Show simple item record

Characterizing Waiting Room Time, Treatment Time, and Boarding Time in the Emergency Department Using Quantile Regression

dc.contributor.authorDing, Ruen_US
dc.contributor.authorMccarthy, Melissa L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDesmond, Jeffrey S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, Jennifer S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAronsky, Dominiken_US
dc.contributor.authorZeger, Scott L.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-31T17:53:21Z
dc.date.available2011-10-03T17:19:14Zen_US
dc.date.issued2010-08en_US
dc.identifier.citationDing, Ru; Mccarthy, Melissa L.; Desmond, Jeffrey S.; Lee, Jennifer S.; Aronsky, Dominik; Zeger, Scott L.; (2010). "Characterizing Waiting Room Time, Treatment Time, and Boarding Time in the Emergency Department Using Quantile Regression." Academic Emergency Medicine 17(8): 813-823. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/79320>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1069-6563en_US
dc.identifier.issn1553-2712en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/79320
dc.description.abstractACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:813–823 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicineThe objective was to characterize service completion times by patient, clinical, temporal, and crowding factors for different phases of emergency care using quantile regression (QR).A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 1-year visit data from four academic emergency departments (EDs; N  = 48,896–58,316). From each ED’s clinical information system, the authors extracted electronic service information (date and time of registration; bed placement, initial contact with physician, disposition decision, ED discharge, and disposition status; inpatient medicine bed occupancy rate); patient demographics (age, sex, insurance status, and mode of arrival); and clinical characteristics (acuity level and chief complaint) and then used the service information to calculate patients’ waiting room time, treatment time, and boarding time, as well as the ED occupancy rate. The 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of each phase of care were estimated as a function of patient, clinical, temporal, and crowding factors using multivariate QR. Accuracy of models was assessed by comparing observed and predicted service completion times and the proportion of observations that fell below the predicted 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.At the 90th percentile, patients experienced long waiting room times (105–222 minutes), treatment times (393–616 minutes), and boarding times (381–1,228 minutes) across the EDs. We observed a strong interaction effect between acuity level and temporal factors (i.e., time of day and day of week) on waiting room time at all four sites. Acuity level 3 patients waited the longest across the four sites, and their waiting room times were most influenced by temporal factors compared to other acuity level patients. Acuity level and chief complaint were important predictors of all phases of care, and there was a significant interaction effect between acuity and chief complaint. Patients with a psychiatric problem experienced the longest treatment times, regardless of acuity level. Patients who presented with an injury did not wait as long for an ED or inpatient bed. Temporal factors were strong predictors of service completion time, particularly waiting room time. Mode of arrival was the only patient characteristic that substantially affected waiting room time and treatment time. Patients who arrived by ambulance had shorter wait times but longer treatment times compared to those who did not arrive by ambulance. There was close agreement between observed and predicted service completion times at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentile distributions across the four EDs.Service completion times varied significantly across the four academic EDs. QR proved to be a useful method for estimating the service completion experience of not only typical ED patients, but also the experience of those who waited much shorter or longer. Building accurate models of ED service completion times is a critical first step needed to identify barriers to patient flow, begin the process of reengineering the system to reduce variability, and improve the timeliness of care provided.en_US
dc.format.extent490450 bytes
dc.format.extent3106 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.subject.otherEmergency Departmenten_US
dc.subject.otherLength of Stayen_US
dc.subject.otherQuantile Regressionen_US
dc.subject.otherPredictionen_US
dc.titleCharacterizing Waiting Room Time, Treatment Time, and Boarding Time in the Emergency Department Using Quantile Regressionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid20670318en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79320/1/j.1553-2712.2010.00812.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00812.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceAcademic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.