The Effects of Displaying the Time Targets of the Manchester Triage System to Emergency Department Personnel: Prospective Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of triage systems such as the Manchester Triage System (MTS) is a standard procedure to determine the sequence of treatment in emergency departments (EDs). When using the MTS, time targets for treatment are determined. These are commonly displayed in the ED information system (EDIS) to ED staff. Using measurements as targets has been associated with a decline in meeting those targets. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of displaying time targets for treatment to physicians on processing times in the ED. METHODS: We analyzed the effects of displaying time targets to ED staff on waiting times in a prospective crossover study, during the introduction of a new EDIS in a large regional hospital in Germany. The old information system version used a module that showed the time target determined by the MTS, while the new system version used a priority list instead. Evaluation was based on 35,167 routinely collected electronic health records from the preintervention period and 10,655 records from the postintervention period. Electronic health records were extracted from the EDIS, and data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and generalized additive models. We evaluated the effects of the intervention on waiting times and the odds of achieving timely treatment according to the time targets set by the MTS. RESULTS: The average ED length of stay and waiting times increased when the EDIS that did not display time targets was used (average time from admission to treatment: preintervention phase=median 15, IQR 6-39 min; postintervention phase=median 11, IQR 5-23 min). However, severe cases with high acuity (as indicated by the triage score) benefited from lower waiting times (0.15 times as high as in the preintervention period for MTS1, only 0.49 as high for MTS2). Furthermore, these patients were less likely to receive delayed treatment, and we observed reduced odds of late treatment when crowding occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it is beneficial to use a priority list instead of displaying time targets to ED personnel. These time targets may lead to false incentives. Our work highlights that working better is not the same as working faster.

Medical Emergencies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we investigate the number of emergency room consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 in Germany compared to figures from the previous year. METHODS: Case numbers from calendar weeks 1 through 22 of the two consecutive years 2019 and 2020 were obtained from 29 university hospitals and 7 non-university hospitals in Germany. Information was also obtained on the patients' age, sex, and urgency, along with the type of case (outpatient/inpatient), admitting ward, and a small number of tracer diagnoses (I21, myocardial infarction; J44, COPD; and I61, I63, I64, G45, stroke /TIA), as well as on the number of COVID-19 cases and of tests performed for SARS-CoV-2, as a measure of the number of cases in which COVID-19 was suspected or at least included in the differential diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 1 022 007 emergency room consultations were analyzed, of which 546 940 took place in 2019 and 475 067 in 2020. The number of consultations with a positive test for the COVID-19 pathogen was 3122. The total number of emergency room consultations in the observation period was 13% lower in 2020 than in 2019, with a maximum drop by 38% coinciding with the highest number of COVID-19 cases (calendar week 14; 572 cases). After the initiation of interpersonal contact restrictions in 2020, there was a marked drop in COVID-19 case numbers, by a mean of -240 cases per week per emergency room (95% confidence interval [-284; -128]). There was a rise in case numbers thereafter, by a mean of 17 patients per week [14; 19], and the number of cases of myocardial infarction returned fully to the level seen in 2019. CONCLUSION: In Germany, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant drop in medical emergencies of all kinds presenting to the nation's emergency departments. A recovery effect began to be seen as early as calendar week 15, but the levels seen in 2019 were not yet reached overall by calendar week 22; only the prevalence of myocardial infarction had renormalized by then. The reasons for this require further investigation.