Effect of a Boarding Restriction Protocol on Emergency Department Crowding

5Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose: Access block due to the lack of hospital beds causes crowding of emergency departments (ED). We initiated the “boarding restriction protocol” that limits the time of stay in the ED for patients awaiting hospitalization to 24 hours from arrival. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the boarding restriction protocol on ED crowding. Materials and Methods: The primary outcome was ED occupancy rate, which was calculated as the ratio of the number of occupying patients to the total number of ED beds. Time factors, such as length of stay (LOS), treatment time, and boarding time, were investigated. Results: The mean of the ED occupancy rate decreased from 1.532±0.432 prior to implementation of the protocol to 1.273±0.353 after (p<0.001). According to time series analysis, the absolute effect caused by the protocol was-0.189 (-0.277 to-0.110) (p=0.001). The proportion of patients with LOS exceeding 24 hours decreased from 7.6% to 4.0% (p<0.001). Among admitted patients, ED LOS decreased from 770.7 (421.4–1587.1) minutes to 630.2 (398.0–1156.8) minutes (p<0.001); treatment time increased from 319.6 (198.5–482.8) minutes to 344.7 (213.4–519.5) minutes (p<0.001); and boarding time decreased from 298.9 (109.5–1149.0) minutes to 204.1 (98.7–545.7) minutes (p<0.001). In pre-protocol period, boarding patients accumulated in the ED during the weekdays and resolved on Friday, but this pattern was alleviated in post-period. Conclusion: The boarding restriction protocol was effective in alleviating ED crowding by reducing the accumulation of boarding patients in the ED during the weekdays.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lee, J. H., Kim, J. H., Park, I., Lee, H. S., Park, J. M., Chung, S. P., … Kim, M. J. (2022). Effect of a Boarding Restriction Protocol on Emergency Department Crowding. Yonsei Medical Journal, 63(5), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.63.5.470

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free