients (55.3% of 494 participants) identified as Latino/Hispanic, and 49.4% received healthcare assistance through a local governmental program. A majority of patients (83.6%) received at least one medical or social resource, with most requesting more than one. Patients provided with a medical or social resource were associated with a higher 90-day follow-up appointment adherence (odds ratio [OR] 2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-6.25, and OR 4.75; 95% CI 1.49-15.20], respectively), and the provision of both resources was associated with lower odds of ED revisit within 30 days (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.27-0.95). Males and those enrolled in the healthcare assistance program had higher odds of ED revisits, while Hispanic/Latino and Spanish-speaking patients had lower odds of revisits.ConclusionAn ED discharge intervention providing medical and social resources may be associated with improved follow-up adherence and reduced ED revisit rates in underserved populations.

Project description:BackgroundInternationally, emergency departments are struggling with crowding and its associated morbidity, mortality, and decreased patient and health-care worker satisfaction. The objective was to evaluate the addition of a MDRNSTAT (Physician (MD)-Nurse (RN) Supplementary Team At Triage) on emergency department patient flow and quality of care.MethodsPragmatic cluster randomized trial. From 131 weekday shifts (8:00-14:30) during a 26-week period, we randomized 65 days (3173 visits) to the intervention cluster with a MDRNSTAT presence, and 66 days (3163 visits) to the nurse-only triage control cluster. The primary outcome was emergency department length-of-stay (EDLOS) for patients managed and discharged only by the emergency department. Secondary outcomes included EDLOS for patients initially seen by the emergency department, and subsequently consulted and admitted, patients reaching government-mandated thresholds, time to initial physician assessment, left-without being seen rate, time to investigation, and measurement of harm.ResultsThe intervention's median EDLOS for discharged, non-consulted, high acuity patients was 4:05 [95th% CI: 3:58 to 4:15] versus 4:29 [95th% CI: 4:19-4:38] during comparator shifts. The intervention's median EDLOS for discharged, non-consulted, low acuity patients was 1:55 [95th% CI: 1:48 to 2:05] versus 2:08 [95th% CI: 2:02-2:14]. The intervention's median physician initial assessment time was 0:55 [95th% CI: 0:53 to 0:58] versus 1:21 [95th% CI: 1:18 to 1:25]. The intervention's left-without-being-seen rate was 1.5% versus 2.2% for the control (p = 0.06). The MDRNSTAT subgroup analysis resulted in significant decreases in median EDLOS for discharged, non-consulted high (4:01 [95th% CI: 3:43-4:16]) and low acuity patients (1:10 95th% CI: 0:58-1:19]), as well as physician initial assessment time (0:25 [95th% CI: 0:23-0:26]). No patients returned to the emergency department after being discharged by the MDRNSTAT at triage.ConclusionsThe intervention reduced delays and left-without-being-seen rate without increased return visits or jeopardizing urgent care of severely ill patients.Trial registration numberNCT00991471 ClinicalTrials.gov.