Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 49, Issue 3 , Pages 257-264.e1, March 2007

The Effect of Low-Complexity Patients on Emergency Department Waiting Times

  • Michael J. Schull, MD, MSc, FRCPC

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Schull, Kiss, Szalai)
    • the Clinical Epidemiology Unit (Schull, Kiss, Szalai)
    • Department of Emergency Services (Schull), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Schull). †Deceased
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Michael J. Schull, MD, MSc, FRCPC, G-106, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4N 3M5; 416-480-6100 ext3793, fax 416-480-6048
  • ,
  • Alex Kiss, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Schull, Kiss, Szalai)
    • the Clinical Epidemiology Unit (Schull, Kiss, Szalai)
  • ,
  • John-Paul Szalai, PhD†

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Schull, Kiss, Szalai)
    • the Clinical Epidemiology Unit (Schull, Kiss, Szalai)

Received 28 February 2006; received in revised form 19 May 2006; accepted 13 June 2006. published online 25 August 2006.

Study objective

The extent to which patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with minor conditions contribute to delays and crowding is controversial. To test this question, we study the effect of low-complexity ED patients on the waiting times of other patients.

Methods

We obtained administrative records on all ED visits to Ontario hospitals from April 2002 to March 2003. For each ED, we determined the association between the number of new low-complexity patients (defined as ambulatory arrival, low-acuity triage level, and discharged) presenting in each 8-hour interval and the mean ED length of stay and time to first physician contact for medium- and high-complexity patients. Covariates were the number of new high- and medium-complexity patients, mean patient age, sex distribution, hospital teaching status, work shift, weekday/weekend, and total patient-hours. Autoregression modeling was used given correlation in the data.

Results

One thousand ninety-five consecutive 8-hour intervals at 110 EDs were analyzed; 4.1 million patient visits occurred, 50.8% of patients were women, and mean age was 38.4 years. Low-, medium-, and high-complexity patients represented 50.9%, 37.1%, and 12% of all patients, respectively. Mean (median) ED length of stay was 6.3 (4.7), 3.9 (2.8), and 2.2 (1.6) hours for high-, medium-, and low-complexity patients, respectively, and mean (median) time to first physician contact was 1.1 (0.7), 1.3 (0.9), and 1.1 (0.8) hours. In adjusted analyses, every 10 low-complexity patients arriving per 8 hours was associated with a 5.4-minute (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2 to 6.0 minutes) increase in mean length of stay and a 2.1-minute (95% CI 1.8 to 2.4 minutes) increase in mean time to first physician contact for medium- and high-complexity patients. Results were similar regardless of ED volume and teaching status.

Conclusion

Low-complexity ED patients are associated with a negligible increase in ED length of stay and time to first physician contact for other ED patients. Reducing the number of low-complexity ED patients is unlikely to reduce waiting times for other patients or lessen crowding.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supervising editor: David J. Magid, MD, MPH

 Author contributions: MJS originated the hypothesis, designed the study, and had main responsibility for interpreting the results and writing the manuscript. AK and J-PS helped design the study, conducted data analyses, and helped interpret the results and write the manuscript. AK organized a database and conducted data analyses. MJS takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

 Funding and support: This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0196-0644(06)00884-5

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.027

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 49, Issue 3 , Pages 257-264.e1, March 2007