Painful states of the musculoskeletal system constitute more than 2/3 of painful states in primary care. Viewed from a primary care perspective, pain has a great impact on GPs' day-to-day activities and on health economy in general.
ObjectiveTo determine the impact on emergency department (ED) throughput times and proportion of patients who leave without being seen by a physician (LWBS) of two triage interventions, where comprehensive nurse-led triage was first replaced by senior physician-led triage and then by interprofessional teamwork.DesignSingle-centre before-and-after study.SettingAdult ED of a Swedish urban hospital.ParticipantsPatients arriving on weekdays 08:00 to 21:00 during three 1-year periods in the interval May 2012 to November 2015. A total of 185 806 arrivals were included.InterventionsSenior physicians replaced triage nurses May 2013 to May 2014. Interprofessional teamwork replaced the triage process on weekdays 08:00 to 21:00 November 2014 to November 2015.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were the median time to physician (TTP) and the median length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcome was the LWBS rate.ResultsThe crude median LOS was shortest for teamwork, 228 min (95% CI 226.4 to 230.5) compared with 232 min (95% CI 230.8 to 233.9) for nurse-led and 250 min (95% CI 248.5 to 252.6) for physician-led triage. The adjusted LOS for the teamwork period was 16 min shorter than for nurse-led triage and 23 min shorter than for physician-led triage. The median TTP was shortest for physician-led triage, 56 min (95% CI 54.5 to 56.6) compared with 116 min (95% CI 114.4 to 117.5) for nurse-led triage and 74 min (95% CI 72.7 to 74.8) for teamwork. The LWBS rate was 1.9% for nurse-led triage, 1.2% for physician-led triage and 3.2% for teamwork. All outcome measure differences had two-tailed p values<0.01.ConclusionsInterprofessional teamwork had the shortest length of stay, a shorter time to physician than nurse-led triage, but a higher LWBS rate. Interprofessional teamwork may be a useful approach to reducing ED throughput times.
Objective To compare two strategies, interprofessional teams versus fast track streaming, for orthopedic patients with limb injuries or back pain, the most frequent orthopedic complaints in an emergency department. Methods An observational before-and-after study at an adult emergency department from May 2012 to Nov 2015. Patients who arrived on weekdays from 8 am to 9 pm and presented limb injury or back pain during one year of each process were included, so that 11,573 orthopedic presentations were included in the fast track period and 10,978 in the teamwork period. Similarly, another 11,020 and 10,760 arrivals presenting the six most frequent non-orthopedic complaints were included in the respective periods, altogether 44,331 arrivals. The outcome measures were the time to physician (TTP) and length of stay (LOS). The LOS was adjusted for predictors, including imaging times, by using linear regression analysis. Results The overall median TTP was shorter in the teamwork period, 76.3 min versus 121.0 min in the fast track period (-44.7 min, 95% confidence interval (CI): -47.3 to -42.6). The crude median LOS for orthopedic presentations was also shorter in the teamwork period, 217.0 min versus 230.0 min (-13.0 min, 95% CI: -18.0 to -8.0), and the adjusted LOS was 22.8 min shorter (95% CI: -26.9 to -18.7). For non-orthopedic presentations, the crude median LOS did not differ significantly between the periods (2.0 min, 95% CI: -3.0 to 7.0). However, the adjusted LOS was shorter in the teamwork period (-20.1 min, 95% CI: -24.6 to -15.7). Conclusions The median TTP and LOS for orthopedic presentations were shorter in the teamwork period. For non-orthopedic presentations, the TTP and adjusted LOS were also shorter in the teamwork period. Therefore, interprofessional teamwork may be an alternative approach to improve the patient flow in emergency departments.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.