Measures of crowding in the emergency department: A systematic review

Ula Hwang, Melissa L. McCarthy, Dominik Aronsky, Brent Asplin, Peter W. Crane, Catherine K. Craven, Stephen K. Epstein, Christopher Fee, Daniel A. Handel, Jesse M. Pines, Niels K. Rathlev, Robert W. Schafermeyer, Frank L. Zwemer, Steven L. Bernstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

108 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Despite consensus regarding the conceptual foundation of crowding, and increasing research on factors and outcomes associated with crowding, there is no criterion standard measure of crowding. The objective was to conduct a systematic review of crowding measures and compare them in conceptual foundation and validity. Methods: This was a systematic, comprehensive review of four medical and health care citation databases to identify studies related to crowding in the emergency department (ED). Publications that "describe the theory, development, implementation, evaluation, or any other aspect of a 'crowding measurement/definition' instrument (qualitative or quantitative)" were included. A "measurement/definition" instrument is anything that assigns a value to the phenomenon of crowding in the ED. Data collected from papers meeting inclusion criteria were: study design, objective, crowding measure, and evidence of validity. All measures were categorized into five measure types (clinician opinion, input factors, throughput factors, output factors, and multidimensional scales). All measures were then indexed to six validation criteria (clinician opinion, ambulance diversion, left without being seen (LWBS), times to care, forecasting or predictions of future crowding, and other). Results: There were 2,660 papers identified by databases; 46 of these papers met inclusion criteria, were original research studies, and were abstracted by reviewers. A total of 71 unique crowding measures were identified. The least commonly used type of crowding measure was clinician opinion, and the most commonly used were numerical counts (number or percentage) of patients and process times associated with patient care. Many measures had moderate to good correlation with validation criteria. Conclusions: Time intervals and patient counts are emerging as the most promising tools for measuring flow and nonflow (i.e., crowding), respectively. Standardized definitions of time intervals (flow) and numerical counts (nonflow) will assist with validation of these metrics across multiple sites and clarify which options emerge as the metrics of choice in this "crowded" field of measures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)527-538
Number of pages12
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume18
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2011

Fingerprint

Hospital Emergency Service
Ambulance Diversion
Databases
Research
Publications
Patient Care
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Hwang, U., McCarthy, M. L., Aronsky, D., Asplin, B., Crane, P. W., Craven, C. K., ... Bernstein, S. L. (2011). Measures of crowding in the emergency department: A systematic review. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18(5), 527-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01054.x

Measures of crowding in the emergency department : A systematic review. / Hwang, Ula; McCarthy, Melissa L.; Aronsky, Dominik; Asplin, Brent; Crane, Peter W.; Craven, Catherine K.; Epstein, Stephen K.; Fee, Christopher; Handel, Daniel A.; Pines, Jesse M.; Rathlev, Niels K.; Schafermeyer, Robert W.; Zwemer, Frank L.; Bernstein, Steven L.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 5, 05.2011, p. 527-538.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hwang, U, McCarthy, ML, Aronsky, D, Asplin, B, Crane, PW, Craven, CK, Epstein, SK, Fee, C, Handel, DA, Pines, JM, Rathlev, NK, Schafermeyer, RW, Zwemer, FL & Bernstein, SL 2011, 'Measures of crowding in the emergency department: A systematic review', Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 527-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01054.x
Hwang U, McCarthy ML, Aronsky D, Asplin B, Crane PW, Craven CK et al. Measures of crowding in the emergency department: A systematic review. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2011 May;18(5):527-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01054.x
Hwang, Ula ; McCarthy, Melissa L. ; Aronsky, Dominik ; Asplin, Brent ; Crane, Peter W. ; Craven, Catherine K. ; Epstein, Stephen K. ; Fee, Christopher ; Handel, Daniel A. ; Pines, Jesse M. ; Rathlev, Niels K. ; Schafermeyer, Robert W. ; Zwemer, Frank L. ; Bernstein, Steven L. / Measures of crowding in the emergency department : A systematic review. In: Academic Emergency Medicine. 2011 ; Vol. 18, No. 5. pp. 527-538.
@article{bda260077bbe4988abed04f1a7197cd4,
title = "Measures of crowding in the emergency department: A systematic review",
abstract = "Objectives: Despite consensus regarding the conceptual foundation of crowding, and increasing research on factors and outcomes associated with crowding, there is no criterion standard measure of crowding. The objective was to conduct a systematic review of crowding measures and compare them in conceptual foundation and validity. Methods: This was a systematic, comprehensive review of four medical and health care citation databases to identify studies related to crowding in the emergency department (ED). Publications that {"}describe the theory, development, implementation, evaluation, or any other aspect of a 'crowding measurement/definition' instrument (qualitative or quantitative){"} were included. A {"}measurement/definition{"} instrument is anything that assigns a value to the phenomenon of crowding in the ED. Data collected from papers meeting inclusion criteria were: study design, objective, crowding measure, and evidence of validity. All measures were categorized into five measure types (clinician opinion, input factors, throughput factors, output factors, and multidimensional scales). All measures were then indexed to six validation criteria (clinician opinion, ambulance diversion, left without being seen (LWBS), times to care, forecasting or predictions of future crowding, and other). Results: There were 2,660 papers identified by databases; 46 of these papers met inclusion criteria, were original research studies, and were abstracted by reviewers. A total of 71 unique crowding measures were identified. The least commonly used type of crowding measure was clinician opinion, and the most commonly used were numerical counts (number or percentage) of patients and process times associated with patient care. Many measures had moderate to good correlation with validation criteria. Conclusions: Time intervals and patient counts are emerging as the most promising tools for measuring flow and nonflow (i.e., crowding), respectively. Standardized definitions of time intervals (flow) and numerical counts (nonflow) will assist with validation of these metrics across multiple sites and clarify which options emerge as the metrics of choice in this {"}crowded{"} field of measures.",
author = "Ula Hwang and McCarthy, {Melissa L.} and Dominik Aronsky and Brent Asplin and Crane, {Peter W.} and Craven, {Catherine K.} and Epstein, {Stephen K.} and Christopher Fee and Handel, {Daniel A.} and Pines, {Jesse M.} and Rathlev, {Niels K.} and Schafermeyer, {Robert W.} and Zwemer, {Frank L.} and Bernstein, {Steven L.}",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01054.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "527--538",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measures of crowding in the emergency department

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Hwang, Ula

AU - McCarthy, Melissa L.

AU - Aronsky, Dominik

AU - Asplin, Brent

AU - Crane, Peter W.

AU - Craven, Catherine K.

AU - Epstein, Stephen K.

AU - Fee, Christopher

AU - Handel, Daniel A.

AU - Pines, Jesse M.

AU - Rathlev, Niels K.

AU - Schafermeyer, Robert W.

AU - Zwemer, Frank L.

AU - Bernstein, Steven L.

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - Objectives: Despite consensus regarding the conceptual foundation of crowding, and increasing research on factors and outcomes associated with crowding, there is no criterion standard measure of crowding. The objective was to conduct a systematic review of crowding measures and compare them in conceptual foundation and validity. Methods: This was a systematic, comprehensive review of four medical and health care citation databases to identify studies related to crowding in the emergency department (ED). Publications that "describe the theory, development, implementation, evaluation, or any other aspect of a 'crowding measurement/definition' instrument (qualitative or quantitative)" were included. A "measurement/definition" instrument is anything that assigns a value to the phenomenon of crowding in the ED. Data collected from papers meeting inclusion criteria were: study design, objective, crowding measure, and evidence of validity. All measures were categorized into five measure types (clinician opinion, input factors, throughput factors, output factors, and multidimensional scales). All measures were then indexed to six validation criteria (clinician opinion, ambulance diversion, left without being seen (LWBS), times to care, forecasting or predictions of future crowding, and other). Results: There were 2,660 papers identified by databases; 46 of these papers met inclusion criteria, were original research studies, and were abstracted by reviewers. A total of 71 unique crowding measures were identified. The least commonly used type of crowding measure was clinician opinion, and the most commonly used were numerical counts (number or percentage) of patients and process times associated with patient care. Many measures had moderate to good correlation with validation criteria. Conclusions: Time intervals and patient counts are emerging as the most promising tools for measuring flow and nonflow (i.e., crowding), respectively. Standardized definitions of time intervals (flow) and numerical counts (nonflow) will assist with validation of these metrics across multiple sites and clarify which options emerge as the metrics of choice in this "crowded" field of measures.

AB - Objectives: Despite consensus regarding the conceptual foundation of crowding, and increasing research on factors and outcomes associated with crowding, there is no criterion standard measure of crowding. The objective was to conduct a systematic review of crowding measures and compare them in conceptual foundation and validity. Methods: This was a systematic, comprehensive review of four medical and health care citation databases to identify studies related to crowding in the emergency department (ED). Publications that "describe the theory, development, implementation, evaluation, or any other aspect of a 'crowding measurement/definition' instrument (qualitative or quantitative)" were included. A "measurement/definition" instrument is anything that assigns a value to the phenomenon of crowding in the ED. Data collected from papers meeting inclusion criteria were: study design, objective, crowding measure, and evidence of validity. All measures were categorized into five measure types (clinician opinion, input factors, throughput factors, output factors, and multidimensional scales). All measures were then indexed to six validation criteria (clinician opinion, ambulance diversion, left without being seen (LWBS), times to care, forecasting or predictions of future crowding, and other). Results: There were 2,660 papers identified by databases; 46 of these papers met inclusion criteria, were original research studies, and were abstracted by reviewers. A total of 71 unique crowding measures were identified. The least commonly used type of crowding measure was clinician opinion, and the most commonly used were numerical counts (number or percentage) of patients and process times associated with patient care. Many measures had moderate to good correlation with validation criteria. Conclusions: Time intervals and patient counts are emerging as the most promising tools for measuring flow and nonflow (i.e., crowding), respectively. Standardized definitions of time intervals (flow) and numerical counts (nonflow) will assist with validation of these metrics across multiple sites and clarify which options emerge as the metrics of choice in this "crowded" field of measures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79956090594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79956090594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01054.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01054.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 21569171

AN - SCOPUS:79956090594

VL - 18

SP - 527

EP - 538

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 5

ER -