Perera Marlon L, Davies Alexander W, Gnaneswaran Neiraja, Giles Marian, Liew Danny, Ritchie Peter, Chan Steven T F
Department of Surgery, Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emerg Med Australas. 2014 Dec;26(6):549-55. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12300. Epub 2014 Oct 20.
To assess ED length of stay (EDLOS), access block, inpatient length of stay (IPLOS) and waiting times before and after the implementation of the National Emergency Access Target (NEAT).
This was designed as a retrospective cohort study and data was collected from electronic patient management systems. The control group represented all emergency presentations between June 2011 and September 2011, 1 year prior to the introduction of NEAT. The study groups were assessed and included all ED presentations between June and September 2012 and 2013 respectively. Main outcome measures were waiting times, EDLOS, proportion of patients cleared from the ED within NEAT goals, hospital length of stay and hospital mortality rates.
A cumulative total of 76 935 patients were included in the study. During the course of the study, clearance from the ED within NEAT targets rose from 49.0% to 53.2% [relative risk (RR) 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.11; P < 0.001]. ED waiting times decreased from 1.05 h [interquartile range (IQR), 0.43-2.27] to 0.45 h (IQR, 0.17-1.22) (P < 0.001) and time from bed-request to ward access increased. Utilisation of emergency short stay units (SSU) increased significantly across the study period from 6.5% to 13.4% (P < 0.001). Rates of inpatient transfers increased eightfold (RR, 7.93; 95% CI, 5.98-10.51; P < 0.001) and IPLOS increased by 21% from 2.05 (IQR, 0.75-4.96) to 2.50 days (IQR, 1.12-4.99) (P < 0.001). Hospital mortality remained unchanged from 3.0% to 3.3% (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91-1.34; P = 0.311).
At the current institution NEAT success has been guarded, likely secondary to availability of inpatient beds. The implementation of NEAT appears to have reduced emergency waiting times. These early results suggest concurrent a detrimental effect on IPLOS; however, some of this effect may be a result of a large increase in short stay admissions.
评估国家紧急就诊目标(NEAT)实施前后急诊科住院时间(EDLOS)、就诊受阻情况、住院患者住院时间(IPLOS)及等待时间。
本研究设计为回顾性队列研究,数据从电子患者管理系统收集。对照组为2011年6月至2011年9月(NEAT引入前1年)期间所有的急诊就诊患者。研究组分别为2012年6月至9月及2013年6月至9月期间所有的急诊科就诊患者。主要结局指标为等待时间、EDLOS、在NEAT目标范围内从急诊科转出的患者比例、住院时间及医院死亡率。
本研究共纳入76935例患者。在研究过程中,在NEAT目标范围内从急诊科转出的比例从49.0%升至53.2%[相对危险度(RR)1.09;95%置信区间(CI),1.07 - 1.11;P < 0.001]。急诊科等待时间从1.05小时[四分位间距(IQR),0.43 - 2.27]降至0.45小时(IQR,0.17 - 1.22)(P < 0.001),从申请床位到进入病房的时间增加。在整个研究期间,急诊短期留观病房(SSU)的使用率从6.5%显著增至13.4%(P < 0.001)。住院患者转科率增加了7倍(RR,7.93;95% CI,5.98 - 10.51;P < 0.001),IPLOS从2.05天(IQR,0.75 - 4.96)增加21%至2.50天(IQR,1.12 - 4.99)(P < 0.001)。医院死亡率从3.0%至3.3%保持不变(RR,1.10;95% CI,0.91 - 1.34;P = 0.311)。
在当前机构,NEAT的成效有限,可能是由于住院床位可用性的原因。NEAT的实施似乎减少了急诊等待时间。这些早期结果表明对IPLOS同时存在不利影响;然而,部分这种影响可能是短期住院入院大幅增加的结果。