ReviewPloS one2023
Emergency department performance assessment using administrative data: A managerial framework.
Review in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Development of a core outcome set for studies on centralization of healthcare services.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Outcome metrics in recommended performance measurement tools for emergency department performance evaluation: a systematic review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Overcrowding Indicators in Emergency Departments Across Countries: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Administrative data play an important role in performance monitoring of healthcare providers. Nonetheless, little attention has been given so far to the emergency department (ED) evaluation. In addition, most of existing research focuses on a single core ED function, such as treatment or triage, thus providing a limited picture of performance. The goal of this study is to harness the value of routinely produced records proposing a framework for multidimensional performance evaluation of EDs able to support internal decision stakeholders in managing operations. Starting with the overview of administrative data, and the definition of the desired framework's characteristics from the perspective of decision stakeholders, a review of the academic literature on ED performance measures and indicators is conducted. A performance measurement framework is designed using 224 ED performance metrics (measures and indicators) satisfying established selection criteria. Real-world feedback on the framework is obtained through expert interviews. Metrics in the proposed ED performance measurement framework are arranged along three dimensions: performance (quality of care, time-efficiency, throughput), analysis unit (physician, disease etc.), and time-period (quarter, year, etc.). The framework has been judged as "clear and intuitive", "useful for planning", able to "reveal inefficiencies in care process" and "transform existing data into decision support information" by the key ED decision stakeholders of a teaching hospital. Administrative data can be a new cornerstone for health care operation management. A framework of ED-specific indicators based on administrative data enables multi-dimensional performance assessment in a timely and cost-effective manner, an essential requirement for nowadays resource-constrained hospitals. Moreover, such a framework can support different stakeholders' decision making as it allows the creation of a customized metrics sets for performance analysis with the desired granularity.
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.