Reducing PIA by over 50% While Generating New Patient Flows: A Comprehensive Assessment of Emergency Department Redesign
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background On June 6, 2011 the Emergency Department (ED) at Southlake Regional Health Center, a very high-volume ED, initiated a comprehensive redesign project to improve patient waiting times. The primary initial goal of the project was to reduce Time to Physician’s Initial Assessment (TPIA) - one of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tracked by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The objective was to achieve a significant improvement in TPIA without sacrificing performance on any other important KPIs such as Length of Stay (LOS), Left Without Being Seen (LWBS), or time to admission (T2A). The effect on TPIA was immediate and dramatic: the 90−th percentile TPIA declining from 4 hrs to under 2.5 hrs, with further improvements seen over time. The patient in-flows also increased; anecdotally this increase was directly related to shorter wait time. However, like any other large-scale and on-going system redesign project, the impacts are not limited to the listed KPIs, but are multi-dimensional, affecting patient inflows, flows within the ED, workloads, staffing levels, etc. Thus, teasing out the impact of system redesign requires from other concurrent factors (population changes, staffing changes, etc.) requires a comprehensive system assessment. The available data exhibits auto-correlations, heteroscedasticity, and interdependence among variables, rendering simple statistical analysis of individual KPIs inapplicable. We develop a novel methodology and conduct counterfactual analysis demonstrating that the decrease in TPIA, as well as new patient inflows can indeed be attributed to the ED redesign. This suggests that a similar system redesign should be considered by other EDs looking to improve wait times. Objectives To (1) statistically estimate the impacts of the redesign project on various performance measures over time, (2) examine whether the project’s initial goal of improvement in TPIA without compromising other service performance measures was achieved, and (3) study whether the project impacted patient inflows. Methods We (1) estimate simultaneous equations models to quantify interdependent and timevarying relations among variables, (2) conduct an iterative counterfactual analysis to estimate the mean-level impacts of the project, and (3) construct 95% confidence intervals for the estimated impacts using the Bootstrap method. Results We study project impacts over 720 days after it was initiated. During this time, the 90 th percentile of TPIA has been reduced by nearly 2.5 hours on average (translating into an over 50% improvement), with continuous improvement over the study period. This effect is statistically and operationally significant. The project also improved LOS for non-admitted patients (both acute and non-acute), and did not have statistically significant impact on LOS for admitted patients. There was also a decrease in LWBS, though it was not statistically significant. Thus the project achieved its stated primary goals. We also observed an increase in inflows of both acute and nonacute patients; our analysis confirms that this increase can be attributed to the project, indicating that improvements in TPIA attracted new patients to the ED. All of these effects have persisted over the 720-day post-project period. Conclusions The redesign project has significantly reduced TPIA over time while also improving some LOS measures; none of the waiting time KPIs were compromised. The reduction in TPIA also attracted significant volumes of new patients. However, the redesigned process was able to deal with this volume without compromising performance. The redesign project involved a number of major changes in ED operations. We provide an overview of these changes, and while our analysis cannot attribute specific project impacts to specific changes, we believe that implementing similar changes should receive strong consideration by other EDs. Conflicts of interest None
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».