ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2026
Worth the Wait? Comparison of Emergency Department Patients' Waiting Room Tolerance for Real Patient Care vs Training/Simulation Scenarios.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2026. 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
introductionIn-situ simulation offers a realistic training environment with a higher level of fidelity compared to other simulation models. It is associated with enhanced knowledge retention and a higher level of composure during real clinical encounters. One common barrier to undertaking in-situ simulation is the concern that it contributes to a delay in providing patient care. In this study we gave patients in the waiting room seven hypothetical emergency medical scenarios, two of which were training simulation scenarios, and we asked them how long they would be willing to delay their care if the different scenarios were actually occurring in the emergency department (ED). Our objective was to investigate whether patients in the ED waiting room would be willing to delay their care if they knew that there were simulation training scenarios occurring.
methodsThis was a prospective convenience sample of participants conducted at a Level 1 trauma centre. Participants completed a survey that presented seven hypothetical scenarios, including two in-situ simulation scenarios. They were then asked to indicate the amount of additional wait time they would deem acceptable for each scenario.
resultsResponses to the two in-situ simulation scenarios indicated that 342 (40%) and 335 (40.5%) of the 827 study participants, respectively, were willing to wait > 40 minutes for these to occur. In contrast, and after controlling for age, sex, waiting time, and time of recruitment, subjects reported they would tolerate shorter wait times for simulation scenarios than for real patient-care scenarios. [Willingness to wait > 40 minutes for the five real scenarios ranged from 70.5-79.9%, P < .05).
conclusionWhile patients demonstrated lower tolerance for simulation-related delays than for routine clinical care, our results showed that most were still willing to wait up to an additional hour to allow in-situ simulation to proceed. These findings indicate that in-situ simulation is broadly acceptable to patients and supports its continued use in clinical settings.
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.