Does What Happens in the ED Stay in the ED? The Effects of Emergency Department Physician Workload on Post-ED Care Use
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Problem definition: We study the effects of emergency department (ED) physician workload on healthcare system utilization after the patient leaves the ED. Further, we explore the mediating effects of care intensity in the ED on post-ED care use. Academic/practical relevance: ED crowding has been a pressing concern in healthcare systems in the United States and other developed countries. As such, many researchers have studied its effects on outcomes within the ED. In contrast, we present novel results regarding the impacts of ED crowding on system performance outside the ED—specifically, on post-ED care utilization. Methodology: We utilize a data set assembled from more than four years of microdata from a large U.S. hospital and exhaustive billing data in an integrated health system. We use count models and instrumental variable analyses to answer the proposed research questions. Results: We find that there is an increasing concave relationship between ED physician workload and post-ED care use. When ED workload increases from its fifth percentile to the median, the number of post-discharge care events (i.e., medical services) for patients who are discharged home from the ED increases by 5%, and it is stable afterward. Further, we identify physician test-ordering behavior as a mechanism for this effect; when the physician is busier, she responds by ordering more tests for less severe patients. We document that this “extra” testing generates “extra” post-ED care utilization for these patients. Managerial implications: This paper contributes new insights on how physician and patient behaviors under ED crowding impact a previously unstudied system performance measure: post-ED care utilization. Our findings suggest that prior studies estimating the cost of ED crowding underestimate the true effect, as they do not consider the “extra” post-ED care utilization. Funding: Support for this research was provided by the University of Alberta Endowment Fund for the Future: Support for the Advancement of Scholarship, Canadian Utilities Faculty Fellowship, and the University of Wisconsin–Madison Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education with funding from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. Brian Patterson’s contribution to this research was supported by funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [Grant K08HS024558]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the AHRQ. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1110 .
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle