Cited by 189Emergency and Acute Care StudiesPsychiatric care and mental health servicesHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization

The Impact of Psychiatric Patient Boarding in Emergency Departments

Open access
Nicks, B. A., Manthey, D. M.·2012·Emergency Medicine International

Abstract

Objectives. Studies have demonstrated the adverse effects of emergency department (ED) boarding. This study examines the impact of resource utilization, throughput, and financial impact for psychiatric patients awaiting inpatient placement. Methods. The authors retrospectively studied all psychiatric and non-psychiatric adult admissions in an Academic Medical Center ED (>68,000 adult visits) from January 2007-2008. The main outcomes were ED length of stay (LOS) and associated reimbursement. Results. 1,438 patients were consulted to psychiatry with 505 (35.1%) requiring inpatient psychiatric care management. The mean psychiatric patient age was 42.5 years (SD 13.1 years), with 2.7 times more women than men. ED LOS was significantly longer for psychiatric admissions (1089 min, CI (1039-1140) versus 340 min, CI (304-375); P < 0.001) when compared to non-psychiatric admissions. The financial impact of psychiatric boarding accounted for a direct loss of ($1,198) compared to non-psychiatric admissions. Factoring the loss of bed turnover for waiting patients and opportunity cost due to loss of those patients, psychiatric patient boarding cost the department $2,264 per patient. Conclusions. Psychiatric patients awaiting inpatient placement remain in the ED 3.2 times longer than non-psychiatric patients, preventing 2.2 bed turnovers (additional patients) per psychiatric patient, and decreasing financial revenue.

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 · 10.1155/2012/360308

Cites

23 of 23 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicks, B. A., & Manthey, D. M.
Affiliations
Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Nicks, B. A.
Venue
Emergency Medicine International
Published
2012
Volume
2012
Pages
1-5
ISSN
  • 2090-2840 (ISSN-L)
  • 2090-2859
OpenAlex
W2060268568
Cited by
189
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Emergency Medicine International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Keywords
emergency department boarding, emergency department length of stay, psychiatric hospital admissions, hospital bed turnover, emergency department throughput, hospital financial impact, reimbursement, resource utilization (health care)

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