Initial validation of the International Crowding Measure in Emergency Departments (ICMED) to measure emergency department crowding.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) crowding is recognised as a major public health problem. While there is agreement that ED crowding harms patients, there is less agreement about the best way to measure ED crowding. We have previously derived an eight-point measure of ED crowding by a formal consensus process, the International Crowding Measure in Emergency Departments (ICMED). We aimed to test the feasibility of collecting this measure in real time and to partially validate this measure. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in four EDs in England. We conducted independent observations of the measure and compared these with senior clinician's perceptions of crowding and safety. RESULTS: We obtained 84 measurements spread evenly across the four EDs. The measure was feasible to collect in real time except for the 'Left Before Being Seen' variable. Increasing numbers of violations of the measure were associated with increasing clinician concerns. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90) for predicting crowding and 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.89) for predicting danger. The optimal number of violations for predicting crowding was three, with a sensitivity of 91.2 (95% CI 85.1 to 97.2) and a specificity of 100.0 (92.9-100). The measure predicted clinician concerns better than individual variables such as occupancy. DISCUSSION: The ICMED can easily be collected in multiple EDs with different information technology systems. The ICMED seems to predict clinician's concerns about crowding and safety well, but future work is required to validate this before it can be advocated for widespread use.

Emergency department crowding: towards an agenda for evidence-based intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the causes of emergency department (ED) crowding and to identify evidence-based solutions. DESIGN: The review used a 'conceptual synthesis' approach to identify knowledge and opinion around the issue of ED crowding, not just effective interventions. Recommendations from the literature were classified according the quality of evidence and the extent to which they were under ED control. DATA SOURCES: SCOPUS and ISI were searched for studies of 'ED' AND 'crowding OR overcrowding' and backward citation retrieval was undertaken. To help identify systematic review evidence of effective interventions, the Cochrane Database, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and NHS Evidence were searched. A Google search was included to identify relevant grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Papers were included if they added to substantive knowledge of ED crowding. Empirical studies, studies from the UK and studies of physical space were privileged in the review. RESULTS: There is an established international literature on ED crowding. It suggests consistently that crowding has significant negative consequences. However, the literature offers limited practical help to practitioners for a number of reasons, such as a lack of shared definition and measurement of crowding and lack of evaluation of interventions. Many studies are single case studies from the USA. CONCLUSIONS: While current evidence is poor, this does not justify maintaining current practice which risks lives. Building up an evidence base is critical, but requires agreed definitions, measures and methods, which can be applied to systematic evaluation of plausible solutions.

Emergency department crowding: prioritising quantified crowding measures using a Delphi study.

AIMS: Emergency department (ED) crowding has been associated with a number of negative health outcomes, including unnecessary deaths, increased waiting times and a decrease in care quality. Despite the seriousness of this issue, there is little agreement on appropriate crowding measures to assess crowding effects on ED operations. The objective of this study was to prioritise a list of quantified crowding measures that would assess the current state of a department. METHODS: A three round Delphi study was conducted via email and an Internet based survey tool. The panel consisted of 40 professionals who had exposure to and expertise in crowding. Participants submitted quantified crowding measures which, through three rounds, were evaluated and ranked to assess participant agreement for inclusion. RESULTS: The panel identified 27 measures of which eight (29.6%) reached consensus at the end of the study. These measures comprised: (1) ability of ambulances to offload; (2) patients who leave without being seen or treated; (3) time until triage; (4) ED occupancy rate; (5) patients' total length of stay in the ED; (6) time to see a physician; (7) ED boarding time; and (8) number of patients boarding in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: This study resulted in the identification of eight quantified crowding measures, which present a comprehensive view of how crowding is affecting ED operations, and highlighted areas of concern. These quantified measures have the potential to make a considerable contribution to decision making by ED management and to provide a basis for learning across different departments.

Emergency department crowding: time for interventions and policy evaluations.

This paper summarises the consequences of emergency department crowding. It provides a comparison of the scales used to measure emergency department crowding. We discuss the multiple causes of crowding and present an up-to-date literature review of the interventions that reduce the adverse consequences of crowding. We consider interventions at the level of an individual hospital and a policy level.