Author:
Lun Thomas,Schiro Jessica,Cailliau Emeline,Tchokokam Julien,Liber Melany,de Jorna Claire,Martinot Alain,Dubos François
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The continual increase in patient attendance at the emergency department (ED) is a worldwide health issue. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of a secondary prioritization software reduces the patients’ median length of stay (LOS) in the pediatric ED.
Methods
A randomized, controlled, open-label trial was conducted over a 30-day period between March 15th and April 23rd 2021 at Lille University Hospital. Work days were randomized to use the patient prioritization software or the pediatric ED’s standard dashboard. All time intervals between admission and discharge were recorded prospectively by a physician not involved in patient care during the study period. The study’s primary endpoint was the LOS in the pediatric ED, which was expected to be 15 min shorter in the intervention group than in the control group. The secondary endpoints were specific time intervals during the stay in the pediatric ED and levels of staff satisfaction.
Results
1599 patients were included: 798 in the intervention group and 801 in the control group. The median [interquartile range] LOS was 172 min [113–255] in the intervention group and 167 min [108–254) in the control group (p = 0.46). In the intervention group, the time interval between admission to the first medical evaluation for high-priority patients and the time interval between the senior physician’s final evaluation and patient discharge were shorter (p < 0.01). The median satisfaction score was 68 [55–80] (average).
Conclusion
The patients’ total LOS was not significantly shorter on days of intervention. However, use of the electronic patient prioritization tool was associated with significant decreases in some important time intervals during care in the pediatric ED.
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05994196
Trial registration number: NCT05994196. Date of registration: August 16th, 2023
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference28 articles.
1. Kelen GD, Wolfe R, D’Onofrio G et al. Emergency Department Crowding: The Canary in the Health Care System. NEJM Catalyst [Internet]. Sept 28th, 2021 [Last access: March 27th, 2023]; Available at: https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.21.0217.
2. Lowthian JA, Curtis AJ, Jolley DJ, Stoelwinder JU, McNeil JJ, Cameron PA. Demand at the emergency department front door: 10-year trends in presentations. Med J Aust. 2012;196:128–32.
3. La médecine d’urgence (Emergency Medicine). DRESS. Les Etablissements de Santé – 2021;139–142. https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2021-07/Fiche%2025%20-%20La%20m%C3%A9decine%20d%E2%80%99urgence.pdf.
4. Morley C, Unwin M, Peterson GM, Stankovich J, Kinsman L. Emergency department crowding: a systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0203316.
5. Rasouli HR, Esfahani AA, Nobakht M, et al. Outcomes of crowding in Emergency departments; a systematic review. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2019;7(1):e52.