IntroductionEmergency department (ED) crowding has been shown to negatively impact patient outcomes. Few studies have addressed the effect of ED crowding on patient satisfaction. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of ED crowding on patient satisfaction in patients discharged from the ED.Methods:We measured patient satisfaction using Press-Ganey surveys returned by patients that visited our ED between August 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008. We recorded all mean satisfaction scores and obtained mean ED occupancy rate, mean emergency department work index (EDWIN) score and hospital diversion status over each 8-hour shift from data archived in our electronic tracking board. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was calculated to determine the effect of ED crowding and hospital diversion status on the odds of achieving a mean satisfaction score ≥ 85, which was the patient satisfaction goal set forth by our ED administration.Results:A total of 1591 surveys were returned over the study period. Mean satisfaction score was 77.6 (standard deviation [SD] ±16) and mean occupancy rate was 1.23 (SD ± 0.31). The likelihood of failure to meet patient satisfaction goals was associated with an increase in average ED occupancy rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17 to 0.59, P < 0.001) and an increase in EDWIN score (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.55, P = 0.015). Hospital diversion resulted in lower mean satisfaction scores, but this was not statistically significant (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.05). In multivariable analysis controlling for hospital diversion status and time of shift, ED occupancy rate remained a significant predictor of failure to meet patient satisfaction goals (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66, P = 0.001).Conclusion:Increased crowding, as measured by ED occupancy rate and EDWIN score, was significantly associated with reduced patient satisfaction. Although causative attribution was limited, our study suggested yet another negative impact resulting from ED crowding.
Background:New scoring systems, including the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score, and the confusion, urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, blood pressure, 65 years and older (CURB-65) score, have been developed for emergency department (ED) use in various patient populations. Increasing use of early goal directed therapy (EGDT) for the emergent treatment of sepsis introduces a growing population of patients in which the accuracy of these scoring systems has not been widely examined.Objectives:To evaluate the ability of the REMS, MEDS score, and CURB-65 score to predict mortality in septic patients treated with modified EGDT.Materials and Methods:Secondary analysis of data from prospectively identified patients treated with modified EGDT in a large tertiary care suburban community hospital with over 85,000 ED visits annually and 700 inpatient beds, from May 2007 through May 2008. We included all patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, who were treated with our modified EGDT protocol. Our major outcome was in-hospital mortality. The performance of the scores was compared by area under the ROC curves
(AUCs).Results:A total of 216 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock were treated with modified EGDT during the study period. Overall mortality was 32.9%. Calculated AUCs were 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67–0.81] for the MEDS score, 0.62 (95% CI: 0.54–0.69) for the REMS, and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.51–0.67) for the CURB-65 score.Conclusion:We found that all three ED-based systems for scoring severity of illness had low to moderate predictive capability. The MEDS score demonstrated the largest AUC of the studied scoring systems for the outcome of mortality, although the CIs on point estimates of the AUC of the REMS and CURB-65 scores all overlap.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.