Randomized controlled open-label trial to evaluate prioritization software for the secondary triage of patients in the pediatric emergency department.
Patient flow
Patient prioritization
Pediatric emergency department
Second triage
Usage assessment
Journal
International journal of emergency medicine
ISSN: 1865-1372
Titre abrégé: Int J Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101469435
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Apr 2024
08 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
06
12
2023
accepted:
17
03
2024
medline:
9
4
2024
pubmed:
9
4
2024
entrez:
8
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The continual increase in patient attendance at the emergency department (ED) is a worldwide health issue. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of a secondary prioritization software reduces the patients' median length of stay (LOS) in the pediatric ED. A randomized, controlled, open-label trial was conducted over a 30-day period between March 15th and April 23rd 2021 at Lille University Hospital. Work days were randomized to use the patient prioritization software or the pediatric ED's standard dashboard. All time intervals between admission and discharge were recorded prospectively by a physician not involved in patient care during the study period. The study's primary endpoint was the LOS in the pediatric ED, which was expected to be 15 min shorter in the intervention group than in the control group. The secondary endpoints were specific time intervals during the stay in the pediatric ED and levels of staff satisfaction. 1599 patients were included: 798 in the intervention group and 801 in the control group. The median [interquartile range] LOS was 172 min [113-255] in the intervention group and 167 min [108-254) in the control group (p = 0.46). In the intervention group, the time interval between admission to the first medical evaluation for high-priority patients and the time interval between the senior physician's final evaluation and patient discharge were shorter (p < 0.01). The median satisfaction score was 68 [55-80] (average). The patients' total LOS was not significantly shorter on days of intervention. However, use of the electronic patient prioritization tool was associated with significant decreases in some important time intervals during care in the pediatric ED. gov: NCT05994196 Trial registration number: NCT05994196. Date of registration: August 16th, 2023.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The continual increase in patient attendance at the emergency department (ED) is a worldwide health issue. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of a secondary prioritization software reduces the patients' median length of stay (LOS) in the pediatric ED.
METHODS
METHODS
A randomized, controlled, open-label trial was conducted over a 30-day period between March 15th and April 23rd 2021 at Lille University Hospital. Work days were randomized to use the patient prioritization software or the pediatric ED's standard dashboard. All time intervals between admission and discharge were recorded prospectively by a physician not involved in patient care during the study period. The study's primary endpoint was the LOS in the pediatric ED, which was expected to be 15 min shorter in the intervention group than in the control group. The secondary endpoints were specific time intervals during the stay in the pediatric ED and levels of staff satisfaction.
RESULTS
RESULTS
1599 patients were included: 798 in the intervention group and 801 in the control group. The median [interquartile range] LOS was 172 min [113-255] in the intervention group and 167 min [108-254) in the control group (p = 0.46). In the intervention group, the time interval between admission to the first medical evaluation for high-priority patients and the time interval between the senior physician's final evaluation and patient discharge were shorter (p < 0.01). The median satisfaction score was 68 [55-80] (average).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The patients' total LOS was not significantly shorter on days of intervention. However, use of the electronic patient prioritization tool was associated with significant decreases in some important time intervals during care in the pediatric ED.
CLINICALTRIALS
RESULTS
gov: NCT05994196 Trial registration number: NCT05994196. Date of registration: August 16th, 2023.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38589780
doi: 10.1186/s12245-024-00623-3
pii: 10.1186/s12245-024-00623-3
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05994196']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
53Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Kelen GD, Wolfe R, D’Onofrio G et al. Emergency Department Crowding: The Canary in the Health Care System. NEJM Catalyst [Internet]. Sept 28th, 2021 [Last access: March 27th, 2023]; Available at: https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/ https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.21.0217 .
Lowthian JA, Curtis AJ, Jolley DJ, Stoelwinder JU, McNeil JJ, Cameron PA. Demand at the emergency department front door: 10-year trends in presentations. Med J Aust. 2012;196:128–32.
doi: 10.5694/mja11.10955
pubmed: 22304608
La médecine d’urgence (Emergency Medicine). DRESS. Les Etablissements de Santé – 2021;139–142. https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2021-07/Fiche%2025%20-%20La%20m%C3%A9decine%20d%E2%80%99urgence.pdf .
Morley C, Unwin M, Peterson GM, Stankovich J, Kinsman L. Emergency department crowding: a systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0203316.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203316
pubmed: 30161242
pmcid: 6117060
Rasouli HR, Esfahani AA, Nobakht M, et al. Outcomes of crowding in Emergency departments; a systematic review. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019;7(1):e52.
pubmed: 31602435
pmcid: 6785211
Mora-Capín A, Ignacio-Cerro C, Díaz-Redondo A, Vázquez-López P, Marañón-Pardillo R. Impact of risk mapping as a strategy for monitoring and improving patient safety in paediatric emergency care. Pediatr. 2022;97(4):229–36.
Holroyd BR, Bullard MJ, Latoszek K, et al. Impact of a triage liaison physician on emergency department overcrowding and throughput: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(8):702–8.
doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2007.04.018
pubmed: 17656607
Sullivan CM, Staib A, Flores J, et al. Aiming to be NEAT: safely improving and sustaining access to emergency care in a tertiary referral hospital. Aust Health Rev Publ Aust Hosp Assoc. 2014;38(5):564–74.
doi: 10.1071/AH14083
Schiro J, Gauthier PF, Dubos F, Pelayo S, Marcilly R. Preliminary Evaluation of an Electronic Patient Prioritization Tool for Pediatric Emergency Department. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2018;247:461–5.
Fernandes CM, Tanabe P, Gilboy N, et al. Five-level triage: a report from the ACEP/ENA Five-Level Triage Task Force. J Emerg Nurs. 2005;31:39–50.
doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2004.11.002
pubmed: 15682128
FitzGerald G, Jelinek GA, Scott D, Gerdtz MF. Emergency department triage revisited. Emerg Med J. 2010;27:86–92.
doi: 10.1136/emj.2009.077081
pubmed: 20156855
Schiro J, Leroy N, Marcilly R. Contribution of Human factors in the design of a patient scheduling system for the pediatric emergency department. In: 27ème conférence francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine [Internet]. Toulouse, France: ACM; 2015 [cited Feb 1st, 2021]. p. a16. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01218694 .
Windal F, Jeribi K, Ficheur G, et al. Pediatric emergency department crowding: survival tree clustering for length of patient stay. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2014;205:1095–9.
Gravel J, Fitzpatrick E, Gouin S, et al. Performance of the Canadian triage and acuity scale for children: a multicenter database study. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(1):27–e323.
doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.05.024
pubmed: 22841173
Bevana N, Kirakowskib J, Maissela J. What is Usability. In: In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on HCI. 1991.
Brooke J. SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind. 1995;189.
Brooke JSUS. A Retrospective. J Usability Studies. 2013;8:29–40. [Last access February 28th, 2023]. Available at: https://uxpajournal.org/sus-a-retrospective/ .
Oredsson S, Jonsson H, Rognes J, et al. A systematic review of triage-related interventions to improve patient flow in emergency departments. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011;19:43.
doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-43
pubmed: 21771339
pmcid: 3152510
Ming T, Lai A, Lau PM. Can Team Triage Improve Patient Flow in the Emergency Department? A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2016;38(3):233–50.
doi: 10.1097/TME.0000000000000113
pubmed: 27482995
Dahlen I, Westin L, Adolfsson A. Experience of being a low priority patient during waiting time at an emergency department. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2012;5:1–9.
pubmed: 22334799
pmcid: 3278261
Sivey P. Should I stay or should I go? Hospital emergency department waiting times and demand. Health Econ. 2018;27(3):e30–42.
doi: 10.1002/hec.3610
pubmed: 29152852
Copeland J, Gray A. A Daytime Fast Track Improves Throughput in a Single Physician Coverage Emergency Department. CJEM 2015;17(6):648–55.
Sanchez M, Smally AJ, Grant RJ, Jacobs LM. Effects of a fast-track area on emergency department performance. J Emerg Med. 2006;31(1):117–20.
doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2005.08.019
pubmed: 16798173
Clarey AJ, Cooke MW. Patients who leave emergency departments without being seen: literature review and English data analysis. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(8):617–21.
doi: 10.1136/emermed-2011-200537
pubmed: 21890863
Sousa R, Correia C, Valsassina R, Moeda S, Paínho T, Oom P. Children Who Leave the Emergency Department without being seen: why did they leave and what would make them stay? Acta Med Port. 2018;31(2):109–14.
doi: 10.20344/amp.9962
pubmed: 29596770
Genuis ED, Doan Q. The effect of medical trainees on pediatric emergency department flow: a discrete event simulation modeling study. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20(11):1112–20.
doi: 10.1111/acem.12252
pubmed: 24238313
James C, Harper M, Johnston P, Sanders B, Shannon M. Effect of trainees on length of stay in the pediatric emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(9):859–65.
doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00480.x
pubmed: 19673709
Raita Y, Goto T, Faridi MK, Brown DFM, Camargo CA, Hasegawa K. Emergency department triage prediction of clinical outcomes using machine learning models. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2019;23(1):64.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2351-7