The inaccuracy of determining overcrowding status by using the National ED Overcrowding Study Tool - 04/10/14
, Richard D. Robinson, MD, Kellie Bunch, RN, BSN, Charles A. Huggins, MD, Katherine Watson, RN, BSN, Rani D. Jayswal, MPH, Noah C. White, MD, Brett Banks, DO, Nestor R. Zenarosa, MDAbstract |
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.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| ☆ | Source(s) of support in the form of equipment, drugs, or grants (including grant numbers): None. |
| ☆☆ | Competing interests: N/A. |
| ★ | Author contributions: HW and RDR conceived the study and developed the design in consultation with all of the authors. KB, CAH, BB, KW, and NCW assembled the data set and collected the data. HW, RDR, RDJ, and NRZ conducted the statistical analyses and drafted the article, and all authors read and approved the final manuscript. HW takes responsibility for the manuscript as a whole. |
Vol 32 - N° 10
P. 1230-1236 - octobre 2014 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Can the new McGrath laryngoscope rival the GlideScope Ranger portable video laryngoscope? A randomized manikin study
- Wonhee Kim, Hyuk Joong Choi, Taeho Lim, Bo Seung Kang
- Neck computed tomography in pediatric neck mass as initial evaluation in ED: is it malpractice?
- Doh Young Lee, Jungirl Seok, Yoon-joong Kim, Min-Su Kim, Myung-Whun Sung, J. Hun Hah
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?