ArticleHealth care management science2022
Bayesian prediction of emergency department wait time.
Article in Health care management science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ascertaining cause-specific emergency department demand using forecast combinations.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Dissatisfaction-considered waiting time prediction for outpatients with interpretable machine learning.Health care management science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increasingly, many hospitals are attempting to provide more accurate information about Emergency Department (ED) wait time to their patients. Estimation of ED wait time usually depends on what is known about the patient and also the status of the ED at the time of presentation. We provide a model for estimating ED wait time for prospective low acuity patients accessing information online prior to arrival. Little is known about the prospective patient and their condition. We develop a Bayesian quantile regression approach to provide an estimated wait time range for prospective patients. Our proposed approach incorporates a priori information in government statistics and elicited expert opinion. This methodology is compared to frequentist quantile regression and Bayesian quantile regression with non-informative priors. The test set includes 1, 024 low acuity presentations, of which 457 (44%) are Category 3, 425 (41%) are Category 4 and 160 (15%) are Category 5. On the Huber loss metric, the proposed method performs best on the test data for both median and 90th percentile prediction compared to non-informative Bayesian quantile regression and frequentist quantile regression. We obtain a benefit in the estimation of model coefficients due to the value contributed by a priori information in the form of elicited expert guesses guided by government wait time statistics. The use of such informative priors offers a beneficial approach to ED wait time prediction with demonstrable potential to improve wait time quantile estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34989915What 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.