Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33354372›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine international2020

Quantifying Dynamic Flow of Emergency Department (ED) Patient Managements: A Multistate Model Approach.

Chung-Hsien Chaou, Te-Fa Chiu, Shin-Liang Pan, Amy Ming-Fang Yen, Shu-Hui Chang, Petrus Tang, Chao-Chih Lai, Ruei-Fang Wang, Hsiu-Hsi Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Chung-Hsien ChaouDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3702-7499
Te-Fa ChiuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, China Medical University Hospital and School of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Shin-Liang PanDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, National Taiwan University Hospital, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
Amy Ming-Fang YenSchool of Oral Hygiene, College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Shu-Hui ChangInstitute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Petrus TangDepartment of Parasitology, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2779-0116
Chao-Chih LaiEmergency Department, Taipei City Hospital, Ren-Ai Branch, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ruei-Fang WangEmergency Department, Taipei City Hospital, Ren-Ai Branch, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsiu-Hsi ChenInstitute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5799-6705
National Taiwan University · TWChang Gung University · TWChina Medical University · TWFu Jen Catholic University · TWNational Taiwan University Hospital · TWTaipei City Hospital · TWTaipei Medical University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency department (ED) crowding and prolonged lengths of stay continue to be important medical issues. It is difficult to apply traditional methods to analyze multiple streams of the ED patient management process simultaneously. The aim of this study was to develop a statistical model to delineate the dynamic patient flow within the ED and to analyze the effects of relevant factors on different patient movement rates.

methodsThis study used a retrospective cohort available with electronic medical data. Important time points and relevant covariates of all patients between January and December 2013 were collected. A new five-state Markov model was constructed by an expert panel, including three intermediate states: triage, physician management, and observation room and two final states: admission and discharge. A day was further divided into four six-hour periods to evaluate dynamics of patient movement over time.

resultsA total of 149,468 patient records were analyzed with a median total length of stay being 2.12 (interquartile range = 6.51) hours. The patient movement rates between states were estimated, and the effects of the age group and triage level on these movements were also measured. Patients with lower acuity go home more quickly (relative rate (RR): 1.891, 95% CI: 1.881-1.900) but have to wait longer for physicians (RR: 0.962, 95% CI: 0.956-0.967) and admission beds (RR: 0.673, 95% CI: 0.666-0.679). While older patients were seen more quickly by physicians (RR: 1.134, 95% CI: 1.131-1.139), they spent more time waiting for the final state (for admission RR: 0.830, 95% CI: 0.821-0.839; for discharge RR: 0.773, 95% CI: 0.769-0.776). Comparing the differences in patient movement rates over a 24-hour day revealed that patients wait longer before seen by physicians during the evening and that they usually move from the ED to admission afternoon. Predictive dynamic illustrations show that six hours after the patients' entry, the probability of still in the ED system ranges from 28% in the evening to 38% in the morning.

conclusionsThe five-state model well described the dynamic ED patient flow and analyzed the effects of relevant influential factors at different states. The model can be used in similar medical settings or incorporate different important covariates to develop individually tailored approaches for the improvement of efficiency within the health professions.

Identifiers

PMID33354372
PMCPMC7737449
OpenAlexW3111434946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.