A different crowd, a different crowding level? The predefined thresholds of crowding scales may not be optimal for all emergency departments

M. Christien Van Der Linden, Merel Van Loon, Menno I. Gaakeer, John R Richards, Robert W. Derlet, Naomi Van Der Linden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Previous studies indicate that crowding scales may not perform well in low-volume emergency departments (EDs). In this study, face-validity of the Modified National ED OverCrowding Score (mNEDOCS) was assessed in a high-volume ED as well as in a low-volume ED. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study was performed in the Netherlands. The correlation of the mNEDOCS with ED staff perceptions of crowding were assessed, using weighted Kappa (κ) and Pearson correlation. Subsequently, ED process measures (elapsed target times to triage, elapsed target times to treatment and patients’ LOS) were described under different levels of ED crowding. Results: Correlation between the categorized crowding scores was low (weighted κ 0.34 resp. 0.26). However, good correlations of 0.73 and 0.82 were found between the uncategorized mNEDOCS and ED staff's perception of crowding. Percentages of patients with elapsed target times to treatment increased simultaneously with increasingly busy periods when measured with mNEDOCS. Conclusions: The uncategorized mNEDOCS correlates well with perceived crowding, even at a low-volume ED. Determining a cut-off level at which a specific ED can be identified as crowded is important, because the predefined mNEDOCS categories may not be optimal for all EDs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalInternational Emergency Nursing
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Crowding
Hospital Emergency Service
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Triage
Reproducibility of Results
Netherlands
Observational Studies
Cohort Studies

Keywords

  • Crowding
  • Emergency department
  • Length of stay
  • NEDOCS

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency

Cite this

A different crowd, a different crowding level? The predefined thresholds of crowding scales may not be optimal for all emergency departments. / Van Der Linden, M. Christien; Van Loon, Merel; Gaakeer, Menno I.; Richards, John R; Derlet, Robert W.; Van Der Linden, Naomi.

In: International Emergency Nursing, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Van Der Linden, M. Christien ; Van Loon, Merel ; Gaakeer, Menno I. ; Richards, John R ; Derlet, Robert W. ; Van Der Linden, Naomi. / A different crowd, a different crowding level? The predefined thresholds of crowding scales may not be optimal for all emergency departments. In: International Emergency Nursing. 2018.
@article{6c0e0a7031384632bd6d3c86c957c44d,
title = "A different crowd, a different crowding level? The predefined thresholds of crowding scales may not be optimal for all emergency departments",
abstract = "Introduction: Previous studies indicate that crowding scales may not perform well in low-volume emergency departments (EDs). In this study, face-validity of the Modified National ED OverCrowding Score (mNEDOCS) was assessed in a high-volume ED as well as in a low-volume ED. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study was performed in the Netherlands. The correlation of the mNEDOCS with ED staff perceptions of crowding were assessed, using weighted Kappa (κ) and Pearson correlation. Subsequently, ED process measures (elapsed target times to triage, elapsed target times to treatment and patients’ LOS) were described under different levels of ED crowding. Results: Correlation between the categorized crowding scores was low (weighted κ 0.34 resp. 0.26). However, good correlations of 0.73 and 0.82 were found between the uncategorized mNEDOCS and ED staff's perception of crowding. Percentages of patients with elapsed target times to treatment increased simultaneously with increasingly busy periods when measured with mNEDOCS. Conclusions: The uncategorized mNEDOCS correlates well with perceived crowding, even at a low-volume ED. Determining a cut-off level at which a specific ED can be identified as crowded is important, because the predefined mNEDOCS categories may not be optimal for all EDs.",
keywords = "Crowding, Emergency department, Length of stay, NEDOCS",
author = "{Van Der Linden}, {M. Christien} and {Van Loon}, Merel and Gaakeer, {Menno I.} and Richards, {John R} and Derlet, {Robert W.} and {Van Der Linden}, Naomi",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ienj.2018.05.004",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "International Emergency Nursing",
issn = "1755-599X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A different crowd, a different crowding level? The predefined thresholds of crowding scales may not be optimal for all emergency departments

AU - Van Der Linden, M. Christien

AU - Van Loon, Merel

AU - Gaakeer, Menno I.

AU - Richards, John R

AU - Derlet, Robert W.

AU - Van Der Linden, Naomi

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Introduction: Previous studies indicate that crowding scales may not perform well in low-volume emergency departments (EDs). In this study, face-validity of the Modified National ED OverCrowding Score (mNEDOCS) was assessed in a high-volume ED as well as in a low-volume ED. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study was performed in the Netherlands. The correlation of the mNEDOCS with ED staff perceptions of crowding were assessed, using weighted Kappa (κ) and Pearson correlation. Subsequently, ED process measures (elapsed target times to triage, elapsed target times to treatment and patients’ LOS) were described under different levels of ED crowding. Results: Correlation between the categorized crowding scores was low (weighted κ 0.34 resp. 0.26). However, good correlations of 0.73 and 0.82 were found between the uncategorized mNEDOCS and ED staff's perception of crowding. Percentages of patients with elapsed target times to treatment increased simultaneously with increasingly busy periods when measured with mNEDOCS. Conclusions: The uncategorized mNEDOCS correlates well with perceived crowding, even at a low-volume ED. Determining a cut-off level at which a specific ED can be identified as crowded is important, because the predefined mNEDOCS categories may not be optimal for all EDs.

AB - Introduction: Previous studies indicate that crowding scales may not perform well in low-volume emergency departments (EDs). In this study, face-validity of the Modified National ED OverCrowding Score (mNEDOCS) was assessed in a high-volume ED as well as in a low-volume ED. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study was performed in the Netherlands. The correlation of the mNEDOCS with ED staff perceptions of crowding were assessed, using weighted Kappa (κ) and Pearson correlation. Subsequently, ED process measures (elapsed target times to triage, elapsed target times to treatment and patients’ LOS) were described under different levels of ED crowding. Results: Correlation between the categorized crowding scores was low (weighted κ 0.34 resp. 0.26). However, good correlations of 0.73 and 0.82 were found between the uncategorized mNEDOCS and ED staff's perception of crowding. Percentages of patients with elapsed target times to treatment increased simultaneously with increasingly busy periods when measured with mNEDOCS. Conclusions: The uncategorized mNEDOCS correlates well with perceived crowding, even at a low-volume ED. Determining a cut-off level at which a specific ED can be identified as crowded is important, because the predefined mNEDOCS categories may not be optimal for all EDs.

KW - Crowding

KW - Emergency department

KW - Length of stay

KW - NEDOCS

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047860526&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047860526&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ienj.2018.05.004

DO - 10.1016/j.ienj.2018.05.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 29880260

AN - SCOPUS:85047860526

JO - International Emergency Nursing

JF - International Emergency Nursing

SN - 1755-599X

ER -