The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Emergency department length of stay independently predicts excess inpatient length of stay
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between emergency department length of stay (EDLOS) and inpatient length of stay (IPLOS). DESIGN: Retrospective review of presentations and admissions data. SETTING: Three metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne, 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean IPLOS for four categories of EDLOS (</= 4 hours, 4-8 hours, 8-12 hours, >12 hours); excess IPLOS, defined as IPLOS exceeding state average length of stay; odds ratios for excess IPLOS adjusted for age, sex and time of presentation. RESULTS: 17 954 admissions were included. Mean IPLOS for the four categories of EDLOS were </= 4 hours, 3.73 days; 4-8 hours, 5.65 days; 8-12 hours, 6.60 days; > 12 hours, 7.20 days (P < 0.001). The corresponding excess IPLOS were 0.39, 1.30, 1.96 and 2.35 days (P < 0.001). Compared with EDLOS 4-8 hours, odds ratios (95% CIs) for excess IPLOS associated with the other three categories of EDLOS were </= 4 hour, 0.68 (0.63-0.74); 8-12 hours, 1.20 (1.10-1.30); and > 12 hours, 1.49 (1.36-1.63), after adjusting for elderly status, sex and time of ED presentation. CONCLUSION: EDLOS correlates strongly with IPLOS, and predicts whether IPLOS exceeds the state benchmark for the relevant diagnosis-related group, independently of elderly status, sex and time of presentation to ED. Strategies to reduce EDLOS (including countering access block) may significantly reduce healthcare expenditure and patient morbidity.
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
Decision‐Making and Outcomes of Prolonged ICU Stays in Seriously Ill Patients
Teno, J. M., Fisher, E., Hamel, M. B., Wu, A. W., Murphy, D. J., Wenger, N. S., Lynn, J., & Harrell, F. E. (2000) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03144.x · Cited by 182
Cited by
Emergency department crowding: A systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions
Morley, C., Unwin, M., Peterson, G. M., Stankovich, J., & Kinsman, L. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203316 · Cited by 1,386
The Effect of Emergency Department Crowding on Clinically Oriented Outcomes
Bernstein, S. L., Aronsky, D., Duseja, R., Epstein, S., Handel, D., Hwang, U., McCarthy, M., John McConnell, K., Pines, J. M., Rathlev, N., et al. (2009) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00295.x · Cited by 1,147
Sprivulis, P. C., Da Silva, J., Jacobs, I. G., Jelinek, G. A., & Frazer, A. R. L. (2006) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00203.x · Cited by 759
Sprivulis, P. C., Da Silva, J., Jacobs, I. G., Frazer, A. R. L., & Jelinek, G. A. (2006) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00416.x · Cited by 757
US Emergency Department Performance on Wait Time and Length of Visit
Horwitz, L. I., Green, J., & Bradley, E. H. (2010) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.07.023 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Liew, D., Liew, D., & Kennedy, M. P.
- Venue
- Medical Journal of Australia
- Publisher
- AMPCo
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 524-526
- ISSN
- 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
- 1326-5377
- OpenAlex
- W2110358548
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Emergency department length of stay independently predicts excess inpatient length of stay. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05676.x
- The paper
- Liew, D., Liew, D., & Kennedy, M. P. (2003). Emergency department length of stay independently predicts excess inpatient length of stay. Medical Journal of Australia. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05676.x
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.