Measures of crowding in the emergency department: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Despite consensus regarding the conceptual foundation of crowding, and increasing research on factors and outcomes associated with crowding, there is no criterion standard measure of crowding. The objective was to conduct a systematic review of crowding measures and compare them in conceptual foundation and validity. METHODS: This was a systematic, comprehensive review of four medical and health care citation databases to identify studies related to crowding in the emergency department (ED). Publications that "describe the theory, development, implementation, evaluation, or any other aspect of a 'crowding measurement/definition' instrument (qualitative or quantitative)" were included. A "measurement/definition" instrument is anything that assigns a value to the phenomenon of crowding in the ED. Data collected from papers meeting inclusion criteria were: study design, objective, crowding measure, and evidence of validity. All measures were categorized into five measure types (clinician opinion, input factors, throughput factors, output factors, and multidimensional scales). All measures were then indexed to six validation criteria (clinician opinion, ambulance diversion, left without being seen (LWBS), times to care, forecasting or predictions of future crowding, and other). RESULTS: There were 2,660 papers identified by databases; 46 of these papers met inclusion criteria, were original research studies, and were abstracted by reviewers. A total of 71 unique crowding measures were identified. The least commonly used type of crowding measure was clinician opinion, and the most commonly used were numerical counts (number or percentage) of patients and process times associated with patient care. Many measures had moderate to good correlation with validation criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Time intervals and patient counts are emerging as the most promising tools for measuring flow and nonflow (i.e., crowding), respectively. Standardized definitions of time intervals (flow) and numerical counts (nonflow) will assist with validation of these metrics across multiple sites and clarify which options emerge as the metrics of choice in this "crowded" field of measures.

A profile of US emergency departments in 2001.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency departments (EDs) provide round-the-clock emergency care but also serve as a health care "safety net." We seek to determine the number, distribution, and characteristics of US EDs, with a long-term goal of improving access to emergency care. METHODS: We created an inventory of nonfederal nonspecialty US hospitals using 2001 data from 2 independent sources. Hospitals that did not report ED visit data, or with large changes in visit volume by 2003, were contacted to obtain or verify visit volume (n=437; 9% of all hospitals). EDs were divided into 2 groups: those with at least 1 patient per hour, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (> or = 8,760 visits/year) and those with fewer visits. RESULTS: Of 4,917 hospitals, 4,862 (99%) reported an ED. These EDs collectively received 101.6 million visits. One in 3 EDs (n=1,535) received less than 8,760 visits per year; the national median was 15,711 visits per year. Excluding the low-volume EDs, the remaining 3,327 reported 95.2 million annual visits. The typical higher-volume ED received approximately 28,000 visits per year; 28% (n=922) were in a nonurban setting. Among all EDs, per-capita visits varied by state, with the highest ED visit rates in Washington, DC; West Virginia; and Mississippi. CONCLUSION: Significant variation exists in the distribution and use of US EDs. One third of EDs have an annual visit volume less than 8,760 and, together, they account for 6% of all visits. The United States should consider classifying EDs, as it does trauma centers, to clarify the type of care available in this heterogeneous clinical setting and the distribution of different types of EDs.

Financing of emergency medicine graduate medical education programs in an era of declining Medicare reimbursement and support.

In May 2004, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) National Affairs Committee was tasked with evaluation of graduate medical education (GME) funding in the face of declining Medicare reimbursement and support, and its implications for emergency medicine. This article was developed to educate the SAEM membership on the current status and climate of funding for GME and to serve as the basis of a position statement from SAEM on this topic. The paper presents the history and background on GME financing followed by currently known changes from the recently signed Medicare Act of 2003.

Political issues in emergency medicine: The United States.

The format of the paper is to allow three authors to discuss what they believe are the most significant political issues facing emergency medicine (EM) in their country or region. Each author writes independently and does not see any other contributing author's work, therefore potential overlap of subject matter is inevitable. However, we were soliciting their individual opinions about the serious issues confronting us today, rather than a consensus. An additional author, well familiar with the topics being discussed, wrote the Commentary from an overview perspective on the writings of the other authors. This supplemental opinion was offered as a method for enhanced cohesiveness in describing the political situations impacting the specialty of emergency medicine. The three authors for the United States are James Hoekstra, Professor and Chair, Wake Forest University Health Sciences; Robert McNamara, Professor and Chair, Temple University School of Medicine, and Robert Schafermeyer, Associate Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, North Carolina School of Medicine. Between them, they represent more than 50 years experience in clinical and academic emergency medicine. They write from a personal perspective. Their views are their own, and do not represent any organization(s) with which they may have or had affiliations.

Status report: Development of emergency medicine research since the Macy Report.

In Williamsburg, VA, April 17 to 20, 1994, the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation sponsored a conference entitled "The Role of Emergency Medicine in the Future of American Medical Care," a report on which was published in Annals in 1995. This report promulgated recommendations for the development and enhancement of academic departments of emergency medicine and a conference to develop an agenda for research in emergency medicine. The American College of Emergency Physicians' Research Committee, along with several ad hoc members, presents updates in several of the areas addressed by the Macy Report and subsequent conferences, as a status report for the development of emergency medicine research as a whole, as of late 2002.

Hospital and emergency department crowding in the United States.

Every emergency physician in the United States and, for that matter, in many countries around the world recognizes that the demand for timely access to quality emergency care is one that patients highly value. Unfortunately, hospitals in the USA have become stretched beyond capacity, resulting in overloaded emergency departments, diverted ambulances, and greater risks for patients and providers. Some of the causes and consequences of emergency department crowding are unique to the USA health care system, while others are common to countries throughout the world. The goals for this paper are to provide a brief overview of hospital and emergency department crowding in the USA, to identify commonly cited causes of the problem, and to outline future directions in the search for solutions. A large number of hospitals, inpatient beds, and emergency departments have closed during the past 10 years in the USA. In 1992 there were around 6000 hospitals with emergency departments and there are now less than 4000. While hospitals scrambled to decrease an excess supply of inpatient beds, the demand for emergency department care steadily rose. Between 1992 and 2000, the annual number of emergency department visits in the USA increased from 89.8 to 108 million. While some areas of the USA have been affected more seriously than others (particularly the coasts), almost every state has reported problems with boarding of inpatients in the emergency department. Inpatient boarding is the most frequently cited reason for emergency department crowding within the emergency medicine community. United States hospitals are also struggling with a shortage of health care professionals, particularly registered nurses. There are several policy issues that must be addressed to alleviate hospital and emergency department crowding over the long term. We list these as 'long-term' goals simply because policy changes, in the USA, are often incremental and rarely occur quickly. In order to achieve any of these changes in policy over the long term, advocates for reform must aggressively pursue them today.

A study of the workforce in emergency medicine: 1999.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We estimate the total number of physicians practicing clinical emergency medicine during a specified period, describe certain characteristics of those individuals to estimate the total number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) and the total number of individuals needed to staff those FTEs, and compare the data collected with those data collected in 1997. METHODS: Data were gathered from a survey of a random sample of 2,153 hospitals drawn from a population of 5,329 hospitals reported by the American Hospital Association as having, or potentially having, an emergency department. The survey instrument addressed items such as descriptive data on the institution, enumeration of physicians in the ED, and the total number of physicians working during the period from June 6 to June 9, 1999. Demographic data on the individuals were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 940 hospitals responded (a 44% return rate). These hospitals reported that a total of 6,719 physicians were working during the specified period, or an average of 7.85 persons scheduled per institution. The physicians were scheduled for a total of 347,702 hours. The average standard for FTE was 40 clinical hours per week. This equates to 4,346 FTEs or 5.29 FTEs per institution. The ratio of persons to FTEs was 1.48:1. With regard to demographics, 83% of the physicians were men, and 82% were white. Their average age was 42.6 years. As for professional credentials, 42% were emergency medicine residency trained, and 58% were board certified in emergency medicine; 50% were certified by the American Board of Emergency Medicine. CONCLUSION: Given that there are 5,064 hospitals with EDs and given that the data indicate that there are 5.35 FTEs per ED, the total number of FTEs is projected to be 27,067 (SE=500). Given further that the data indicate a physician/FTE ratio of 1.47:1, we conclude that there are 39,746 persons (SE=806) needed to staff those FTEs. When adjusted for persons working at more than one ED, that number is reduced to 31,797. When the 1999 data are compared with those collected in 1997, we note a statistically significant decline in the number of hospital EDs, from 5,126 in 1997 to 5,064 in 1999 (P =.02). The total number of emergency physicians remained the same over the 2-year period, whereas the number of FTEs per institution increased from 5.11 to 5.35. The physician/FTE ratio remained unchanged.

Education of Out-of-Hospital Emergency Medical Personnel in Pediatrics: Report of a National Task Force.

The Pediatric Education Task Force has developed a list of major topics and skills for inclusion in pediatric curricula for EMS providers. Areas of controversy in the management of pediatric patients in the prehospital setting are outlined, and helpful learning tools are identified. [Gausche M, Henderson DB, Brownstein D, Foltin GL, for the Pediatric Education Task Force: Education of out-of-hospital emergency medical personnel in pediatrics: Report of a National Task Force. Ann Emerg Med January 1998;31:58-64.].