ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2025
Waiting on the Urine: The Impact of Delayed Urine Collection on Length of Stay in the Emergency Department.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Efficient collection of urinalyses (UAs) can be variable and is patient-dependent. Anecdotal delays in UA collection, compared with those for blood tests, can potentially lead to prolonged length of stay (LOS) and worsened throughput. Our study sought to analyze the impact of delayed urine collection on emergency department (ED) operations. Methods: This study is a retrospective cohort analysis of 38,640 discharged encounters with a urinalysis and 67,645 discharged encounters with a complete blood count (CBC). We captured order time, collection time, and disposition time. We calculated deciles of order-to-collection times for UA and CBC groups to visualize the data. We separated the groups into patients with UA only, CBC only, and both CBC + UA. We performed adjusted and unadjusted analyses using Kruskal-Wallis tests and a quantile regression to compare median order-to-collection times as well as to compare the relationship between LOS and order-to-collection time between groups. Results: Median order-to-collection time in the CBC-only group was significantly shorter than the CBC + UA group (16.7 minutes [IQR, 3.7-40.6] vs 75.6 minutes [IQR, 26.9-150.5]). Median LOS was shortest in the UA-only group (259 minutes [IQR, 187-367]), followed by the CBC group (339 minutes [IQR, 255-449]) and lastly, the CBC + UA group (392 minutes [IQR, 302-507]). In the CBC + UA group, the UA order-to-collection time is a median of 37 minutes (IQR, 0-120) longer than that of the CBC. Each additional minute of order-to-collection time in the CBC-only group contributed 0.50 minutes (IQR, 0.47-0.53) to LOS, compared with 0.58 minutes (IQR, 0.56-0.60) in the CBC + UA group and 0.90 minutes (IQR, 0.83-0.97) in the UA-only group ( Conclusion: UAs take longer to collect than CBCs. Ordering a UA in addition to a CBC significantly increased order-to-collection time and LOS. Each additional minute of collection delay contributed 16% more to LOS in this group, and with higher collection time outlier cases for UAs, this can lead to a worsening bottleneck. Understanding these effects may help EDs prioritize UA collection and target interventions in which there may be the highest impact on flow.
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.