Cited by 78Emergency and Acute Care StudiesHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

Decreasing Length of Stay in the Emergency Department With a Split Emergency Severity Index 3 Patient Flow Model

Open access
Arya, Rajiv, Wei, Grant, McCoy, Jonathan V., Crane, Jody, Ohman-Strickland, Pamela, Eisenstein, Robert M.·2013·Academic Emergency Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: There has been a steady increase in emergency department (ED) patient volume and wait times. The desire to maintain or decrease costs while improving throughput requires novel approaches to patient flow. The break-out session "Interventions to Improve the Timeliness of Emergency Care" at the June 2011 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference "Interventions to Assure Quality in the Crowded Emergency Department" posed the challenge for more research of the split Emergency Severity Index (ESI) 3 patient flow model. A split ESI 3 patient flow model divides high-variability ESI 3 patients from low-variability ESI 3 patients. The study objective was to determine the effect of implementing a split ESI 3 flow model has on patient length of stay (LOS) for discharged patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review at an urban academic ED seeing over 70,000 adult patients a year. Cases consisted of adults who presented from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. from June 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011, and were discharged. Controls were patients who presented on the same times and days, but in 2010. Visit descriptors included age, race, sex, ESI score, and first diagnosis. The first diagnosis was coded based on methods used by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to codify International Classification of Diseases, ninth version, into disease groups. Linear models compared log-transformed LOS for cases and controls. A front-end ED redesign involved creating guidelines to split ESI 3 patients into low and high variability, a hybrid sort/triage registered nurse, an intake area consisting of an internal results waiting room, and a treatment area for patients after initial assessment. The previous low-acuity area (ESI 4s and 5s) began to see low-variability ESI 3 patients as well. This was done without additional beds. The intake area was staffed with an attending emergency physician (EP), a physician assistant (PA), three nurses, two medical technicians, and a scribe. RESULTS: There was a 5.9% decrease, from 2.58 to 2.43 hours, in the geometric mean of LOS for discharged patients from 2010 to 2011 (95% confidence interval CI = 4.5% to 7.2%; 2010, n = 20,215; 2011, n = 20,653). Abdominal pain was the most common diagnostic grouping (2010, n = 2,484; 2011, n = 2,464) with a reduction in LOS of 12.9%, from 4.37 to 3.8 hours (95% CI = 10.3% to 15.3%). CONCLUSIONS: A split ESI 3 patient flow model improves door-to-discharge LOS in the ED.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/acem.12249

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Langley R. The Improvement Guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009.
  2. Sun BC, Hsia RY, Weiss RE, et al. Effect of emer- gency department crowding on outcomes of admit- ted patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2013; 6:605-11.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arya, R., Wei, G., McCoy, J. V., Crane, J., Ohman-Strickland, P., & Eisenstein, R. M.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Department of Biostatistics; UMDNJ/ Robert Wood Johnson Medical School; New Brunswick NJ
Corresponding author
Arya, Rajiv
Venue
Academic Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-11
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
1171-1179
ISSN
1069-6563 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063725531
Cited by
78
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academic Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
emergency department patient flow, length of hospital stay, emergency department throughput, patient heterogeneity, emergency department redesign, triage, emergency physician staffing, nurse staffing, medical technicians, emergency care quality
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Crowding, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Hospitals, Urban, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Medical Staff, Hospital, Middle Aged, Patient Discharge, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Triage, United States, Case-Control Studies, Models, Organizational, Efficiency, Organizational

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