ABSTRACT
Background. The accuracy and utility of current Emergency Department (ED) crowding estimation tools remain uncertain in EDs with high annual volumes. We aimed at deriving a more accurate tool to evaluate overcrowding in a high volume ED setting and determine the association between ED overcrowding and patient care outcomes. Methods. A novel scoring tool (SONET: Severely overcrowded-Overcrowded-Not overcrowded Estimation Tool) was developed and validated in two EDs with both annual volumes exceeding 100,000. Patient care outcomes including the number of left without being seen (LWBS) patients, average length of ED stay, ED 72-hour returns, and mortality were compared under the different crowding statuses. Results. The total number of ED patients, the number of mechanically ventilated patients, and patient acuity levels were independent risk factors affecting ED overcrowding. SONET was derived and found to better differentiate severely overcrowded, overcrowded, and not overcrowded statuses with similar results validated externally. In addition, SONET scores correlated with increased length of ED stay, number of LWBS patients, and ED 72-hour returns. Conclusions. SONET might be a better fit to determine high volume ED overcrowding. ED overcrowding negatively impacts patient care operations and often produces poor patient perceptions of standardized care delivery.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) crowding has become more common, and perceptions of crowding vary among different health care providers. The National Emergency Department Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS) tool is the most commonly used tool to estimate ED crowding but still uncertain of its reliability in different ED settings. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to determine the accuracy of using the NEDOCS tool to evaluate overcrowding in an extremely high-volume ED and assess the reliability and consistency of different providers' perceptions of ED crowding. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a 2-phase study. In phase 1, ED crowding was determined by the NEDOCS tool. The ED length of stay and number of patients who left without being seen were analyzed. In phase 2, a survey of simulated ED census scenarios was completed by different providers. The interrater and intrarater agreements of ED crowding were tested. RESULTS: In phase 1, the subject ED was determined to be overcrowded more than 75% of the time in which nearly 50% was rated as severely overcrowded by the NEDOCS tool. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of the average length of stay and the number of left without being seen patients under different crowding categories. In phase 2, 88 surveys were completed. A moderate level of agreement between health care providers was reached (κ = 0.5402, P < .0001). Test-retest reliability among providers was high (r = 0.8833, P = .0007). The strength of agreement between study groups and the NEDOCS was weak (κ = 0.3695, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Using the NEDOCS tool to determine ED crowding might be inaccurate in an extremely high-volume ED setting.