Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26271919›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2016

Are reductions in emergency department length of stay associated with improvements in quality of care? A difference-in-differences analysis.

Marian J Vermeulen, Astrid Guttmann, Therese A Stukel, Ashif Kachra, Marco L A Sivilotti, Brian H Rowe, Jonathan Dreyer, Robert Bell, Michael Schull

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Emergency department throughput: an intervention.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018
    Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Trade-Offs: Pros and Cons of Being a Doctor and Patient in Canada.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017
    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

9 authors.

Marian J VermeulenInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Astrid GuttmannInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Therese A StukelInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ashif KachraInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Marco L A SivilottiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Brian H RoweDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jonathan DreyerDivision of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Robert BellDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael SchullInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 950-222864CIHR ACH-190329-52431CIHR APR 126377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe sought to determine whether patients seen in hospitals who had reduced overall emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) in the 2 years following the introduction of the Ontario Emergency Room Wait Time Strategy were more likely to experience improvements in other measures of ED quality of care for three important conditions.

methodsRetrospective medical record review using difference-in-differences analysis to compare changes in performance on quality indicators over the 3-year period between 11 Ontario hospitals where the median ED LOS had improved from fiscal year 2008 to 2010 and 13 matched sites where ED LOS was unchanged or worsened. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), asthma and paediatric and adult upper limb fractures in these hospitals in 2008 and 2010 were evaluated with respect to 18 quality indicators reflecting timeliness and safety/effectiveness of care in the ED. In a secondary analysis, we examined shift-level ED crowding at the time of the patient visit and performance on the quality indicators.

resultsMedian ED LOS improved by up to 26% (63 min) from 2008 to 2010 in the improved hospitals, and worsened by up to 47% (91 min) in the unimproved sites. We abstracted 4319 and 4498 charts from improved and unimproved hospitals, respectively. Improvement in a hospital's overall median ED LOS from 2008 to 2010 was not associated with a change in any of the other ED quality indicators over the same time period. In our secondary analysis, shift-level crowding was associated only with indicators that reflected timeliness of care. During less crowded shifts, patients with AMI were more likely to be reperfused within target intervals (rate ratio 1.59, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.45), patients with asthma more often received timely administration of steroids (rate ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.24) and beta-agonists (rate ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.74), and adult (but not paediatric) patients with fracture were more likely to receive analgesia or splinting within an hour (rate ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26).

conclusionsThese results suggest that a policy approach that targets only reductions in ED LOS is not associated with broader improvements in selected quality measures. At the same time, there is no evidence that efforts to address crowding have a detrimental effect on quality of care.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedArm InjuriesAsthmaChildChild, PreschoolEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionOntarioQuality ImprovementEmergency departmentHealthcare quality improvementHealth policyPerformance measures

Identifiers

PMID26271919
PMCPMC4941160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.