ArticleAnnals of emergency medicine2021
Fair Play: Application of Normalized Scoring to Emergency Department Throughput Quality Measures in a National Registry.
Article in Annals of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emergency Department Clinical Quality Registries: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
STUDY
objectiveThe measurement of emergency department (ED) throughput as a patient-centered quality measure is ubiquitous; however, marked heterogeneity exists between EDs, complicating comparisons for payment purposes. We evaluate 4 scoring methodologies for accommodating differences in ED visit volume and heterogeneity among ED groups that staff multiple EDs to improve the validity and "fairness" of ED throughput quality measurement in a national registry, with the goal of developing a volume-adjusted throughput measure that balances variation at the ED group level.
methodsWe conducted an ED group-level analysis using the 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Emergency Data Registry data set, which included 548 ED groups inclusive of 889 unique EDs. We calculated ED throughput performance scores for each ED group by using 4 scoring approaches: plurality, simple average, weighted average, and a weighted standardized score. For comparison, ED groups (ie, taxpayer identification numbers) were grouped into 3 types: taxpayer identification numbers with only 1 ED; those with multiple EDs, but no ED with greater than 60,000 visits; and those with multiple EDs and at least 1 ED with greater than 60,000 visits.
resultsWe found marked differences in the classification of ED throughput performance between scoring approaches. The weighted standardized score (z score) approach resulted in the least skewed and most uniform distribution across the majority of ED types, with a kurtosis of 12.91 for taxpayer identification numbers composed of 1 ED, 2.58 for those with multiple EDs without any supercenter, and 3.56 for those with multiple EDs with at least 1 supercenter, all lower than comparable scoring methods. The plurality and simple average scoring approaches appeared to disproportionally penalize ED groups that staff a single ED or multiple large-volume EDs.
conclusionApplication of a weighted standardized (z score) approach to ED throughput measurement resulted in a more balanced variation between different ED group types and reduced distortions in the length-of-stay measurement among ED groups staffing high-volume EDs. This approach may be a more accurate and acceptable method of profiling ED group throughput pay-for-performance programs.
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.