Source: Michelson KA, Monuteaux MC, Stack AM, et al. Pediatric emergency department crowding is associated with a lower likelihood of hospital admission. Acad Emerg Med. 2012; 19(7): 816– 820; doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01390.xInvestigators from Children’s Hospital of Boston reviewed administrative data from pediatric emergency department (ED) visits between 2007 and 2010 to determine the effect of ED crowding on hospital admission and return ED visits. Every ED patient visit was eligible for inclusion except those with incomplete data or length of stay (LOS) >24 hours. For each eligible ED patient visit, investigators calculated an occupancy rate, defined as the ratio of the number of all patients in the ED at the time of presentation (including the waiting room) to total ED beds. An occupancy rate of 1 indicated there was 1 patient for every ED bed. Visits were then placed into quintiles by assigned occupancy rates.The primary outcomes of interest were hospital admission and return ED visits within 48 hours. Logistic regression models were used to calculate the odds of admission and return visits by comparing the 4 most crowded quintiles to the least crowded quintile, adjusting for potential confounders, such as triage severity score on arrival, hospital occupancy, and time of arrival. In a sub-analysis, investigators calculated hospital admission and return visits among patients who had diagnoses of asthma or gastroenteritis, since these 2 common conditions might be sensitive to the effects of ED crowding because they require a period of therapy and observation prior to making a disposition decision.Of 200,901 visits during the study period, 794 (0.4%) were excluded due to LOS >24 hours and 1,329 (0.7%) were excluded because of incomplete data. Of the remaining 198,778 visits, the overall admission rate was 17%. Patients in the 2 most crowded occupancy rate quintiles had a lower likelihood of admission compared to those in the least crowded quintile (adjusted odds ratios: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85– 0.94; and 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81–0.89). Patients in the 4 most crowded quintiles were also significantly less likely to return to the ED within 48 hours than those in the least crowded quintile. There were no significant differences in the likelihood of hospital admission or return visits among patients with gastroenteritis or asthma across quintiles.The authors conclude that children evaluated in the study institution’s pediatric ED are less likely to be admitted when the ED is crowded.Dr Stevenson has disclosed no financial relationship relevant to this commentary. This commentary does not contain a discussion of an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device.Crowding is known to contribute to delayed antibiotic administration to febrile neonates in the pediatric ED1 and adversely affects patient flow.2 ED crowding may also selectively strain hospital and ED resources during the winter season or during evening hours. Because criteria for hospital admission of pediatric patients are not well defined for many diagnoses, this study represents an important step toward understanding how crowding in the ED may affect provider decisions to hospitalize children.It is noteworthy that there were no differences in return visit or hospital admission rates for gastroenteritis or asthma patients with increasing crowding in the ED. However, although investigators controlled for important confounders such as acuity and hospital occupancy, there may be other relevant variables that were not accounted for, such as staffing changes or seasonal illness patterns. In addition, this urban referral center does not experience a significant number of patients who are boarded in the ED when the hospital is full. Therefore, the investigators’ findings may not be applicable to other settings with differing resources.Further evaluation of how crowding impacts disposition decisions is warranted. In the meantime, it may be prudent for pediatric practitioners to closely follow children discharged from the ED during times of high volume.The implications of this study are that providers’ decision-making (and therefore quality of care) might be affected by a very human factor – how busy they are. This is a crucial line of investigation, but we’re not sure that this study brings us much closer to a true understanding. As pointed out in the commentary above, there were several potential confounders that were not accounted for in the analyses, not to mention all the unknown confounders. Given this and other weaknesses in design of the study, and with odds ratios quite close to 1.0 (despite being statistically significant), we suspect that there weren’t any true differences in provider decision-making, at least related to the outcomes studied, related to ED crowding.
Read full abstract