ArticleBMJ open quality2021
Improving hospital flow 'Ensiab Project'.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Emergency department crowding in the modern era: a systematic review (2018-2025).Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Reengineering Patient Discharge with Lean Methodology and RED Framework: A Model for Safer, Faster, Patient-Centered Transitions.Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare · 2025Article
- Streamlining patient flow and enhancing operational efficiency through case management implementation.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Comparison between the Chief Care Manager and the Normal Care Manager on Hospitalization and Discharge Coordination Activities in Japan: An Online Cross-Sectional Study of Care Managers in Aichi Prefecture.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency department (ED) boarding is an indicator of less efficient hospital flow and is associated with longer inpatient length of stay, higher readmission rates and increased risk of mortality and medical errors. In addition to being associated with poor patient and staff satisfaction.This article describes the efforts of six tertiary care governmental hospitals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that have enrolled in a collaborative improvement project to reduce ED boarding time.The hospitals implemented a multifaceted system intervention that included forming multidisciplinary flow improvement teams, implementing the National Health Service (NHS) SAFER patient flow bundle, visual management system and multidisciplinary ED bed huddles.By the end of the project, all hospitals significantly reduced ED boarding time with a pooled mean difference of - 7.1 hours (16.6 before, 9.5 hours after, p<0.001), reaching a pooled average of 2 hours in March 2020.Furthermore, by the end of the third learning session, all hospitals were able to achieve a boarding time below 6 hours. The enrolled hospitals also experienced an improvement in hospital flow process measures without any increase in 30-day readmission rates or bed occupancy rates.Our project demonstrates that implementing multifaceted system-wide interventions improves hospital flow and ED boarding time. Additionally, our project demonstrates a significant correlation between improvements in ED boarding time, daily consultant-led rounds and early discharge from inpatient units and time till discharge.
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.