European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine
-
Review
Systematic review of frequent users of emergency departments in non-US hospitals: state of the art.
This review focuses on frequent users (FUs) of the emergency department (ED). Elucidation of the characteristics of frequent ED users will help to improve healthcare services. A systematic review of the literature (from 1999 onwards) on frequent ED users in non-US hospitals was performed. ⋯ In terms of social characteristics, lacking a partner is more frequently reported among FUs in some studies. The absence of a universal definition for FUs complicates the determination of the burden on emergency healthcare services. FUs are a heterogeneous group of patients with genuine medical needs and high consumption of other healthcare services.
-
Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Reliability of electronic recording of waiting times in the emergency department: a prospective multicenter study.
We aimed to evaluate the reliability of waiting times (WT) measures electronically retrieved. We prospectively collected true WT in four emergency departments during 20 predefined 2-h inclusion periods, and compared them with the electronically retrieved waiting time (ERWT). We assessed agreement with calculation of rate of outliers (difference exceeding 20 min), bias, and its 95% limits of agreements, and associated Bland and Altman plot. ⋯ Bland and Altman plot showed a good agreement, and we report 7% of outliers. Using ERWT, 14 patients (5%) were misclassified as having their target WT exceeded or not. ERWT agree well with the true WT, although the significant rate of outlier and misclassification calls for caution in their interpretation.
-
The aim of this study was to perform a comprehensive systematic review of emergency department performance indicators in relation to evidence. A systematic search was performed through PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL and COCHRANE databases with (and including synonyms of) the search words: [emergency medicine OR emergency department] AND [quality indicator(s) OR performance indicator(s) OR performance measure(s)]. Articles were included according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria using the PRISMA protocol. ⋯ Sixty-six articles (51%) were good retrospective quality (level 2b or better), whereas the remaining articles were either intermediate quality (25% level 3a or 3b) or poor quality (17% level 4 or 5). We found limited evidence for most emergency department performance indicators, with the majority presenting a low level of evidence. Thus, a core group of evidence-based performance indicators cannot currently be recommended on the basis of this broad review of the literature.
-
The MISSED score was derived and validated in emergency department (ED) patients with sepsis who were admitted to the ICU. This score has now been refined and simplified. The independent variables associated with mortality are age at least 65 years, serum albumin 27 g/l or less, and an international normalized ratio at least 1.3. The simplified MISSED score ranges from 0 to 3 depending on the number of variables present. ⋯ The simplified MISSED score could be used to risk stratify septic patients in the ED.