Objectives: The objective was to study the association between factors related to emergency department (ED) crowding and patient satisfaction. Methods:The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted through the ED who completed Press-Ganey patient satisfaction surveys over a 2-year period at a single academic center. Ordinal and binary logistic regression was used to study the association between validated ED crowding factors (such as hallway placement, waiting times, and boarding times) and patient satisfaction with both ED care and assessment of satisfaction with the overall hospitalization.Results: A total of 1,501 hospitalizations for 1,469 patients were studied. ED hallway use was broadly predictive of a lower likelihood of recommending the ED to others, lower overall ED satisfaction, and lower overall satisfaction with the hospitalization (p < 0.05). Prolonged ED boarding times and prolonged treatment times were also predictive of lower ED satisfaction and lower satisfaction with the overall hospitalization (p < 0.05). Measures of ED crowding and ED waiting times predicted ED satisfaction (p < 0.05), but were not predictive of satisfaction with the overall hospitalization.Conclusions: A poor ED service experience as measured by ED hallway use and prolonged boarding time after admission are adversely associated with ED satisfaction and predict lower satisfaction with the entire hospitalization. Efforts to decrease ED boarding and crowding might improve patient satisfaction. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2008; 15:825-831 ª 2008 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicineKeywords: emergency department crowding, overcrowding, patient satisfaction, hallway, boarding, crowding P atient satisfaction data are used by emergency department (ED) administrators to track aggregate data over time, study interventions, assess individual physician performance, and construct financial incentive plans.1,2 A recent study identified six elements of emergency care associated with poor satisfaction: 1) not receiving help when needed, 2) a poorly explained problem, 3) not being told about waiting times, 4) not being told when to resume normal activities, 5) not having test results explained, and 6) not understanding when to return to the ED.3,4 While many elements of satisfaction are under provider control, many elements of ED care are difficult for an individual provider to improve, such as waiting time, boarding time, use of hallway treatment space, and overall levels of ED crowding that might reduce staff availability and impede ancillary services such as radiology and laboratory results. 5-11Despite the challenges of obtaining reliable and valid data, measurement of patient satisfaction is recognized by providers and regulators as vital to quality assurance and improvement.12,13 Satisfied patients are more likely to be compliant with their medications, return for continuing medical care, and communicate more effectively with their physicians.14-16 Patient satisfaction itself has been prop...
Adverse posttraumatic neuropsychiatric sequelae (APNS) are common among civilian trauma survivors and military veterans. These APNS, as traditionally classified, include posttraumatic stress, post-concussion syndrome, depression, and regional or widespread pain. Traditional classifications have come to hamper scientific progress because they artificially fragment APNS into siloed, syndromic diagnoses unmoored to discrete components of brain functioning and studied in isolation. These limitations in classification and ontology slow the discovery of pathophysiologic mechanisms, biobehavioral markers, risk prediction tools, and preventive/ treatment interventions. Progress in overcoming these limitations has been challenging, because such progress would require studies that both evaluate a broad spectrum of posttraumatic sequelae (to overcome fragmentation) and also perform in-depth biobehavioral evaluation (to index sequelae to domains of brain function). This article summarizes the methods of the Advancing Understanding of RecOvery afteR traumA (AURORA) Study. AURORA conducts a large scale (n = 5,000 target sample) in-depth assessment of APNS development using a state-of-the-art battery of self-report, neurocognitive, physiologic, digital phenotyping, psychophysical, neuroimaging, and genomic assessments, beginning in the early aftermath of trauma and continuing for one year. The goals of AURORA are to achieve improved phenotypes, prediction tools, and understanding of molecular mechanisms to inform the future development and testing of preventive and treatment interventions.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) and heavy drinking are co-occurring public health problems, but integrated brief interventions for these conditions have not been tested.OBJECTIVE To determine whether a brief motivational intervention provided at the time of an emergency department (ED) visit reduces IPV and heavy drinking. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 US academic urban EDs between January 2011 and December 2014 to assess the effectiveness of a motivational intervention for IPV-involved female ED patients (ages: 18-64 years; N = 600) who exceeded sex-specific safe drinking limits. All received social service referrals; 2:2:1 to brief intervention (n = 242), assessed control (n = 237), or no-contact control (n = 121).INTERVENTIONS A 20-to 30-minute manual-guided motivational intervention (recorded and monitored for fidelity) delivered by master's-level therapists with a follow-up telephone booster. The assessed control group received the same number of assessments as the brief intervention group; the no-contact control group was assessed only once at 3 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESIncidents of heavy drinking and experiencing IPV measured over prespecified, 12 weekly assessments using an interactive voice response system. RESULTSOf 600 participants, 80% were black women with a mean age of 32 years. Retention was 89% for 2 or more interactive voice response system calls. Seventy-eight percent of women completed the 3-month interview, 79% at 6 months, and 71% at 12 months. During the 12-week period following the brief motivational intervention, there were no significant differences between the intervention group and the assessed control group on weekly assessments for experiencing IPV (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06) or heavy drinking (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03). From baseline to 12 weeks, the number of women with any IPV in the past week decreased from 57% (134 of 237) in the intervention group to 43% (83 of 194) and from 63% (145 of 231) in the assessed control group to 41% (77 of 187) (absolute difference of 8%). From baseline to 12 weeks, the number of women with past week heavy drinking decreased from 51% (120 of 236) in the intervention group to 43% (83 of 194) and from 46% (107 of 231) in the assessed control group to 41% (77 of 187) (absolute difference of 3%). At 12 months, 43% (71 of 165) of the intervention group and 47% (78 of 165) of the assessed control group reported no IPV during the previous 3 months and 19% (29 of 152) of the intervention group and 24% (37 of 153) of the control group had reduced their alcohol consumption to sex-specific National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism safe drinking levels.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE For women experiencing IPV and heavy drinking, the use of a brief motivational intervention in the ED compared with assessed and no-contact controls did not significantly reduce the days of heavy drinking or incidents of IPV. These findings do not support a brief motivational intervention in this setting.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.