Observational studyThe western journal of emergency medicine2025
Time Motion Analysis of Emergency Physician Workload in Urgent Care Settings.
Observational study in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Predictors of Workload in the Emergency Room (POWER) study, published in 2009 using data from 2003, examined the workload of emergency physicians using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) as a surrogate marker. Many hospitals use a case-mix formula incorporating annual census and POWER's study data to determine staffing levels. However, significant changes in emergency medicine have occurred since its publication, including the implementation of electronic health record systems, increased patient complexity, real-time dictation software, and human health resource challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study we aimed to quantify the time required to perform tasks during the care of ambulatory emergency department (ED) patients. Our secondary objective was to stratify these times based on CTAS and clinician factors.
methodsWe conducted a prospective observational time-motion study in the urgent care section of a tertiary-care, academic ED with 90,000 visits annually, 70% of which are ambulatory. Research assistants shadowed physicians on two 8-hour shifts daily (8 am-12 am) from July 12-August 14, 2022, tracking the time taken by physicians to perform tasks. We calculated aggregate task times per patient.
resultsWe observed 1,204 patient encounters over 65 shifts by 37 unique physicians. The mean treatment time was 21.6 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.9 - 23.3) for ambulatory CTAS 2 patients; 22.5 minutes (95% CI 21.2 - 23.6) for CTAS 3 patients; 19.7 minutes (95% CI 17.9 - 21.6) for CTAS 4 patients; and 17.4 minutes (95% CI 14.9 - 19.9) for CTAS 5 patients. Compared to the previous 2003 POWER study data, CTAS 4 and 5 patient assessment times took 31% and 58% longer, respectively. Total assessment time by CTAS was statistically significant only comparing CTAS 5 patients to all others (P = .02). Physicians who dictated their charts spent 34% less time (2.1 minutes per patient) charting than those who typed them.
conclusionThe average time to see an ambulatory ED patient was 21.7 minutes. Low-acuity urgent care patients take longer to assess now than 20 years ago. The CTAS alone is a poor marker of workload for ambulatory patients, necessitating a reassessment of staffing and compensation formulas.
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.