Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32933946›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2020

Waiting times in emergency departments: exploring the factors associated with longer patient waits for emergency care in England using routinely collected daily data.

Steven Paling, Jennifer Lambert, Jasper Clouting, Júlia González-Esquerré, Toby Auterson

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Steven PalingEconomics team, NHS Improvement, London, UK steven.paling@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2171-4013
Jennifer LambertEconomics team, NHS Improvement, London, UK.
Jasper CloutingEconomics team, NHS Improvement, London, UK.
Júlia González-EsquerréEconomics team, NHS Improvement, London, UK.
Toby AutersonEconomics team, NHS Improvement, London, UK.
Improvement Service · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLong lengths of stay (also called waiting times) in emergency departments (EDs) are associated with higher patient mortality and worse outcomes.

objectiveTo add to the literature using high-frequency data from a large number of hospitals to analyse factors associated with long waiting times, including exploring non-linearities for 'tipping points'.

methodsMultivariate ordinary least squares regressions with fixed effects were used to analyse factors associated with the proportion of patients in EDs in England waiting more than 4 hours to be seen, treated and admitted or discharged. Daily situation reports (Sitrep), hospital episode statistics and electronic staffing records data over 90 days between December 2016 and February 2017 were used for all 138 English NHS healthcare providers with a major ED.

resultsHigher inpatient bed occupancy was correlated with longer ED waiting times, with a non-linear association. In a full hospital, with 100% bed occupancy, the proportion of patients who remained in the ED for more than 4 hours was 9 percentage points higher (95% CI 7.5% to 11.1%) than with an 85% occupancy level. For each percentage point change in the following factors, the proportion of ED stays over 4 hours also increased: more inpatients with hospital length of stay over 21 days (0.07%, 95% CI 0.008% to 0.13%); higher emergency admissions (0.08%, 95% CI 0.06% to 0.10%); and lower discharges relative to admissions on the same day (0.04%, 95% CI 0.02% to 0.06%), the following day (0.05%, 95% CI 0.03% to 0.06%) and at 2 days (0.05%, 95% CI 0.04% to 0.07%).

conclusionsThese results suggest that tackling patient flow and capacity in the wider hospital, particularly very high bed occupancy levels and patient discharge, is important to reduce ED waiting times and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Waiting ListsBed OccupancyEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandFemaleHospitalizationHumansMalePatient DischargeRisk FactorsState Medicinecrowdingemergency care systemsemergency departmentsoperationalperformance improvementresearch

Identifiers

PMID32933946
PMCPMC7691811
OpenAlexW3085660086

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.