Sandra M. Schneider

Background: Increase in waiting time often results in patients leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen, ultimately decreasing patient satisfaction. We surveyed low-acuity patients in the ED waiting room to understand their preferences and expectations. Methods: An IRB approved, 42-item survey was administered to 400 adult patients waiting in the ED waiting room for >15 min from April to August 2010. Demographics, visit reasons, triage and waiting room facility preferences were collected. Results: The mean age of patients was 38.9 years (SD = 14.8), and 52.5% were females. About 53.8% of patients were employed, 79.4% had access to a primary care physician (PCP), and 17% did not have any medical insurance. The most common complaint was pain. A total of 44.4% respondents reported that they believed their problems were urgent and required immediate attention, prompting them to come to the ED, while 14.6% reported that they could not get a timely PCP appointment, and 42.9% were actually referred by their PCP to come to the ED. About 57.7% of patients considered leaving the ED if the waiting times were too long. The mean acceptable waiting time before leaving ED was 221 min (SD = 194; median 180 min, IQR 120–270). A total of 39.1% survey respondents reported being most comfortable being triaged by a physician. Respondents were least comfortable being triaged by residents. On analyzing waiting room expectations for the survey respondents, we found that 70% of the subjects wanted a better estimate of waiting time and 43.5% wanted better information on reasons for the long wait. Conclusion: Contrary to popular belief, at our ED a large proportion of low-acuity patients has a PCP and is medically insured. Providing patients with appropriate reasons for the wait, an accurate estimate of waiting time and creating separate areas to examine minor illness/injuries would increase patient satisfaction within our population subset.

In this article we present a summary of two interactive panel discussions held at the 2008 Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD) annual meeting. Attendees attempted to identify measurable outcomes for resident performance that could be used to evaluate program effectiveness.

To characterize patients with head injury who refuse emergency medical services (EMS) transport to an emergency department (ED). To identify predictors of patients with head injury who refuse EMS transport. Retrospective chart review. Patients with a head injury cared for by EMS during 2001 were identified. Medical records were abstracted for demographic and clinical information and reasons for refusing transport. Patients accepting transport were compared to those refusing. Reasons for refusing transport were described. Three hundred and thirty-three patients with head injuries were identified. Sixteen per cent refused EMS transport. Patients refusing transport were more likely to be male, younger and victims of assault and less likely to have lost consciousness. Patients refusing transport often felt they did not need care or could obtain care later. Patients with head injuries frequently refuse EMS transportation. Individuals accepting care differ significantly from those refusing care. Sufficient awareness of the risk of head injury seems to be lacking among patients.

Overcrowding is common in emergency departments (EDs) throughout the United States. The history of ED overcrowding in Rochester, New York, is notable due to its unique health care system that introduced the concepts of managed care as early as the 1950s. An effect of this system was to intentionally restrict resources and allow the issue of access to limit utilization. Overcrowding in EDs was severe in the late 1990s‐2000, and became an accepted local standard of care. Objective: To study the strategies to reduce ED overcrowding in Rochester in the last decade. Methods: A descriptive analysis of individual hospital and community efforts to decrease ED overcrowding. Results: Of the strategies tried, those that had little effect on ED overcrowding were based from the ED, such as ambulance diversion. Those that were successful were those that addressed factors external to the ED such as increased flexibility of inpatient resources; float nurses who responded to acute care needs; a transition team (mid‐level provider along with registered nurse (RN)/licensed practical nurse) who cared for inpatients boarded in the ED; integrated services across affiliated hospitals/systems; an early alert system that notified key personnel before “code red” criteria were met; and a multidisciplinary team to round in the ED and analyze resource needs. Current community‐wide initiatives include precise tracking of code red hours; monitoring patient length of stay (LOS) in the ED and inpatient units; education of physicians and nursing homes regarding ED alternatives; exploration of additional resources for subacute and long‐term care; establishing a regional forum to address the nursing shortage; development of an ED triage system to coordinate diversion activities during code red; and consideration of a county‐wide state of emergency when needed. Conclusions: Emergency department overcrowding is the end result of a variety of factors that must be addressed system‐wide.