Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States of America.
Yale University School of Management, United States of America.
Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Feb;76:70-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.11.013. Epub 2023 Nov 11.
Limited capacity in the emergency department (ED) secondary to boarding and crowding has resulted in patients receiving care in hallways to provide access to timely evaluation and treatment. However, there are concerns raised by physicians and patients regarding a decrease in patient centered care and quality resulting from hallway care. We sought to explore social risk factors associated with hallway placement and operational outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Observational study between July 2017 and February 2020. Primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of patient placement in a hallway treatment space adjusting for patient demographics and ED operational factors. Secondary outcomes included left without being seen (LWBS), discharge against medical advice (AMA), elopement, 72-h ED revisit, 10-day ED revisit and escalation of care during boarding.
Among 361,377 ED visits, 100,079 (27.7%) visits were assigned to hallway beds. Patient insurance coverage (Medicaid (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01,1.06) and Self-pay/Other (1.08, (1.03, 1.13))) with comparison to private insurance, and patient sex (Male (1.08, (1.06, 1.10))) with comparison to female sex are associated with higher odds of hallway placement but patient age, race, and language were not. These associations are adjusted for ED census, triage assigned severity, ED staffing, boarding level, and time effect, with social factors mutually adjusted. Additionally adjusting for patients' social factors, patients placed in hallways had higher odds of elopement (1.23 (1.07,1.41)), 72-h ED revisit (1.33 (1.08, 1.64)) and 10-day ED revisit (1.23 (1.11, 1.36)) comparing with patients placed in regular ED rooms. We did not find statistically significant associations between hallway placement and LWBS, discharge AMA, or escalation of care.
While hallway usage is ad hoc, we find consistent differences in care delivery with those insured by Medicaid and self-pay or male sex being placed in hallway beds. Further work should examine how new front-end processes such as provider in triage or split flow may be associated with inequities in patient access to emergency and hospital care.
由于住院和拥堵,急诊部(ED)的能力有限,导致患者在走廊接受治疗,以获得及时的评估和治疗。然而,医生和患者对由于在走廊接受治疗而导致患者护理和质量下降表示担忧。我们试图探讨与走廊安置和运营结果相关的社会风险因素。
研究设计/方法:2017 年 7 月至 2020 年 2 月的观察性研究。主要结果是调整后的优势比(aOR),用于调整患者人口统计学和 ED 运营因素后,患者被安置在走廊治疗空间的情况。次要结果包括未接受治疗就离开(LWBS)、未经医嘱出院(AMA)、擅自离开、72 小时内 ED 复诊、10 天内 ED 复诊以及在住院期间升级护理。
在 361377 次 ED 就诊中,有 100079 次(27.7%)就诊被分配到走廊病床。与私人保险相比,患者的保险覆盖范围(医疗补助(aOR 1.04,95%CI 1.01,1.06)和自付/其他(1.08,(1.03,1.13)))和患者性别(男性(1.08,(1.06,1.10))与女性性别相比,更有可能被安置在走廊,但患者年龄、种族和语言则不然。这些关联在调整 ED 人口普查、分诊分配的严重程度、ED 人员配备、住院水平和时间效应后进行了调整,并且社会因素相互调整。此外,在调整了患者的社会因素后,与安置在常规 ED 病房的患者相比,安置在走廊的患者擅自离开(1.23(1.07,1.41))、72 小时内 ED 复诊(1.33(1.08,1.64))和 10 天内 ED 复诊(1.23(1.11,1.36))的可能性更高。我们没有发现走廊安置与 LWBS、未经医嘱出院或护理升级之间存在统计学显著关联。
虽然走廊的使用是临时的,但我们发现,那些由医疗补助和自付或男性支付保险的人以及男性被安置在走廊的病床,在护理提供方面存在一致的差异。进一步的工作应该研究新的前端流程(例如分诊中的提供者或分流)如何与患者获得急诊和医院护理的机会不平等相关。