ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2020
Consolidating Emergency Department-specific Data to Enable Linkage with Large Administrative Datasets.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospital and Emergency Department Pediatric Capability, Patient Characteristics, and Radiology Imaging for Children.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Variation in Prehospital Routing Patterns for Patients With Suspected Stroke.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Pediatric Emergency Care Coordinator Presence and Pediatric Care Quality Measures.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Defining Levels of US Hospitals' Pediatric Capabilities.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- "Right now, it's kind of haphazard"-Pediatric emergency care coordinators and quality of emergency care for children: A qualitative study.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the American Hospital Association Annual Survey for health services research in emergency medicine.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
- Measuring without a ruler: Limited data to characterize the relationship between physician assistant/nurse practitioner staffing and emergency department performance.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
- Association of Emergency Department Payer Mix with ED Receipt of Telehealth Services: An Observational Analysis.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2022Observational
- Receipt of Telepsychiatry and Emergency Department Visit Outcomes in New York State.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2021Article
- Patient Insurance Status Is Associated With Care Received After Transfer Among Pediatric Patients in the Emergency Department.Academic pediatrics · 2021Article
- Comparing definitions of a pediatric emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe American Hospital Association (AHA) has hospital-level data, while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has patient-level data. Merging these with other distinct databases would permit analyses of hospital-based specialties, units, or departments, and patient outcomes. One distinct database is the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI), which contains information about all EDs in the United States. However, a challenge with merging these databases is that NEDI lists all US EDs individually, while the AHA and CMS group some EDs by hospital network. Consolidating data for this merge may be preferential to excluding grouped EDs. Our objectives were to consolidate ED data to enable linkage with administrative datasets and to determine the effect of excluding grouped EDs on ED-level summary results.
methodsUsing the 2014 NEDI-USA database, we surveyed all New England EDs. We individually matched NEDI EDs with corresponding EDs in the AHA and CMS. A "group match" was assigned when more than one NEDI ED was matched to a single AHA or CMS facility identification number. Within each group, we consolidated individual ED data to create a single observation based on sums or weighted averages of responses as appropriate.
resultsOf the 195 EDs in New England, 169 (87%) completed the NEDI survey. Among these, 130 (77%) EDs were individually listed in AHA and CMS, while 39 were part of groups consisting of 2-3 EDs but represented by one facility ID. Compared to the individually listed EDs, the 39 EDs included in a "group match" had a larger number of annual visits and beds, were more likely to be freestanding, and were less likely to be rural (all P<0.05). Two grouped EDs were excluded because the listed ED did not respond to the NEDI survey; the remaining 37 EDs were consolidated into 19 observations. Thus, the consolidated dataset contained 149 observations representing 171 EDs; this consolidated dataset yielded summary results that were similar to those of the 169 responding EDs.
conclusionExcluding grouped EDs would have resulted in a non-representative dataset. The original vs consolidated NEDI datasets yielded similar results and enabled linkage with large administrative datasets. This approach presents a novel opportunity to use characteristics of hospital-based specialties, units, and departments in studies of patient-level outcomes, to advance health services research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.