ArticleCureus2022
Scenarios to Improve the Patient Experience Time in a Tertiary Academic Hospital Using Simulation.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Shortening the patient experience time (PET) in the emergency department (ED) improves patient quality and satisfaction and reduces mortality and morbidity. Worldwide, the PET target in the ED is ≤ 6 hours; however, the PET awaiting admission to inpatient Medicine at Hamad General Hospital (HGH) in the Qatar State, through ED is currently 15.3±6.4 (mean ± SD) hours. Aim Identify solutions to reduce the PET duration at HGH-ED to the international target. Method A cohort study was done using the Discrete-event simulation (DES) model, utilizing a commercial simulation software package (Process Model Inc., Utah, version 5.2.0). One-year data, January 1, 2019 - December 30, 2019, was analyzed and found to follow seven subprocesses. The duration of each subprocess was recorded, and the average time was calculated. A computer simulation scheme was developed for all the subprocesses of the actual PET duration. The simulated PET was validated, and scenarios were proposed and assessed for each subprocess separately and in combination, A constructed simulatory design using an iterative process involving a construction model. This model starts with the logical organization of submitted tasks based on their cycle times. A subject-matter expert interview was conducted to determine the appropriateness and frequency of actions. The duration of each activity in the considered process was defined using a triangular distribution. Results The actual PET duration for the Medical Department was 15.3±6.4 (mean + SD) hours. The three most prolonged PET subprocess durations were in the referral to internal medicine, the decision to admit, and finding a free bed; these represent 17.9%, 53.8%, and 16.7% of the PET, respectively. Adding two physicians to each shift, which shortens the subprocess of the decision to admit, reduced the PET duration by 27.5%. Moreover, creating a new admitting team (unit) that takes care of new patients admitted to the ED reduced PET duration by another 12.5%. Combining these two scenarios reduced the average PET duration to only 10.2±0.5 hours. In addition to these scenarios, the PET can be further decreased to six hours by increasing the number of inpatient beds. Conclusions The simulated scenarios indicated that restructuring the medical teams, adding two physicians to each shift, and creating an admissions team dedicated to the ED would reduce the total PET duration to 10.2 hours, Furthermore, PET's further reduction to six hours is predictable by increasing the bed number.
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.