Do health care professionals' perceptions help to measure the degree of overcrowding in the emergency department? A pilot study in an Italian University hospital.
Case management
Crowding
Emergency department
Flow manager
Healthcare professionals’ perceptions
NEDOCS
Perception overcrowding
Journal
BMC emergency medicine
ISSN: 1471-227X
Titre abrégé: BMC Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968543
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 08 2019
27 08 2019
Historique:
received:
05
02
2019
accepted:
01
08
2019
entrez:
29
8
2019
pubmed:
29
8
2019
medline:
26
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Overcrowding in emergency departments (EDs) is internationally recognized as one of the greatest challenges to healthcare provision. Numerous studies have highlighted the ill-effects of overcrowding, including increased length of stay, mortality and cost per admission. This study measures overcrowding in EDs through health care professionals' perceptions of it, comparing the results with the NEDOCS score, an objectively validated measurement tool and describing meaningful tools and strategies used to manage ED overcrowding. This single-centre prospective, observational, pilot study was conducted from February 19th to March 7th, 2018 at the ED in the University Hospital of Ferrara, Italy to measure the agreement of the NEDOCS, comparing objective scores with healthcare professionals' perception of overcrowding, using the kappa statistic assessing linear weights according to Cohen's method. The tools and strategies used to manage ED overcrowding are described. Seventy-two healthcare professionals (66.1% of 109 eligible subjects) were included in the analyses. The study obtained a total of 262 surveys from 23 ED physicians (31.9%), 31 nurses (43.1%) and 18 nursing assistants (25.0%) and a total of 262 NEDOCS scores. The agreement between the NEDOCS and the subjective scales was poor (k = 0.381, 95% CI 0.313-0.450). The subjective health care professionals' perceptions did not provide an adequate real-time measure of the current demands and capacity of the ED. A more objective measure is needed to make quality decisions about health care professional needs and the ability to manage patients to ensure the provision of proper care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Overcrowding in emergency departments (EDs) is internationally recognized as one of the greatest challenges to healthcare provision. Numerous studies have highlighted the ill-effects of overcrowding, including increased length of stay, mortality and cost per admission. This study measures overcrowding in EDs through health care professionals' perceptions of it, comparing the results with the NEDOCS score, an objectively validated measurement tool and describing meaningful tools and strategies used to manage ED overcrowding.
METHODS
This single-centre prospective, observational, pilot study was conducted from February 19th to March 7th, 2018 at the ED in the University Hospital of Ferrara, Italy to measure the agreement of the NEDOCS, comparing objective scores with healthcare professionals' perception of overcrowding, using the kappa statistic assessing linear weights according to Cohen's method. The tools and strategies used to manage ED overcrowding are described.
RESULTS
Seventy-two healthcare professionals (66.1% of 109 eligible subjects) were included in the analyses. The study obtained a total of 262 surveys from 23 ED physicians (31.9%), 31 nurses (43.1%) and 18 nursing assistants (25.0%) and a total of 262 NEDOCS scores. The agreement between the NEDOCS and the subjective scales was poor (k = 0.381, 95% CI 0.313-0.450).
CONCLUSIONS
The subjective health care professionals' perceptions did not provide an adequate real-time measure of the current demands and capacity of the ED. A more objective measure is needed to make quality decisions about health care professional needs and the ability to manage patients to ensure the provision of proper care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31455226
doi: 10.1186/s12873-019-0259-9
pii: 10.1186/s12873-019-0259-9
pmc: PMC6712594
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47Références
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Dec 3;18(1):914
pubmed: 30509286
Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;11(1):38-50
pubmed: 14709427
Intern Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;10(2):171-5
pubmed: 25446540
Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Aug;52(2):126-36
pubmed: 18433933
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;22(6):643-56
pubmed: 25996053
Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Jan;16(1):1-10
pubmed: 19007346
J Emerg Nurs. 2011 May;37(3):225-30
pubmed: 21550454
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Dec;18(12):1358-70
pubmed: 22168200
Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Jan;51(1):6-7
pubmed: 18166434
Colomb Med (Cali). 2017 Jun 30;48(2):53-57
pubmed: 28924304
Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20
pubmed: 19673146
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Emerg Med Int. 2015;2015:401757
pubmed: 26167302
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Nov;70(5):632-639.e4
pubmed: 28688771
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Sep;15(9):832-7
pubmed: 18821860
Ann Emerg Med. 2009 May;53(5):605-11
pubmed: 19027193
Emerg Med J. 2003 Sep;20(5):402-5
pubmed: 12954674
Emerg Med J. 2016 May;33(5):307-12
pubmed: 26739294
Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Aug;74(2):285-296
pubmed: 30611639
Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Oct;10(10):1059-64
pubmed: 14525738
Eur J Emerg Med. 2016 Oct;23(5):337-43
pubmed: 25831039
Ann Emerg Med. 2009 May;53(5):612-7
pubmed: 19027194
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jul;25(7):489-98
pubmed: 26271919
Emerg Med Australas. 2011 Oct;23(5):587-92
pubmed: 21995473
Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Sep;10(9):938-42
pubmed: 12957975
Med J Aust. 2012 Feb 6;196:122-6
pubmed: 22304606
Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Dec;60(6):699-706
pubmed: 23102917
Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Sep;44(3):280; author reply 280-1
pubmed: 15332307
CJEM. 2002 Mar;4(2):91-7
pubmed: 17612426
Res Nurs Health. 1990 Aug;13(4):227-36
pubmed: 2197679