Premium
ED Crowding Is Associated with Variable Perceptions of Care Compromise
Author(s) -
Pines Jesse M.,
Garson Chad,
Baxt William G.,
Rhodes Karin V.,
Shofer Frances S.,
Hollander Judd E.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
academic emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.221
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1553-2712
pISSN - 1069-6563
DOI - 10.1197/j.aem.2007.06.043
Subject(s) - medicine , crowding , emergency department , confidence interval , odds ratio , logistic regression , emergency medicine , cross sectional study , family medicine , nursing , pathology , neuroscience , biology
Objectives The authors measured the association between emergency department (ED) crowding and patient and provider perceptions about whether patient care was compromised. Methods This was a cross‐sectional study of patients admitted from the ED and their providers. Surveys of patients, nurses, and resident physicians were linked. The primary outcome was agreement or strong agreement on a five‐item scale assessing whether ED crowding compromised care. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between the primary outcome and measures of ED crowding. Results Of 741 patients approached, 644 patients consented (87%); 703 resident physician surveys (95%) and 716 nursing surveys (97%) were completed. A total of 106 patients (16%), 86 residents (12%), and 173 nurses (24%) reported that care was compromised by ED crowding. In 252 cases (35%), one or more respondents reported that care was compromised. There was poor agreement over whose care was compromised. For patients, independent predictors of compromised care were waiting room time (odds ratio [OR], 1.05 for each additional 10‐minute wait [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.02 to 1.09]) and being surveyed in a hallway bed (OR, 2.02 [95% CI = 1.12 to 3.68]). Predictors of compromised care for nurses included waiting room time (OR, 1.05 for each additional 10‐minute wait [95% CI = 1.01 to 1.08]), number of patients in the waiting room (OR, 1.05 for each additional patient waiting [95% CI = 1.02 to 1.07]), and number of admitted patients waiting for an inpatient bed (OR, 1.08 for each additional patient [95% CI = 1.03 to 1.12]). For residents, predictors of compromised care were patient/nurse ratio (OR, 1.39 for a one‐unit increase [95% CI = 1.09 to 1.20]) and number of admitted patients waiting for an inpatient bed (OR, 1.14 for each additional patient [95% CI = 1.10 to 1.75]). Conclusions ED crowding is associated with perceptions of compromised emergency care. There is considerable variability among nurses, patients, and resident physicians over which factors are associated with compromised care, whose care was compromised, and how care was compromised.