Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School Worcester Massachusetts 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
BMC Emerg Med. 2019 Nov 21;19(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12873-019-0285-7.
Academic and non-academic emergency departments (EDs) are regularly compared in clinical operations benchmarking despite suggestion that the two groups may differ in their clinical operations characteristics. and outcomes. We sought to describe and compare clinical operations characteristics of academic versus non-academic EDs.
We performed a descriptive, comparative analysis of academic and non-academic adult and general EDs with 40,000+ annual encounters, using the Academy of Academic Administrators of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM)/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) and Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA) survey results. We defined academic EDs as primary teaching sites for emergency medicine (EM) residencies and non-academic EDs as sites with minimal resident involvement. We constructed the academic and non-academic cohorts from the AAAEM/AACEM and EDBA surveys, respectively, and analyzed metrics common to both surveys.
Eighty and 454 EDs met inclusion criteria for academic and non-academic EDs, respectively. Academic EDs had more median annual patient encounters (73,001 vs 54,393), lower median proportion of pediatric patients (6.3% vs 14.5%), higher median proportion of EMS patients (27% vs 19%), and were more commonly designated as Level I or II Trauma Centers (94% vs 24%). Median patient arrival-to-provider times did not differ (26 vs 25 min). Median length-of-stay was longer (277 vs 190 min) for academic EDs, and left-before-treatment-complete was higher (5.7% vs 2.9%). MRI utilization was higher for academic EDs (2.2% patients with at least one MRI vs 1.0 MRIs performed per 100 patients). Patients-per-hour of provider coverage was lower for academic EDs with and without consideration for advanced practice providers and residents.
Demographic and operational performance measures differ between academic and non-academic EDs, suggesting that the two groups may be inappropriate operational performance comparators. Causes for the differences remain unclear but the differences appear not to be attributed solely to the academic mission.
尽管有人认为学术和非学术急诊部(ED)在临床操作特征和结果上可能存在差异,但仍定期将它们在临床操作基准比较中进行比较。我们旨在描述和比较学术与非学术 ED 的临床操作特征。
我们对拥有超过 40,000 次年度就诊量的学术和非学术成人和综合 ED 进行了描述性、比较性分析,使用了急诊医学学术管理协会(AAAEM)/急诊医学学术主席协会(AACEM)和急诊部基准联盟(EDBA)调查结果。我们将学术 ED 定义为急诊医学(EM)住院医师的主要教学场所,将非学术 ED 定义为住院医师参与度较低的场所。我们分别从 AAAEM/AACEM 和 EDBA 调查中构建了学术和非学术队列,并分析了两个调查都包含的指标。
80 家和 454 家 ED 分别符合学术和非学术 ED 的纳入标准。学术 ED 的年平均患者就诊量中位数较高(73,001 比 54,393),儿科患者比例中位数较低(6.3%比 14.5%),EMS 患者比例中位数较高(27%比 19%),更常被指定为一级或二级创伤中心(94%比 24%)。患者到达提供者的中位时间没有差异(26 比 25 分钟)。学术 ED 的中位住院时间较长(277 比 190 分钟),治疗前提前离开的比例较高(5.7%比 2.9%)。学术 ED 的 MRI 使用率较高(至少有一次 MRI 的患者占 2.2%,每 100 名患者进行 1.0 次 MRI)。不考虑高级执业医师和住院医师,学术 ED 的每位提供者每小时的患者数量较低。
学术和非学术 ED 的人口统计学和运营绩效指标存在差异,这表明这两个群体可能不适合进行运营绩效比较。造成差异的原因尚不清楚,但这些差异似乎并非仅归因于学术使命。