Displaying emergency patient estimated wait times: A multi-centre, qualitative study of patient, community, paramedic and health administrator perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: EDs have the potential ability to predict patient wait times and to display this to patients and other stakeholders. Little is known about whether consumers and stakeholders would want this information and how wait time predictions might be used. The aim of the present study was to gain perspectives from consumers and health services personnel regarding the concept of emergency wait time visibility. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview and focus group study in 2019. Participants included emergency medicine patients, families, paramedics, well community members, and hospital/paramedic administrators from multiple EDs and organisations in Victoria, Australia. Transcripts were coded and themes presented. RESULTS: One focus group and 103 semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2019 including 32 patients, 22 carers/advocates and 21 paramedics in the ED; 20 health service administrators (paramedic and hospital) and 15 community members. Consumers and paramedics face physical and psychological difficulties when wait times are not visible. Consumers believe about a 2-h wait is tolerable, beyond this most begin to consider alternative strategies for seeking care. Consumers want to see triage to doctor times; paramedics want door-to-off stretcher times (for all possible transport destinations); with 47 of 50 consumers and 30 of 31 paramedics potentially using this information. About 28 of 50 consumers would use times to inform facility or provider choice, another 19 of 50 want information once in the waiting room. During prolonged waits, 51 of 52 consumers would continue to seek care. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers and paramedics want wait time information visibility. They would use the information in a variety of ways, both pre-hospital and while waiting for care.

Impact of scribes on emergency medicine doctors' productivity and patient throughput: multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the changes in productivity when scribes were used by emergency physicians in emergency departments in Australia and assess the effect of scribes on throughput. DESIGN: Randomised, multicentre clinical trial. SETTING: Five emergency departments in Victoria used Australian trained scribes during their respective trial periods. Sites were broadly representative of Australian emergency departments: public (urban, tertiary, regional referral, paediatric) and private, not for profit. PARTICIPANTS: 88 physicians who were permanent, salaried employees working more than one shift a week and were either emergency consultants or senior registrars in their final year of training; 12 scribes trained at one site and rotated to each study site. INTERVENTIONS: Physicians worked their routine shifts and were randomly allocated a scribe for the duration of their shift. Each site required a minimum of 100 scribed and non-scribed shifts, from November 2015 to January 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' productivity (total patients, primary patients); patient throughput (door-to-doctor time, length of stay); physicians' productivity in emergency department regions. Self reported harms of scribes were analysed, and a cost-benefit analysis was done. RESULTS: Data were collected from 589 scribed shifts (5098 patients) and 3296 non-scribed shifts (23 838 patients). Scribes increased physicians' productivity from 1.13 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.17) to 1.31 (1.25 to 1.38) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 15.9% gain. Primary consultations increased from 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) to 1.04 (0.98 to 1.11) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 25.6% gain. No change was seen in door-to-doctor time. Median length of stay reduced from 192 (interquartile range 108-311) minutes to 173 (96-208) minutes, representing a 19 minute reduction (P<0.001). The greatest gains were achieved by placing scribes with senior doctors at triage, the least by using them in sub-acute/fast track regions. No significant harm involving scribes was reported. The cost-benefit analysis based on productivity and throughput gains showed a favourable financial position with use of scribes. CONCLUSIONS: Scribes improved emergency physicians' productivity, particularly during primary consultations, and decreased patients' length of stay. Further work should evaluate the role of the scribe in countries with health systems similar to Australia's. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12615000607572 (pilot site); ACTRN12616000618459.