Emergency Department Performance Measures Research Articles

Daily Patient Flow Is Not Surge: “Management Is Prediction”

Academic Emergency MedicineVolume 13, Issue 11 p. 1095-1096 Free Access Daily Patient Flow Is Not Surge: “Management Is Prediction” Steven J. Davidson MD, MBA, Corresponding Author Steven J. Davidson MD, MBA Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY (Email: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorKristi L. Koenig MD, Kristi L. Koenig MD Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California–Irvine, Orange, CASearch for more papers by this authorDavid C. Cone MD, David C. Cone MD Section of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CTSearch for more papers by this author Steven J. Davidson MD, MBA, Corresponding Author Steven J. Davidson MD, MBA Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY (Email: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorKristi L. Koenig MD, Kristi L. Koenig MD Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California–Irvine, Orange, CASearch for more papers by this authorDavid C. Cone MD, David C. Cone MD Section of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CTSearch for more papers by this author First published: 28 June 2008 https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2006.07.021Citations: 7AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. References Koenig KL, Cone DC, Burstein JL Camargo Jr. CA. Surging to the right standard of care Acad Emerg Med 2006; 13: 195– 198. Kelen GD, McCarthy ML. The science of surge Acad Emerg Med 2006; 13: 1089– 1094. Reid PP, Compton WD, Grossman JH Fanjiang G. Building a Better Delivery System. A New Engineering/Health Care Partnership Committee on Engineering and the Health Care System. Washington , DC : Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Engineering, 2005. Hoffenberg S, Hill MB, Houry D. Does sharing process differences reduce patient length of stay in the emergency department? Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38: 533– 540. Spaite DW, Bartholomeaux F, Guisto J, et al. Rapid process redesign in a university-based emergency department: decreasing waiting time intervals and improving patient satisfaction Ann Emerg Med 2002; 39: 168– 177. Fernandes CM, Walker R, Price A, Marsden J, Haley L. Root cause analysis of laboratory delays to an emergency department J Emerg Med 1997; 15: 735– 739. Fernandes CM, Price A, Christenson JM. Does reduced length of stay decrease the number of emergency department patients who leave without seeing a physician? J Emerg Med 1997; 15: 397– 399. Wuerz R, Fernandes CM, Alarcon J. Inconsistency of emergency department triage. Emergency Department Operations Research Working Group Ann Emerg Med 1998; 32: 431– 435. Gordon BD, Asplin BR. Using online analytical processing to manage emergency department operations Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 1206– 1212. Solberg LI, Asplin BR, Weinick RM Magid DJ. Emergency department crowding: consensus development of potential measures Ann Emerg Med 2003; 42: 824– 834. Asplin BR, Magid DJ, Rhodes KV, Solberg LI, Lurie N, Camargo Jr. CA. A conceptual model of emergency department crowding Ann Emerg Med 2003; 42: 173– 180. Davidson SJ, Zwemer Jr. FL, Nathanson LA, Sable KN, Khan AN. Where's the beef? The promise and the reality of clinical documentation Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 1127– 1134. Handler JA, Adams JG, Feied CF, et al. Developing consensus in emergency medicine information technology Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 1109– 1111. Welch S, Augustine J, Camargo Jr. CA, Reese C. Emergency department performance measures and benchmarking summit Acad Emerg Med 2006; 13: 1074– 1080. Story P. Change in a Changing ED: Rationales for the Ongoing Use of Analysis and Simulation. ProModel, Inc. Available at: http:www.shsweb.orgwebcastsfileschangingachanginged.pdf. Accessed Jul 17, 2006. Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System Hospital-based Emergency Care: At the Breaking Point. Washington , DC : National Academies Press, 2006. Deming WE. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education2nd ed.. Cambridge : MA, 2000. Citing Literature Volume13, Issue11November 2006Pages 1095-1096 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Emergency Department Performance Measures and Benchmarking Summit

The findings are presented of a consensus group created to address the standardization of performance measures for emergency medicine. This group, whose members have affiliations with most major organizations interested in emergency medicine performance, benchmarking and quality improvement, was tasked with standardizing definitions pertinent to emergency department performance measures, creating a set of general and operational measures, developing a comparison system for benchmarking and creating a plan for the dissemination of this information. The formation of this group, the problem statement, and the mission statement for the summit are all described, and the consensus document is presented.

Emergency Department Performance Measures and Benchmarking Summit

Emergency Department Performance Measures and Benchmarking Summit

The Emergency Department Performance Measures and Benchmarking Summit

The Emergency Department Performance Measures and Benchmarking Summit

Competing values of emergency department performance: balancing multiple stakeholder perspectives.

To describe the performance interests of multiple stakeholders associated with the management and delivery of emergency department (ED) care, and to develop a performance framework and set of indicators that reflect these interests. Stakeholders (1,100 physicians, nurses, managers, home care providers, and prehospital care personnel) with responsibility for ED patients in hospitals in the Canadian province of Ontario. Sixty-two percent of stakeholders responded to a mail survey regarding the importance of 104 potential ED performance indicators. Descriptive and inferential statistics are used to explore the interests of each stakeholder group and to compare interests across the five groups. Emergency department stakeholders are primarily interested in indicators that focus on their role and capacity to provide care. Key differences exist between hospital and nonhospital stakeholders. Physicians mean ratings of the importance on ED performance measures were lower than mean ratings in the other stakeholder groups. Emergency department performance interests are not homogeneous across stakeholder groups, and evaluating performance from the perspective of any one stakeholder group will result in unbalanced assessments. Community-based stakeholders, a group frequently excluded from commenting on ED performance, provide important insights into ED performance related to the external environment and the broader continuum of care.