1 / 17

Will Diversion of Less Urgent Patients Reduce Emergency Department Access Block?

Grant Innes^, Raul Martinez + , Michael Johnson + , Eric Grafstein* + ^Alberta Health Services (Calgary), +Vancouver Coastal Health; *Providence Health Care and St. Paul's Hospital. Will Diversion of Less Urgent Patients Reduce Emergency Department Access Block?. Disclosure.

mike_john
Télécharger la présentation

Will Diversion of Less Urgent Patients Reduce Emergency Department Access Block?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Grant Innes^, Raul Martinez+, Michael Johnson+, Eric Grafstein*+^Alberta Health Services (Calgary), +Vancouver Coastal Health; *Providence Health Care and St. Paul's Hospital Will Diversion of Less Urgent Patients Reduce Emergency Department Access Block?

  2. Disclosure • I do not have an affiliation (financial or otherwise) with any commercial organization that may have a direct or indirect connection to the content of my presentation.

  3. Background • Emergency department (ED) overcrowding, better termed access block, is a situation where patients cannot access emergency care because all ED stretchers are occupied. • Many health experts believe that diversion of less urgent pts to other care locations (e.g. urgicentres) is an important part of the solution to access block. • Our objective was to estimate the impact of less urgent patient diversion on ED access block in an urban Canadian hospital, and compare that against other initiatives.

  4. Methods • We captured arrival and departure times, triage acuity levels and disposition for all pts seen over a one-year period at an urban tertiary ED. • Based on a 2-week observation of actual pt placements, we found that all admitted pts and 60% of non-admitted pts required a stretcher: • all CTAS1-2, • 79% of CTAS 3-4 • 0% CTAS 5.

  5. Methods • Using a simulation model queuing system, we conducted a scenario analysis to determine how many stretchers were required to assure a 90% access rate (stretcher available for patients who need one 90% of the time). • We then modeled the impact of diverting 10% or 50% of CTAS level 4-5 patients and of reducing ED boarding times for admitted patients to 10 or 6 hrs.

  6. Results • During the study period, 62,100 patients were treated, including 30,040 CTAS 1-3 patients, and 32,060 CTAS 4-5 patients. • The model predicted that, at baseline, with an average admitted patient boarding time (LOS) of 15.5 hours, 50 ED stretchers would be required to achieve a 90% access rate.

  7. Baseline State Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity ADM LOS=15.5 hr 50 str for 90% access

  8. Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity 10% less urgent pts removed Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity ADM LOS=15.5 hr 50 str for 90% access

  9. Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity 50% of less urgent patients removed Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity With no reduction in ADM pt LOS, access curve does not shift ADM LOS=15.5 hr 47 str for 90% access

  10. Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity Baseline State Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity ADM LOS=15.5 hr 50 str for 90% access

  11. Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity ADM Patient LOS reduced to 10 hr Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity ADM LOS=10 hours 38 str for 90% access

  12. Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity ADM Patient LOS reduced to 6 hr Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity With red’n in ADM patient LOS, access curve does shift ADM LOS=6 hours 33 str for 90% access

  13. Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity ADM Patient LOS reduced to 6 hr Access Rate vs. Stretcher Capacity ADM pt LOS= 6 hrs, AND 50% less urgent patients removed ADM LOS=6 hours 30 str for 90% access

  14. Results: Number of Stretchers required to achieve 90% access target

  15. Discussion • removing 10% of CTAS 4-5 visits had no impact on ED stretcher requirement, • removing 50% of less urgent patients reduced ED stretcher requirement by 6%. • reducing admitted pt boarding time to 10 hrs reduced stretcher requirement by 24%. • reducing admitted patient boarding time to 6 hours reduced stretcher requirement by 32%. • CTAS 4-5 patients less often need stretchers and occupy stretchers for less time, they have little impact on access for urgent and emergent patients

  16. Limitations • Model outputs are highly dependent on input assumptions. These may vary in different settings • % of patients requiring stretcher varies by site • Local practice (e.g. SJH Model) • Specific problems (e.g. CTAS 4 pts for sed’n/I+D) • Cannot model the complexity of real ED operations and ED contingency responses • Didn’t consider how long pt needs stretcher, and whether pts removed from stretchers • Does not consider new ED processes (RAZ)

  17. Conclusion Simulation modeling using real patient arrival and departure data suggests that diverting less urgent patients to non-ED settings will have minimal impact on patient access to ED care, while reducing ED LOS (boarding times) for admitted patients will have a large impact

More Related