National Emergency Access Targets metrics of the emergency department–inpatient interface: measures of patient flow and mortality for emergency admissions to hospital
Clair Sullivan A , Andrew Staib A , Rob Eley A , Alan Scanlon A , Judy Flores A and Ian Scott A BA Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia. Email: clair.sullivan@health.qld.gov.au; andrew.staib@health.qld.gov.au; r.eley@uq.edu.au; alan.scanlon@health.qld.gov.au; judy.flores@health.qld.gov.au
B Corresponding author. Email: ian.scott@health.qld.gov.au
Australian Health Review 39(5) 533-538 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH14162
Submitted: 19 September 2014 Accepted: 22 March 2015 Published: 18 May 2015
Abstract
Background Movement of emergency patients across the emergency department (ED)–inpatient ward interface influences compliance with National Emergency Access Targets (NEAT). Uncertainty exists as to how best measure patient flow, NEAT compliance and patient mortality across this interface.
Objective To compare the association of NEAT with new and traditional markers of patient flow across the ED–inpatient interface and to investigate new markers of mortality and NEAT compliance across this interface.
Methods Retrospective study of consecutive emergency admissions to a tertiary hospital (January 2012 to June 2014) using routinely collected hospital data. The practical access number for emergency (PANE) and inpatient cubicles in emergency (ICE) are new measures reflecting boarding of inpatients in ED; traditional markers were hospital bed occupancy and ED attendance numbers. The Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio (HSMR) for patients admitted via ED (eHSMR) was correlated with inpatient NEAT compliance rates. Linear regression analyses assessed for statistically significant associations (expressed as Pearson R coefficient) between all measures and inpatient NEAT compliance rates.
Results PANE and ICE were inversely related to inpatient NEAT compliance rates (r = 0.698 and 0.734 respectively, P < 0.003 for both); no significant relation was seen with traditional patient flow markers. Inpatient NEAT compliance rates were inversely related to both eHSMR (r = 0.914, P = 0.0006) and all-patient HSMR (r = 0.943, P = 0.0001).
Conclusions Traditional markers of patient flow do not correlate with inpatient NEAT compliance in contrast to two new markers of inpatient boarding in ED (PANE and ICE). Standardised mortality rates for both emergency and all patients show a strong inverse relation with inpatient NEAT compliance.
What is known about the topic? Impaired flow of emergency admissions across the interface between ED and inpatient wards retards achievement of NEAT-compliance rates and adversely affects patient outcomes. Uncertainty exists as to which measures of patient flow and mortality outcomes correlate closely with NEAT-compliance rates for patients admitted from emergency departments.
What does this paper add? This study investigates the utility of two new markers of patient flow from ED to inpatient wards. The Practical Access Number for Emergency (PANE) is the number of patients in ED who have had their episode of ED care completed and are awaiting an inpatient bed at a particular point in time. The Inpatient Cubicles in Emergency (ICE) represents the theoretical number of ED cubicles blocked by boarding patients over a specified time interval (in this study 5 weekdays, Monday–Friday), based on the mean time boarders spent in ED during that interval. Both measures were shown to be significantly inversely related to inpatient NEAT compliance rates (i.e. as PANE and ICE increased, NEAT compliance decreased). In contrast, no relation was seen with traditional markers of patient flow (i.e. hospital bed occupancy and ED attendance numbers). HSMR for both all patients and emergency patients only demonstrated a strong inverse relation with inpatient NEAT compliance.
What are the implications for practitioners? When pursuing higher NEAT compliance rates, traditional markers of patient flow across the ED–inpatient interface may be misleading and adversely impact bed-management strategies and patient safety. Identifying when hospitals may be at risk of developing, or already in, a state of reduced access to emergency care may be performed more accurately using new flow markers such as PANE and ICE. The inverse relationship between inpatient NEAT compliance and HSMR, whether calculated for all patients or for emergency patients only, underscores the dependence of inpatient mortality on the swift flow of large volumes of emergency admissions across the ED–inpatient interface. This flow may be compromised by imposing additional demands on a limited number of commissionable beds by way of increasing ED demand and/or use of more beds for elective admissions.
References
[1] Khanna S, Boyle J, Good N, Lind J. New emergency department quality measure: from access block to National Emergency Access Target compliance. Emerg Med Aust 2013; 25 565–72.[2] Australian Medical Association (AMA). Public Hospital Report Card 2014: an AMA analysis of Australia’s Public Hospital System. Canberra: AMA; 2014.
[3] Sprivulis PC, Da Silva JA, Jacobs IG, Frazer AR, Jelinek GA. The association between hospital overcrowding and mortality among patients admitted via Western Australian emergency departments. Med J Aust 2006; 184 208–12.
| 16515429PubMed |
[4] McCarthy ML, Zeger SL, Ding R, Levin SR, Desmond JS, Lee J, Aronsky D. Crowding delays treatment and lengthens emergency department length of stay, even among high-acuity patients. Ann Emerg Med 2009; 54 492–503.e4.
| Crowding delays treatment and lengthens emergency department length of stay, even among high-acuity patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19423188PubMed |
[5] Hwang U, McCarthy ML, Aronsky D, Asplin B, Crane PW, Craven CK, Epstein SK, Fee C, Handel DA, Pines JM, Rathlev NK, Schafemeyer RW, Zwemer FL, Bernstein SL. Measures of crowding in the emergency department: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2011; 18 527–38.
| Measures of crowding in the emergency department: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21569171PubMed |
[6] Khanna S, Boyle J, Good N, Lind J. Unravelling relationships: Hospital occupancy levels, discharge timing and emergency department access block. Emergency medicine Australasia Emerg Med Aust 2012; 24 510–7.
[7] Lim ME, Nye T, Bowen JM, Hurley J, Goeree R, Tarride JE. Mathematical modeling: the case of emergency department waiting times. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28 93–109.
| Mathematical modeling: the case of emergency department waiting times.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22559751PubMed |
[8] Boyle J, Zeitz K, Hoffman R, Khanna S, Beltrame J. Probability of severe adverse events as a function of hospital occupancy. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2014; 18 15–20.
| Probability of severe adverse events as a function of hospital occupancy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24403399PubMed |
[9] Sullivan C, Flores J, Staib A, Aggarwal L, Scanlon A, Martin J, Scott I. Aiming to be NEAT: safely improving and sustaining access to emergency care in a tertiary referral hospital. Aust Health Review 2014; 38 564–574.
| Aiming to be NEAT: safely improving and sustaining access to emergency care in a tertiary referral hospital.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Ben-Tovim D, Woodman R, Harrison JE, Pointer S, Hakendorf P, Henley G. Measuring and reporting mortality in hospital patients. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2009.
[11] Scott IA, Brand CA, Phelps GE, Barker AL, Cameron PA. Using hospital standardised mortality ratios to assess quality of care – proceed with extreme caution. Med J Aust 2011; 194 645–8.
| 21692724PubMed |
[12] Martin M, Champion R, Kinsman L, Masman K. Mapping patient flow in a regional Australian emergency department: a model driven approach. Int Emerg Nurs 2011; 19 75–85.
| Mapping patient flow in a regional Australian emergency department: a model driven approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21459349PubMed |
[13] Keegan AD. Hospital bed occupancy: more than queuing for a bed. Med J Aust 2010; 193 291–3.
| 20819049PubMed |
[14] Bain CA, Taylor PG, McDonnell G, Georgiou A. Myths of ideal hospital occupancy. Med J Aust 2010; 192 42–3.
| 20047548PubMed |
[15] Schull MJ, Vermeulen M, Slaughter G, Morrison L, Daly P. Emergency department crowding and thrombolysis delays in acute myocardial infarction. Ann Emerg Med 2004; 44 577–85.
| Emergency department crowding and thrombolysis delays in acute myocardial infarction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15573032PubMed |
[16] Schull MJ, Morrison LJ, Vermeulen M, Redelmeier DA. Emergency department overcrowding and ambulance transport delays for patients with chest pain. Canad Med Assoc J 2003; 168 277–83.
[17] Fee C, Weber EJ, Bacchetti P, Maak CA. Effect of emergency department crowding on pneumonia admission care components. Am J Manag Care 2011; 17 269–78.
| 21615197PubMed |
[18] Viccellio A, Santora C, Singer AJ, Thode HC, Henry MC. The association between transfer of emergency department boarders to inpatient hallways and mortality: a 4-year experience. Ann Emerg Med 2009; 54 487–91.
| The association between transfer of emergency department boarders to inpatient hallways and mortality: a 4-year experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19345442PubMed |
[19] Viccellio P, Zito JA, Sayage V, Chohan J, Garra G, Santora C, Singer AJ. Patients overwhelmingly prefer inpatient boarding to emergency department boarding. J Emerg Med 2013; 45 942–6.
| Patients overwhelmingly prefer inpatient boarding to emergency department boarding.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24063879PubMed |
[20] Harris A, Sharma A. Access block and overcrowding in emergency departments: an empirical analysis. Emerg Med J 2010; 27 508–11.
| Access block and overcrowding in emergency departments: an empirical analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20584950PubMed |
[21] Jones P, Schimanski K. The four hour target to reduce emergency department ‘waiting time’: a systematic review of clinical outcomes. Emerg Med Aust 2010; 22 391–8.
