Krall Scott P, Cornelius Angela P, Addison J Bruce
Texas A&M University System Health Science Center College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Christus Spohn Hospital, Corpus Christi, Texas.
West J Emerg Med. 2014 Mar;15(2):158-64. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2013.12.6860.
To analyze the correlation between the many different emergency department (ED) treatment metric intervals and determine if the metrics directly impacted by the physician correlate to the "door to room" interval in an ED (interval determined by ED bed availability). Our null hypothesis was that the cause of the variation in delay to receiving a room was multifactorial and does not correlate to any one metric interval.
We collected daily interval averages from the ED information system, Meditech©. Patient flow metrics were collected on a 24-hour basis. We analyzed the relationship between the time intervals that make up an ED visit and the "arrival to room" interval using simple correlation (Pearson Correlation coefficients). Summary statistics of industry standard metrics were also done by dividing the intervals into 2 groups, based on the average ED length of stay (LOS) from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2008 Emergency Department Summary.
Simple correlation analysis showed that the doctor-to-discharge time interval had no correlation to the interval of "door to room (waiting room time)", correlation coefficient (CC) (CC=0.000, p=0.96). "Room to doctor" had a low correlation to "door to room" CC=0.143, while "decision to admitted patients departing the ED time" had a moderate correlation of 0.29 (p <0.001). "New arrivals" (daily patient census) had a strong correlation to longer "door to room" times, 0.657, p<0.001. The "door to discharge" times had a very strong correlation CC=0.804 (p<0.001), to the extended "door to room" time.
Physician-dependent intervals had minimal correlation to the variation in arrival to room time. The "door to room" interval was a significant component to the variation in "door to discharge" i.e. LOS. The hospital-influenced "admit decision to hospital bed" i.e. hospital inpatient capacity, interval had a correlation to delayed "door to room" time. The other major factor affecting department bed availability was the "total patients per day." The correlation to the increasing "door to room" time also reflects the effect of availability of ED resources (beds) on the patient evaluation time. The time that it took for a patient to receive a room appeared more dependent on the system resources, for example, beds in the ED, as well as in the hospital, than on the physician.
分析急诊科(ED)多种不同治疗指标间隔之间的相关性,并确定受医生直接影响的指标是否与急诊室内“门到房间”的间隔(该间隔由急诊病床可用性决定)相关。我们的零假设是,获得病房延迟时间变化的原因是多因素的,与任何一个指标间隔均无相关性。
我们从急诊信息系统Meditech©收集每日间隔平均值。患者流程指标按24小时收集。我们使用简单相关性分析(Pearson相关系数)分析了构成急诊就诊的时间间隔与“到达病房”间隔之间的关系。行业标准指标的汇总统计数据也是通过根据《2008年国家医院门诊医疗调查:急诊科总结》中的平均急诊住院时间(LOS)将间隔分为两组来完成的。
简单相关性分析表明,医生到出院的时间间隔与“门到房间(候诊时间)”间隔无相关性,相关系数(CC)(CC = 0.000,p = 0.96)。“房间到医生”与“门到房间”的相关性较低,CC = 0.143,而“决定收治患者离开急诊室的时间”与“门到房间”的相关性为中等,为0.29(p <0.001)。“新入院患者”(每日患者普查)与更长的“门到房间”时间有很强的相关性,为0.657,p <0.001。“门到出院”时间与延长的“门到房间”时间有非常强的相关性,CC = 0.804(p <0.001)。
依赖医生的间隔与到达病房时间的变化相关性最小。“门到房间”间隔是“门到出院”即住院时间变化的一个重要组成部分。医院影响的“收治决定到医院病床”即医院住院能力间隔与延迟的“门到房间”时间相关。影响科室病床可用性的另一个主要因素是“每日患者总数”。与“门到房间”时间增加的相关性也反映了急诊资源(病床)可用性对患者评估时间的影响。患者获得病房所需的时间似乎更多地取决于系统资源,例如急诊室以及医院内的病床,而不是医生。