Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan; School of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; School of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Jun;36(6):993-997. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Nov 6.
Emergency Department (ED) overcrowding is a worldwide problem, and it might be caused by prolonged patient stay in the ED. This study tried to analyze if different practice models influence patient flow in the ED.
A retrospective, 1-year cohort study was conducted across two EDs in the largest healthcare system in Taiwan. A total of 37,580 adult non-trauma patients were involved in the study. The clinical practice between two ED practice models was compared. In one model, urgent and non-urgent patients were treated by different emergency physicians (EPs) separately (separated model). In the other, EPs treated all patients assigned randomly (merged model). The ED length of stay (LOS), diagnostic tool use (including laboratory examinations and computed tomography scans), and patient dispositions (including discharge, general ward admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and ED mortality) were selected as outcome indicators.
Patients discharged from ED had 0.4h shorter ED LOS in the separated model than in merged model. After adjusting for the potential confounding factors through regression model, there was no difference of patient disposition of the two practice models. However, the separated model showed a slight decrease in laboratory examination use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.96) compared with the merged model.
The separated model had better patient flow than the merged model did. It decreased the ED LOS in ED discharge patients and laboratory examination use.
急诊部(ED)过度拥挤是一个全球性的问题,可能是由于患者在 ED 停留时间过长所致。本研究试图分析不同的实践模式是否会影响 ED 中的患者流程。
本研究是一项回顾性的为期 1 年的队列研究,在台湾最大的医疗保健系统中的两家 ED 进行。共有 37580 名成年非创伤患者参与了研究。比较了两种 ED 实践模式之间的临床实践。在一种模式中,紧急和非紧急患者由不同的急诊医生(EP)分别治疗(分离模式)。在另一种模式中,EP 随机治疗所有分配的患者(合并模式)。ED 停留时间(LOS)、诊断工具使用(包括实验室检查和计算机断层扫描)和患者处置(包括出院、普通病房入院、重症监护病房(ICU)入院和 ED 死亡率)被选为结果指标。
分离模式下 ED 出院患者的 ED LOS 比合并模式短 0.4 小时。通过回归模型调整潜在混杂因素后,两种实践模式的患者处置无差异。然而,与合并模式相比,分离模式的实验室检查使用略有减少(调整优势比,0.9;95%置信区间,0.83-0.96)。
分离模式的患者流程优于合并模式。它缩短了 ED 出院患者的 ED LOS 并减少了实验室检查的使用。