Objectives: The objective was to study the association between factors related to emergency department (ED) crowding and patient satisfaction. Methods:The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted through the ED who completed Press-Ganey patient satisfaction surveys over a 2-year period at a single academic center. Ordinal and binary logistic regression was used to study the association between validated ED crowding factors (such as hallway placement, waiting times, and boarding times) and patient satisfaction with both ED care and assessment of satisfaction with the overall hospitalization.Results: A total of 1,501 hospitalizations for 1,469 patients were studied. ED hallway use was broadly predictive of a lower likelihood of recommending the ED to others, lower overall ED satisfaction, and lower overall satisfaction with the hospitalization (p < 0.05). Prolonged ED boarding times and prolonged treatment times were also predictive of lower ED satisfaction and lower satisfaction with the overall hospitalization (p < 0.05). Measures of ED crowding and ED waiting times predicted ED satisfaction (p < 0.05), but were not predictive of satisfaction with the overall hospitalization.Conclusions: A poor ED service experience as measured by ED hallway use and prolonged boarding time after admission are adversely associated with ED satisfaction and predict lower satisfaction with the entire hospitalization. Efforts to decrease ED boarding and crowding might improve patient satisfaction. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2008; 15:825-831 ª 2008 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicineKeywords: emergency department crowding, overcrowding, patient satisfaction, hallway, boarding, crowding P atient satisfaction data are used by emergency department (ED) administrators to track aggregate data over time, study interventions, assess individual physician performance, and construct financial incentive plans.1,2 A recent study identified six elements of emergency care associated with poor satisfaction: 1) not receiving help when needed, 2) a poorly explained problem, 3) not being told about waiting times, 4) not being told when to resume normal activities, 5) not having test results explained, and 6) not understanding when to return to the ED.3,4 While many elements of satisfaction are under provider control, many elements of ED care are difficult for an individual provider to improve, such as waiting time, boarding time, use of hallway treatment space, and overall levels of ED crowding that might reduce staff availability and impede ancillary services such as radiology and laboratory results. 5-11Despite the challenges of obtaining reliable and valid data, measurement of patient satisfaction is recognized by providers and regulators as vital to quality assurance and improvement.12,13 Satisfied patients are more likely to be compliant with their medications, return for continuing medical care, and communicate more effectively with their physicians.14-16 Patient satisfaction itself has been prop...

These SSIs were likely related to surgical instrument contamination with P. aeruginosa during instrument reprocessing. Retained tissue in inflow/outflow cannulae and shaver handpieces could have allowed bacteria to survive sterilization procedures.

Nursing performance measures are an integral part of quality initiatives in acute care; however, organizations face numerous challenges in developing infrastructures to support quality improvement processes and timely dissemination of outcomes data. At the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, a Magnet-designated organization, extensive work has been conducted to incorporate nursing-related outcomes in the organization's quality plan and to integrate roles for clinical nurses into the Department of Nursing and organization's core performance-based programs. Content and strategies that promote active involvement of nurses and prepare them to be competent and confident stakeholders in quality initiatives are presented. Engaging clinical nurses in the work of quality and performance improvement is essential to achieving excellence in clinical care. It is important to have structures and processes in place to bring meaningful data to the bedside; however, it is equally important to incorporate outcomes into practice. When nurses are educated about performance and quality measures, are engaged in identifying outcomes and collecting meaningful data, are active participants in disseminating quality reports, and are able to recognize the value of these activities, data become one with practice.

Background Sepsis is a leading cause of death, but evidence suggests that early recognition and prompt intervention can save lives. In 2005 Houston Methodist Hospital prioritized sepsis detection and management in its ICU. In late 2007, because of marginal effects on sepsis death rates, the focus shifted to designing a program that would be readily used by nurses and ensure early recognition of patients showing signs suspicious for sepsis, as well as the institution of prompt, evidence-based interventions to diagnose and treat it. Methods The intervention had four components: organizational commitment and data-based leadership; development and integration of an early sepsis screening tool into the electronic health record; creation of screening and response protocols; and education and training of nurses. Twice-daily screening of patients on targeted units was conducted by bedside nurses; nurse practitioners initiated definitive treatment as indicated. Evaluation focused on extent of implementation, trends in inpatient mortality, and, for Medicare beneficiaries, a before-after (2008–2011) comparison of outcomes and costs. A federal grant in 2012 enabled expansion of the program. Results By year 3 (2011) 33% of inpatients were screened (56,190 screens in 9,718 unique patients), up from 10% in year 1 (2009). Inpatient sepsis-associated death rates decreased from 29.7% in the preimplementation period (2006–2008) to 21.1% after implementation (2009–2014). Death rates and hospital costs for Medicare beneficiaries decreased from preimplementation levels without a compensatory increase in discharges to postacute care. Conclusion This program has been associated with lower inpatient death rates and costs. Further testing of the robustness and exportability of the program is under way.