ArticleBMC emergency medicine2024
Measuring the crowding of emergency departments: an assessment of the NEDOCS in Lombardy, Italy, and the development of a new objective indicator based on the waiting time for the first clinical assessment.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. 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.
- Multi-Indication Budget Impact Analysis of Subcutaneous IgPro20 Pre-filled Syringes for the Treatment of Primary Immunodeficiency Syndromes, Secondary Immunodeficiencies, and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy in Italy.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Measuring emergency department crowding: comparing the NEDOCS and Fenice crowding scores against staff perception.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no ubiquitous definition of Emergency Department (ED) crowding and several indicators have been proposed to measure it. The National ED Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS) score is among the most popular, even though it has been severely criticised. We used the waiting time for the physician's initial assessment to evaluate the performance of the NEDOCS and proposed a new crowding indicator based on this objective measure.
methodsTo evaluate the NEDOCS, we used the 2022 data of all the Lombardy EDs and compared the distribution of waiting times across the five levels of the NEDOCS at ED arrival. To construct the new indicator, we estimated the centre-specific relationship between the total number of ED patients and the waiting time of those with minor or deferrable urgency. We defined seven classes of waiting times and calculated how many patients corresponded to an average waiting time in the classes. These centre-specific cutoffs were used to define the 7-level crowding indicator. The indicator was then compared to the NEDOCS score and validated on the first six months of 2023 data.
resultsPatients' waiting time did not increase at the increase of the NEDOCS score, suggesting the absence of a relationship between this score and the effect of ED crowding on the ED capacity of evaluating new patients. The indicator we propose is easy to estimate in real-time and based on centre-specific cutoffs, which depend on the volume of yearly accesses. We observed minimal agreement between the proposed indicator and the NEDOCS in most EDs, both in the development and validation datasets.
conclusionsWe proposed to quantify ED crowding using the waiting time for physician's initial assessment of patients with minor or deferrable urgency, which increases in crowding situations due to the prioritization of urgent patients. The centre-specific cutoffs avoid the problem of the heterogeneity of the volume of accesses and organization among EDs, while enabling a fair comparison between centres.
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.