Emergency department crowding: an overview of reviews describing measures causes, and harms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crowding in Emergency Departments (EDs) has emerged as a global public health crisis. Current literature has identified causes and the potential harms of crowding in recent years. The way crowding is measured has also been the source of emerging literature and debate. We aimed to synthesize the current literature of the causes, harms, and measures of crowding in emergency departments around the world. The review is guided by the current PRIOR statement, and involved Pubmed, Medline, and Embase searches for eligible systematic reviews. A risk of bias and quality assessment were performed for each review, and the results were synthesized into a narrative overview. A total of 13 systematic reviews were identified, each targeting the measures, causes, and harms of crowding in global emergency departments. Key among the results is that the measures of crowding were heterogeneous, even in geographically proximate areas, and that temporal measures are being utilized more frequently. It was identified that many measures are associated with crowding, and the literature would benefit from standardization of these metrics to promote improvement efforts and the generalization of research conclusions. The major causes of crowding were grouped into patient, staff, and system-level factors; with the most important factor identified as outpatient boarding. The harms of crowding, impacting patients, healthcare staff, and healthcare spending, highlight the importance of addressing crowding. This overview was intended to synthesize the current literature on crowding for relevant stakeholders, to assist with advocacy and solution-based decision making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".