The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
US Emergency Department Performance on Wait Time and Length of Visit
Open accessAbstract
Objective Prolonged emergency department (ED) wait time and length of visit reduce quality of care and increase adverse events. Previous studies have not examined hospital-level performance on ED wait time and visit length in the United States. The purpose of this study is to describe hospital-level performance on ED wait time and visit length. Methods We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of a stratified random sampling of 35,849 patient visits to 364 non-Federal U.S. hospital EDs in 2006, weighted to represent 119,191,528 visits to 4,654 EDs. Measures included EDs' median wait times and visit lengths, EDs' median proportion of patients seen by a physician within the time recommended at triage, and EDs' median proportion of patients dispositioned within 4 or 6 hours. Results In the median ED, 78.3% (interquartile range [IQR], 63.2%, 89.5%) of all patients, and 66.9% (IQR, 52.0%, 81.9%) of patients who were triaged to be seen within one hour were seen by a physician within the target triage time. A total of 30.5% of EDs achieved the triage target for more than 90% of their patients; 13.8% of EDs achieved the triage target for 90% or more of patients triaged to be seen within an hour. In the median ED, 76.3% (IQR 54.4%, 93.9%) of patients were admitted within 6 hours. A total of 47.7% of EDs admitted more than 90% of their patients within 6 hours, but only 24.5% of EDs admitted more than 90% of their patients within 4 hours. Conclusions A minority of hospitals consistently achieved recommended wait times for all ED patients, and fewer than half of hospitals consistently admitted their ED patients within 6 hours.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reliability and validity of scores on The Emergency Severity Index version 3
Tanabe, P., Gimbel, R., Yarnold, P. R., Kyriacou, D. N., & Adams, J. G. (2004) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1197/j.aem.2003.06.013 · Cited by 326
Cited by
Santillanes, G., Axeen, S., Lam, C. N., & Menchine, M. (2020) · The American Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2019.12.035 · Cited by 119
An Emergency Department Patient Flow Model Based on Queueing Theory Principles
Wiler, J. L., Bolandifar, E., Griffey, R. T., Poirier, R. F., & Olsen, T. (2013) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/acem.12215 · Cited by 69
Reduction in laboratory turnaround time decreases emergency room length of stay
Kaushik, N., Khangulov, V. S., O’Hara, M., & Arnaout, R. (2018) · Open Access Emergency Medicine · doi:10.2147/oaem.s155988 · Cited by 51
McCarthy, M. L., Ding, R., Zeger, S. L., Agada, N. O., Bessman, S. C., Chiang, W., Kelen, G. D., Scheulen, J. J., & Bessman, E. S. (2011) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01119.x · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Horwitz, L. I., Green, J., & Bradley, E. H.
- Venue
- Annals of Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 133-141
- ISSN
- 0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1995608474
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: US Emergency Department Performance on Wait Time and Length of Visit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.07.023
- The paper
- Horwitz, L. I., Green, J., & Bradley, E. H. (2010). US Emergency Department Performance on Wait Time and Length of Visit. Annals of Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.07.023
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.