Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22386355›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2012

ED crowding and the use of nontraditional beds.

Candace McNaughton, Wesley H Self, Ian D Jones, Patrick G Arbogast, Ning Chen, Robert S Dittus, Stephan Russ

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Social Determinants of Hallway Bed Use.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2020
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. 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.

Candace McNaughtonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. candace.mcnaughton@vanderbilt.edu
Wesley H Self
Ian D Jones
Patrick G Arbogast
Ning Chen
Robert S Dittus
Stephan Russ

Funding

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY CTSA FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024975 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2007 to 2011
$45.7M
The Vanderbilt Emergency Medicine Research Training Program (VEMRT)K12HL109019 · NHLBI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI COLLINS, SEAN PATRICK, STORROW, ALAN B · 2011 to 2015
$3.7M
The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR) KL2KL2RR024977 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2007 to 2011
$3.0M
The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR) TL1TL1RR024978 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2007 to 2011
$1.3M
NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024977NCRR NIH HHS TL1 RR024978NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024975NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024975-01NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL109019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesIn an effort to compensate for crowding, many emergency departments (EDs) evaluate and treat patients in nontraditional settings such as gurneys in hallways and conference rooms. The impact of this practice on ED evaluation time is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: A historical cohort of adult ED visits to an academic hospital between August 1, 2009 and August 1, 2010, was used to evaluate the relationship between ED bed assignment (traditional, hallway, or conference room bed) and mean ED evaluation time, defined as the time spent in an ED bed before admission or discharge. Chief complaints were categorized into the 5 most frequent categories: abdominal/genitourinary, joint/muscle, general (fever, malaise), head/neck, and other. Multiple linear regression and marginal prediction were used to calculate the mean ED evaluation times for each bed type, overall, and by chief complaint category.

resultsDuring the study period, 15 073 patient visits met the inclusion criteria. After adjustment for patient and ED factors, assignments to hallway and conference room beds were associated with increases in a mean ED evaluation time of 13.3 minutes (95% confidence interval, 13.2-13.3) and 10.9 minutes (95% confidence interval, 10.8-10.9), respectively, compared with the traditional bed ED evaluation time. This varied by chief complaint category.

conclusionsUse of nontraditional beds is associated with increases in mean ED evaluation time; however, these increases are small and may be further minimized by restricting the use of nontraditional beds to patients with specific chief complaints. Nontraditional beds may have a role in improving ED throughput during times of crowding.

Indexed as

BedsCrowdingEmergency Service, HospitalAdultFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID22386355
PMCPMC3888805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.