Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18387699›Full record

ArticleAnnals of emergency medicine2008

Forecasting emergency department crowding: a discrete event simulation.

Nathan R Hoot, Larry J LeBlanc, Ian Jones, Scott R Levin, Chuan Zhou, Cynthia S Gadd, Dominik Aronsky

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of emergency medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. BMJ open · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Key performance indicators in emergency department simulation: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Machine learning based forecast for the prediction of inpatient bed demand.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022
    Article
  15. Does crowding influence emergency department treatment time and disposition?Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nathan R HootDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. nathan.hoot@vanderbilt.edu
Larry J LeBlanc
Ian Jones
Scott R Levin
Chuan Zhou
Cynthia S Gadd
Dominik Aronsky

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007347 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAMS, CHRISTOPHER S. · 1985 to 2023
$26.3M
Vanderbilt Biomedical Informatics Training ProgramT15LM007450 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI Jessica S. Ancker, Bradley A. Malin · 2002 to 2026
$19.7M
Managing ED Diversion with Information TechnologyR21LM009002 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI ARONSKY, DOMINIK · 2006 to 2007
$357k
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007347NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM07347NLM NIH HHS LM07450--02NLM NIH HHS R21 LM009002NLM NIH HHS R21 LM009002-01NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectiveTo develop a discrete event simulation of emergency department (ED) patient flow for the purpose of forecasting near-future operating conditions and to validate the forecasts with several measures of ED crowding.

methodsWe developed a discrete event simulation of patient flow with evidence from the literature. Development was purely theoretical, whereas validation involved patient data from an academic ED. The model inputs and outputs, respectively, are 6-variable descriptions of every present and future patient in the ED. We validated the model by using a sliding-window design, ensuring separation of fitting and validation data in time series. We sampled consecutive 10-minute observations during 2006 (n=52,560). The outcome measures--all forecast 2, 4, 6, and 8 hours into the future from each observation--were the waiting count, waiting time, occupancy level, length of stay, boarding count, boarding time, and ambulance diversion. Forecasting performance was assessed with Pearson's correlation, residual summary statistics, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

resultsThe correlations between crowding forecasts and actual outcomes started high and decreased gradually up to 8 hours into the future (lowest Pearson's r for waiting count=0.56; waiting time=0.49; occupancy level=0.78; length of stay=0.86; boarding count=0.79; boarding time=0.80). The residual means were unbiased for all outcomes except the boarding time. The discriminatory power for ambulance diversion remained consistently high up to 8 hours into the future (lowest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve=0.86).

conclusionBy modeling patient flow, rather than operational summary variables, our simulation forecasts several measures of near-future ED crowding, with various degrees of good performance.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationCrowdingAdultEmergency Service, HospitalForecastingHumansLogistic ModelsModels, OrganizationalOperations ResearchOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient Care ManagementPatient TransferROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID18387699
PMCPMC7252622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.