Triage: a working solution to overcrowding in the emergency department

Recently, emergency departments across the continent have become crowded with patients requiring non-urgent care. To alleviate this situation at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, receptionists in the emergency department direct patients requiring urgent care to the emergency room and those requiring non-urgent care to a screening clinic (triage). During a two-month period, 13,551 patients visited the emergency department. The triage receptionist sent 8368 patients to the emergency room and 5183 to the screening clinic. About 45% of patients visiting the emergency room had suffered accidents and injuries, and 19% had respiratory illness; 15% of patient visits resulted in admission to hospital. In contrast to this, 49% of patients sent to the screening clinic had respiratory illness and 18% had infective disease; less than 1% of patients needed hospitalization.     

Wait times in the emergency department for patients with mental illness

Background:

It has been suggested that patients with mental illness wait longer for care than other patients in the emergency department. We determined wait times for patients with and without mental health diagnoses during crowded and noncrowded periods in the emergency department.

Methods:

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort analysis of adults seen in 155 emergency departments in Ontario between April 2007 and March 2009. We compared wait times and triage scores for patients with mental illness to those for all other patients who presented to the emergency department during the study period.

Results:

The patients with mental illness (n = 51 381) received higher priority triage scores than other patients, regardless of crowding. The time to assessment by a physician was longer overall for patients with mental illness than for other patients (median 82, interquartile range [IQR] 41–147 min v. median 75 [IQR 36–140] min; p < 0.001). The median time from the decision to admit the patient to hospital to ward transfer was markedly shorter for patients with mental illness than for other patients (median 74 [IQR 15–215] min v. median 152 [IQR 45–605] min; p < 0.001). After adjustment for other variables, patients with mental illness waited 10 minutes longer to see a physician compared with other patients during noncrowded periods (95% confidence interval [CI] 8 to 11), but they waited significantly less time than other patients as crowding increased (mild crowding: −14 [95% CI −12 to −15] min; moderate crowding: −38 [95% CI −35 to −42] min; severe crowding: −48 [95% CI −39 to −56] min; p < 0.001).

Interpretation:

Patients with mental illness were triaged appropriately in Ontario’s emergency departments. These patients waited less time than other patients to see a physician under crowded conditions and only slightly longer under noncrowded conditions.In a 2008 report, the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario recommended adding a psychiatric wait times component to the Ontario government’s Emergency Room Wait Times Strategy.¹ They suggested that patients who present to the emergency department in psychiatric distress wait longer for care than other patients and that they are given a low priority triage score² (all patients are assigned a triage score when they first arrive at the emergency department, which may determine when and where they are seen by a physician).³ The Kirby Report, a senate report on mental illness and addiction in Canada, also decried differential emergency care for patients with mental illness.⁴A recent study found that patients with acute myocardial infarction are given lower priority care in the emergency department if they have a charted history of depression.⁵ However, whether patients who present to the emergency department for mental illness receive slower care than other patients is not known. In this study, we compared the emergency department wait times and triage scores for patients with affective and psychotic disorders to those for other patients, both in noncrowded conditions and during periods of crowding. Because we believe that triage nurses apply triage principles consistently to all emergency patients while physicians may be less likely to adhere to the guidelines, we hypothesized that there would be no “down-triage” (assigning a lower priority triage score) of these patients, but that patients with mental illness would have longer delays to see a physician, relative to other patients.     

Medical Team Evaluation: Effect on Emergency Department Waiting Time and Length of Stay

Emergency Departments (ED) are trying to alleviate crowding using various interventions. We assessed the effect of an alternative model of care, the Medical Team Evaluation (MTE) concept, encompassing team triage, quick registration, redesign of triage rooms and electronic medical records (EMR) on door-to-doctor (waiting) time and ED length of stay (LOS). We conducted an observational, before-and-after study at an urban academic tertiary care centre. On July 17^th 2014, MTE was initiated from 9:00 a.m. to 10 p.m., 7 days a week. A registered triage nurse was teamed with an additional senior ED physician. Data of the 5-month pre-MTE and the 5-month MTE period were analysed. A matched comparison of waiting times and ED LOS of discharged and admitted patients pertaining to various Emergency Severity Index (ESI) triage categories was performed based on propensity scores. With MTE, the median waiting times improved from 41.2 (24.8–66.6) to 10.2 (5.7–18.1) minutes (min; P < 0.01). Though being beneficial for all strata, the improvement was somewhat greater for discharged, than for admitted patients. With a reduction from 54.3 (34.2–84.7) to 10.5 (5.9–18.4) min (P < 0.01), in terms of waiting times, MTE was most advantageous for ESI4 patients. The overall median ED LOS increased for about 15 min (P < 0.01), increasing from 3.4 (2.1–5.3) to 3.7 (2.3–5.6) hours. A significant increase was observed for all the strata, except for ESI5 patients. Their median ED LOS dropped by 73% from 1.2 (0.8–1.8) to 0.3 (0.2–0.5) hours (P < 0.01). In the same period the total orders for diagnostic radiology increased by 1,178 (11%) from 10,924 to 12,102 orders, with more imaging tests being ordered for ESI 2, 3 and 4 patients. Despite improved waiting times a decrease of ED LOS was only seen in ESI level 5 patients, whereas in all the other strata ED LOS increased. We speculate that this was brought about by the tendency of triage physicians to order more diagnostic radiology, anticipating that it may be better for the downstream physician to have more information rather than less.     

The effect of a charted history of depression on emergency department triage and outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

Patients with acute myocardial infarction may have worse outcomes if they also have a history of depression. The early management of acute myocardial infarction is known to influence outcomes, and patients with a coexisting history of depression may be treated differently in the emergency department than those without one. Our goal was to determine whether having a charted history of depression was associated with a lower-priority emergency department triage score and worse performance on quality-of-care indices.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort analysis involving patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to 96 acute care hospitals in the province of Ontario from April 2004 to March 2005. We calculated the adjusted odds of low-priority triage (Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale score of 3, 4 or 5) for patients with acute myocardial infarction who had a charted history of depression. We compared these odds with those for patients having a charted history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Secondary outcome measures were the odds of meeting benchmark door-to-electrocardiogram, door-to-needle and door-to-balloon times.

Results

Of 6784 patients with acute myocardial infarction, 680 (10.0%) had a past medical history of depression documented in their chart. Of these patients, 39.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.3%–42.9%) were assigned a low-priority triage score, as compared with 32.7% (95% CI 31.5%–33.9%) of those without a charted history of depression. The adjusted odds of receiving a low-priority triage score with a charted history of depression were 1.26 (p = 0.01) versus 0.88 (p = 0.23) with asthma and 1.12 (p = 0.24) with COPD. For patients with a charted history of depression, the median door-to-electrocardiogram time was 20.0 minutes (v. 17.0 min for the rest of the cohort), median door-to-needle time was 53.0 (v. 37.0) minutes, and median door-to-balloon time was 251.0 (v. 110.0) minutes. The adjusted odds of missing the benchmark time with a charted history of depression were 1.39 (p < 0.001) for door-to-electrocardiogram time, 1.62 (p = 0.047) for door-to-needle time and 9.12 (p = 0.019) for door-to-balloon time.

Interpretation

Patients with acute myocardial infarction who had a charted history of depression were more likely to receive a low-priority emergency department triage score than those with other comorbidities and to have worse associated performance on quality indicators in acute myocardial infarction care.In the United States, more than six million patients with conditions related to mental health are seen each year in the nation’s emergency departments.¹ Some of these comprise the six million patients with chest pain who are also seen annually in the emergency department.² Several studies have suggested that patients with acute myocardial infarction fare worse if they also suffer from depression.^3–5 The cause for less favourable outcomes is thought to be multifactorial and to include poor adherence to treatment.⁵ To our knowledge, quality of care in emergency departments has not been examined as a possible contributor. It has been suggested that patients with mental illness receive a lower-priority triage score than other patients in emergency departments because of the stigma of the disease.^6,7Virtually all patients who present to an emergency department are initially assessed by a trained triage nurse. The nurse assigns them a triage score based on their illness acuity, prioritizing them for subsequent emergency care. In Ontario, all emergency departments are mandated to use the five-level Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale.⁸ This uniformity provides an opportunity to study the effect of triage at the population level. In the United States, various triage tools are used.⁹Previously, we established that the emergency department triage scores assigned to patients who are ultimately found to be having an acute myocardial infarction are independently associated with delays in diagnostic testing and reperfusion.¹⁰ In this study, we examined the emergency department care of patients with acute myocardial infarction who had a medical history of depression noted in their emergency department chart. We aimed to determine whether these patients were assigned lower-priority triage scores than other patients with acute myocardial infarction and whether there was an association between a charted history of depression and performance on established quality-of-care indices.¹¹     

Ethnic Disparities in Emergency Severity Index Scores among U.S. Veteran’s Affairs Emergency Department Patients

BackgroundThe goal of these analyses was to determine whether there were systematic differences in Emergency Severity Index (ESI) scores, which are intended to determine priority of treatment and anticipate resource needs, across categories of race and ethnicity, after accounting for patient-presenting vital signs and examiner characteristics, and whether these differences varied among male and female Veterans Affairs (VA) ED patients.ConclusionsThe findings suggest the possibility that subgroups of VA patients receive different ESI ratings in triage, which may have cascading, downstream consequences for patient treatment quality, satisfaction with care, and trust in the health equity of emergency care.     

Urinary Tract Infection/Vaginitis Protocol: Use in a Walk-in Clinic

A process, outcome and salary-cost analysis was made of the use of a urinary tract infection/vaginitis protocol. Three nurse practitioners, in a university-based, walk-in clinic, cared for 128 women presenting with complaints of dysuria or vaginal discharge, or both. There were no significant differences among the nurse practitioners in data collection, diagnostic accuracy or patient outcome. The diagnoses were correct in 92 percent, incorrect in 6 percent and indeterminate in 2 percent of the patients. Incorrect diagnoses were due to presumption of urinary tract infection in patients with the urethral syndrome or vaginitis. Of the patients, 78 percent were actually sent home without seeing a physician. Concordance with the nurse practitioners'' physical examination was 100 percent in those patients examined by a physician. In 82 percent of the patients there was alleviation of symptoms. Patient satisfaction with this method of care was extraordinary, with 98 percent of the patients giving favorable reports. True physician extension was achieved with a reduction in physician time per patient from 20 minutes to 6 minutes. In contrast to previously reported data, only a modest reduction in salary cost savings (10 percent) could be shown. The author concludes that nurse practitioners working in an acute care clinic or emergency department can see the patients defined in the study and provide high-quality care at a reasonable cost.     

Self referral to accident and emergency department: patients' perceptions.

A study was conducted (a) to assess the number of patients registered with a south London general practice who over 11 weeks referred themselves to an accident and emergency department, (b) to identify the characteristics of those patients, and (c) to determine their perceptions of the services and resources available within their general practices and of the role of accident and emergency departments. Two hundred and thirty four patients referred themselves to a casualty department during the study period, of whom 217 (93%) were interviewed by means of a semistructured questionnaire. Of the 217 patients interviewed, only 15 had tried to contact their general practitioner before attending the casualty department. Eighty nine patients considered that their problem was urgent and required immediate attention and many that they would need an x ray examination. A substantial minority of patients thought that their doctor would not be available. It is concluded that patients'' perceptions of their problems and of access to their doctors are the main determinants of self referral to a casualty department. These findings have important implications for patient education.     

Cost effectiveness of treating primary care patients in accident and emergency: a comparison between general practitioners,senior house officers,and registrars.

OBJECTIVES--To compare outcome and costs of general practitioners, senior house officers, and registrars treating patients who attended accident and emergency department with problems assessed at triage as being of primary care type. DESIGN--Prospective intervention study which was later costed. SETTING--Inner city accident and emergency department in south east London. SUBJECTS--4641 patients presenting with primary care problems: 1702 were seen by general practitioners, 2382 by senior house officers, and 557 by registrars. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Satisfaction and outcome assessed in subsample of 565 patients 7-10 days after hospital attendance and aggregate costs of hospital care provided. RESULTS--Most patients expressed high levels of satisfaction with clinical assessment (430/562 (77%)), treatment (418/557 (75%)), and consulting doctor''s manner (434/492 (88%)). Patients'' reported outcome and use of general practice in 7-10 days after attendance were similar: 206/241 (85%), 224/263 (85%), and 52/59 (88%) of those seen by general practitioners, senior house officers, and registrars respectively were fully recovered or improving (chi2 = 0.35, P = 0.840), while 48/240 (20%), 48/268 (18%), and 12/57 (21%) respectively consulted a general practitioner or practice nurse (chi2 = 0.51, P = 0.774). Excluding costs of admissions, the average costs per case were 19.30 pounds, 17.97 pounds, and 11.70 pounds for senior house officers, registrars, and general practitioners respectively. With cost of admissions included, these costs were 58.25 pounds, 44.68 pounds, and 32.30 pounds respectively. CONCLUSION--Management of patients with primary care needs in accident and emergency department by general practitioners reduced costs with no apparent detrimental effect on outcome. These results support new role for general practitioners.     

Improving the care of patients with major trauma in the accident and emergency department.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether improvement in the care of victims of major trauma could be made by using the revised trauma score as a triage tool to help junior accident and emergency doctors rapidly identify seriously injured patients and thereby call a senior accident and emergency specialist to supervise their resuscitation. DESIGN--Comparison of results of audit of management of all seriously injured patients before and after these measures were introduced. SETTING--Accident and emergency department in an urban hospital. PATIENTS--All seriously injured patients (injury severity score greater than 15) admitted to the department six months before and one year after introduction of the measures. RESULTS--Management errors were reduced from 58% (21/36) to 30% (16/54) (p less than 0.01). Correct treatment rather than improvement in diagnosis or investigation accounted for almost all the improvement. CONCLUSIONS--The management of seriously injured patients in the accident and emergency department can be improved by introducing two simple measures: using the revised trauma score as a triage tool to help junior doctors in the accident and emergency department rapidly identify seriously injured patients, and calling a senior accident and emergency specialist to supervise the resuscitation of all seriously injured patients. IMPLICATIONS--Care of patients in accident and emergency departments can be improved considerably at no additional expense by introducing two simple measures.     

Interfacility helicopter ambulance transport of neurosurgical patients: observations, utilization, and outcomes from a quaternary level care hospital

Background

The clinical benefit of helicopter transport over ground transportation for interfacility transport is unproven. We sought to determine actual practice patterns, utilization, and outcomes of patients undergoing interfacility transport for neurosurgical conditions.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We retrospectively examined all interfacility helicopter transfers to a single trauma center during 2008. We restricted our analysis to those transfers leading either to admission to the neurosurgical service or to formal consultation upon arrival. Major exclusion criteria included transport from the scene, death during transport, and transport to any area of the hospital other than the emergency department. The primary outcome was time interval to invasive intervention. Secondary outcomes were estimated ground transportation times from the referring hospital, admitting disposition, and discharge disposition. Of 526 candidate interfacility helicopter transfers to our emergency department in 2008, we identified 167 meeting study criteria. Seventy-five (45%) of these patients underwent neurosurgical intervention. The median time to neurosurgical intervention ranged from 1.0 to 117.8 hours, varying depending on the diagnosis. For 101 (60%) of the patients, estimated driving time from the referring institution was less than one hour. Four patients (2%) expired in the emergency department, and 34 patients (20%) were admitted to a non-ICU setting. Six patients were discharged home within 24 hours. For those admitted, in-hospital mortality was 28%.

Conclusions/Significance

Many patients undergoing interfacility transfer for neurosurgical evaluation are inappropriately triaged to helicopter transport, as evidenced by actual times to intervention at the accepting institution and estimated ground transportation times from the referring institution. In a time when there is growing interest in health care cost containment, practitioners must exercise discretion in the selection of patients for air ambulance transport—particularly when it may not bear influence on clinical outcome. Neurosurgical evaluation via telemedicine may be one strategy for improving air transport triage.     

Waiting for coronary revascularization in Toronto: 2 years' experience with a regional referral office.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of major adverse events among patients awaiting coronary revascularization; to assess the match between referring physicians'' estimates of urgency, a computer-generated multifactorial urgency rating score and actual waiting times; to determine the changes in waiting times as capacity for bypass surgery increased; and to evaluate the influence of choice of procedure or operator on waiting times. DESIGN: Consecutive case series. SETTING: Greater Toronto region. SUBJECTS: All 571 patients referred to an organized referral office by cardiologists at hospitals without on-site revascularization facilities between Jan. 3, 1989, and June 30, 1991. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction; proportions of patients waiting longer than the maximum period recommended for their urgency rating; mean waiting times for various subgroups; and correlations among referring physicians'' urgency ratings, computer-generated multifactorial urgency scores and waiting times. RESULTS: Of the 496 patients accepted for a procedure 5 had fatal cardiac events and 3 nonfatal myocardial infarction. Events occurred three times more often in patients with left mainstem disease than in those in other anatomic categories (relative risk [RR] 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48 to 6.27, p = 0.03). Both the computer-generated scores and the referring physicians'' scores were correlated with the actual waiting time (r = 0.46 and 0.57 respectively). Waiting times and the proportion of patients with excessive waiting times fell during the study period (p < 0.0001). However, urgent cases were much less likely to be done "on time" than those with a recommended waiting time of more than 2 weeks (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.25, p < 0.0001). The mean wait for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was 22.73 days if the referral office was allowed to find a surgeon or interventional cardiologist and 35.31 days if one was requested (p = 0.002 after adjustment for urgency scores). CONCLUSIONS: Death of a patient on the waiting list is uncommon in an organized referral system. Patients with left main-stem disease are at higher risk of death than those in other anatomic categories. There were significant correlations between referring physicians'' ratings of urgency, multifactorial urgency scores and actual waiting times. Expansion of capacity for CABG led to shorter waiting times, but patients with unstable symptoms continued to wait longer than recommended. Requests for a specific surgeon caused significantly longer delays.     

Risks of intracranial haematoma in head injured adults.

A study was conducted to estimate the risk that an adult (age 15 or over) will develop a surgically significant intracranial haematoma after a head injury. Two simple features were used that can be recognised by clinicians with minimal training: a skull fracture and the conscious level. The risks were calculated from samples of 545 patients with haematomas, 2773 head injured patients in accident and emergency departments, and 2783 head injured patients in primary surgical wards. With radiological evidence of skull fracture and any impairment of consciousness (including disorientation) one patient in four in an accident and emergency department or primary surgical ward will develop a haematoma. With no skull fracture and preserved orientation the risk to a patient in an accident and emergency department is one in 6000. The use of risk levels as a basis for decision making about head injured patients may result in fewer haematomas being detected too late and savings of resources by reducing the admission and investigation of low risk categories of patients.     

急诊昏迷患者的迅速分诊与急救方法探讨

目的:探讨急诊昏迷患者的迅速分诊与急救方法。方法:参照5级急诊预检分诊系统和急诊危重病降阶梯治疗方法,对我院2012年1月至2014年12月120例急诊治疗昏迷患者进行规范化分诊、急救护理,回顾性分析其诊疗效果。结果:120例昏迷患者有90例(75.00%)治愈出院,17例(14.17%)因病情平稳转至相关科室进行治疗,13例(10.83%)病死,急诊治疗总有效率和病死率分别为89.17%和10.83%。结论:分诊和急救处置的规范化对患者治愈和预后有重要影响。     

Early arriving males wait longer for a mate than later arrivals: the case of a migratory monogamous passerine bird species

Individuals that arrive earlier on the breeding grounds may obtain many advantages but they also have to spend time waiting for a mate. I studied the waiting times of male red-breasted flycatchers Ficedula parva, a small, migratory, sexually dichromatic passerine bird species under natural conditions (Bia?owie?a National Park, Poland) in relation to year, arrival time, age of male and morphological parameters. The length of waiting time was dependent on males’ arrival time. The males which arrived later waited a shorter time for females than earlier arrivals. In some years older males spent more time waiting for mates than younger males, but in other years they waited for shorter times. A significant interaction between age of male and year was also observed. Despite the significantly earlier arrival of older males, the waiting time was not related to male age. The waiting time was also not related to body biometric parameters of the male. Despite waiting longer, early male red-breasted flycatchers have an advantage over later arrivals given this greater chance of mating.     

Unscheduled-Return-Visits after an Emergency Department (ED) Attendance and Clinical Link between Both Visits in Patients Aged 75 Years and Over: A Prospective Observational Study

Background

Predictors of unscheduled return visits (URV), best time-frame to evaluate URV rate and clinical relationship between both visits have not yet been determined for the elderly following an ED visit.

Methods

We conducted a prospective-observational study including 11,521 patients aged ≥75-years and discharged from ED (5,368 patients (53.5%)) or hospitalized after ED visit (6,153 patients). Logistic Regression and time-to-failure analyses including Cox proportional model were performed.

Results

Mean time to URV was 17 days; 72-hour, 30-day and 90-day URV rates were 1.8%, 6.1% and 10% respectively. Multivariate analysis indicates that care-pathway and final disposition decisions were significantly associated with a 30-day URV. Thus, we evaluated predictors of 30-day URV rates among non-admitted and hospitalized patient groups. By using the Cox model we found that, for non-admitted patients, triage acuity and diagnostic category and, for hospitalized patients, that visit time (day, night) and diagnostic categories were significant predictors (p<0.001). For URV, we found that 25% were due to closely related-clinical conditions. Time lapses between both visits constituted the strongest predictor of closely related-clinical conditions.

Conclusion

Our study shows that a decision of non-admission in emergency departments is linked with an accrued risk of URV, and that some diagnostic categories are also related for non-admitted and hospitalized subjects alike. Our study also demonstrates that the best time frame to evaluate the URV rate after an ED visit is 30 days, because this is the time period during which most URVs and cases with close clinical relationships between two visits are concentrated. Our results suggest that URV can be used as an indicator or quality.     

First Nations status and emergency department triage scores in Alberta: a retrospective cohort study

Background:Previous studies have found that race is associated with emergency department triage scores, raising concerns about potential health care inequity. As part of a project on quality of care for First Nations people in Alberta, we sought to understand the relation between First Nations status and triage scores.Methods:We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of health administrative data from April 2012 to March 2017 to evaluate acuity of triage scores, categorized as a binary outcome of higher or lower acuity score. We developed multivariable multilevel logistic mixed-effects regression models using the levels of emergency department visit, patient (for patients with multiple visits) and facility. We further evaluated the triage of visits related to 5 disease categories and 5 specific diagnoses to better compare triage outcomes of First Nations and non–First Nations patients.Results:First Nations status was associated with lower odds of receiving higher acuity triage scores (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92–0.94) compared with non–First Nations patients in adjusted models. First Nations patients had lower odds of acute triage for all 5 disease categories and for 3 of 5 diagnoses, including long bone fractures (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76–0.88), acute upper respiratory infection (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84–0.98) and anxiety disorder (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60–0.74).Interpretation:First Nations status was associated with lower odds of higher acuity triage scores across a number of conditions and diagnoses. This may reflect systemic racism, stereotyping and potentially other factors that affected triage assessments.

Health outcomes are markedly worse for First Nations than non–First Nations people. Although this is largely because of inequities in the social determinants of health,^1–4 inequities in the provision of health care also exist.^5,6 Emergency departments serve as a point of accessible health care. Status First Nations patients make up 4.8% of unique patients and 9.4% of emergency visits in Alberta,⁷ and Canadian studies describe First Nations patients’ experiences with racism when seeking emergency care.^8,9Evaluating triage contributes empirically to understanding the health care of First Nations patients insofar as triage is a quantifiable, intermediate process by which systemic racism¹⁰ may influence patient outcomes. The Canadian Triage Acuity Scale¹¹ is a 5-level scale used to classify the severity of patient symptoms. Triage nurses use a brief assessment, medical history, and presenting signs and symptoms to assign each patient a triage score that determines the priority in which the patient should be seen by a provider. Therefore, accurate triage is important for patient health outcomes.¹² In practice, triage is a social interaction where local practice, biases, stereotypes and communication barriers come into play. Studies have found that women receive less acute triage scores than men,^13,14 and that racial minority^13,15–17 and Indigenous^18–20 patients receive less acute triage scores than white or non-Indigenous patients. Indeed, Indigenous patients in Canada have described a perception “of social triaging in the [emergency department], whereby decisions about who is seen first seemed to them [to be] based less on triaged clinical priorities but on the social positioning of the patient.”²¹ Differential triage scores for minority populations raise health equity concerns.As part of a larger mixed-methods project evaluating the quality of emergency care for First Nations people in Alberta, we sought to evaluate quantitative differences in emergency visit characteristics and outcomes of First Nations and non–First Nations people in Alberta. Specifically, we aimed to estimate the relation between First Nations status and acuity of triage, and to evaluate whether predictors of acuity differ by First Nations status.     

集束化管理模式在急诊危重患者院内转运的应用及效果评价

目的 探讨集束化管理模式在急诊危重患者院内转运中的应用效果.方法 选取2019年9月 ～2020年4月我院急诊科就诊的324例急诊危重患者为研究对象,按转运方式不同分为观察组和对照组各162例.观察组采用集束化管理模式转运危重患者,对照组采用传统模式转运危重患者,比较两组患者的院内转运时间、投诉率、转运意外发生率(包括...     

Waiting list statistics. III. Comparison of two measures of waiting times.

The length of time that patients spend on waiting lists is a topic of current concern. Calculating the proportion of patients who have been on a waiting list for a long time by taking a census of patients on the list at a single point in time will tend to yield a higher estimate than that obtained by calculating waiting times of patients admitted to hospital during a period of time. To illustrate this point the waiting times of patients in the Oxford region as measured by SBH 203 returns ("census" data) were compared with those as measured by the Hospital Activity Analysis ("event" data). As expected, the SBH 203 census returns showed a higher proportion of patients who had waited over a year compared with the "event" measure of all admissions. This difference, which is analagous to the difference between prevalence and incidence in epidemiology, should be considered when using data from these sources to calculate waiting times.