Comparison Between Emergency Department and Inpatient Nurses' Perceptions of Boarding of Admitted Patients.

University of California Davis Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Sacramento, California.
The western journal of emergency medicine 03/2013; 14(2):90-95. DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2012.12.12830
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The boarding of admitted patients in the emergency department (ED) is a major cause of crowding and access block. One solution is boarding admitted patients in inpatient ward (W) hallways. This study queried and compared ED and W nurses' opinions toward ED and W boarding. It also assessed their preferred boarding location if they were patients.
A survey administered to a convenience sample of ED and W nurses was performed in a 631-bed academic medical center (30,000 admissions/year) with a 68-bed ED (70,000 visits/ year). We identified nurses as ED or W, and if W, whether they had previously worked in the ED. The nurses were asked if there were any circumstances where admitted patients should be boarded in ED or W hallways. They were also asked their preferred location if they were admitted as a patient. Six clinical scenarios were then presented, and the nurses' opinions on boarding based on each scenario were queried.
Ninety nurses completed the survey, with a response rate of 60%; 35 (39%) were current ED nurses (cED), 40 (44%) had previously worked in the ED (pED). For all nurses surveyed 46 (52%) believed admitted patients should board in the ED. Overall, 52 (58%) were opposed to W boarding, with 20% of cED versus 83% of current W (cW) nurses (P < 0.0001), and 28% of pED versus 85% of nurses never having worked in the ED (nED) were opposed (P < 0.001). If admitted as patients themselves, 43 (54%) of all nurses preferred W boarding, with 82% of cED versus 33% of cW nurses (P < 0.0001) and 74% of pED versus 34% nED nurses (P = 0.0007). The most commonly cited reasons for opposition to hallway boarding were lack of monitoring and patient privacy. For the 6 clinical scenarios, significant differences in opinion regarding W boarding existed in all but 2 cases: a patient with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but requiring oxygen, and an intubated, unstable sepsis patient.
Inpatient nurses and those who have never worked in the ED are more opposed to inpatient boarding than ED nurses and nurses who have worked previously in the ED. Primary nursing concerns about boarding are lack of monitoring and privacy in hallway beds. Nurses admitted as patients seemed to prefer not being boarded where they work. ED and inpatient nurses seemed to agree that unstable or potentially unstable patients should remain in the ED but disagreed on where more stable patients should board.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Boarding of admitted patients in the Emergency Department (ED), rather than in inpatient care areas, is widespread. We surveyed boarded patients, patients without a disposition, and visitors at a county hospital ED serving a mixed urban and rural population. Subjects were asked "If you needed to be admitted to the hospital but no inpatient bed is available, would you prefer to be kept in an ER hallway or a hallway on an inpatient ward?" Boarded patients said they would prefer ward to ED boarding, 117/213 (54.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 48.0%-61.7%). Patients without a disposition 314/477 (65.8%; 95% CI 61.4%-70.0%) and visitors 370/532 (69.5%; 95% CI 65.4%-73.4%) stated a preference for ward boarding in 314/477 (65.8%; 95% CI 61.4%-70.0%) and in 370/532 (69.5%; 95% CI 65.4%-73.4%), respectively. Common reasons for preferring inpatient ward boarding were privacy concerns and reduced noise levels. Those preferring ED boarding valued easy access to a doctor.
    Journal of Emergency Medicine 03/2008; 34(2):221-6. · 1.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. The boarding of patients in Emergency Department (ED) hallways when no inpatient beds are available is a major cause of ED crowding. One solution is to board admitted patients in an inpatient rather than ED hallway. We surveyed patients to determine their preference and correlated their responses to real-time National Emergency Department Overcrowding Score (NEDOCS). Methods. This was a survey of admitted patients in the ED of an urban university level I trauma center serving a community of 5 million about their personal preferences regarding boarding. Real-time NEDOCS was calculated at the time each survey was conducted. Results. 99 total surveys were completed during October 2010, 42 (42%) patients preferred to be boarded in an inpatient hallway, 33 (33%) preferred the ED hallway, and 24 (24%) had no preference. Mean (±SD) NEDOCS (range 0-200) was 136 ± 46 for patients preferring inpatient boarding, 112 ± 39 for ED boarding, and 119 ± 43 without preference. Male patients preferred inpatient hallway boarding significantly more than females. Preference for inpatient boarding was associated with a significantly higher NEDOCS. Conclusions. In this survey study, patients prefer inpatient hallway boarding when the hospital is at or above capacity. Males prefer inpatient hallway boarding more than females. The preference for inpatient hallway boarding increases as the ED becomes more crowded.
    Emergency medicine international. 01/2011; 2011:840459.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Emergency department overcrowding is a critical problem nation-wide. A survey by the Lewin Group in 2002 found that 90 percent of Level 1 trauma centers and hospitals with more than 300 beds reported being over capacity. Although ED overcrowding has many causes, external factors are most commonly blamed--too many patients, lack of inpatient capacity, inappropriate use of the ED, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), lack of primary care availability, and lack of access to health care for the uninsured. In this article, we describe a series of changes that were implemented in the ED of a regional medical center. Those changes improved operational efficiency, expedited patient care, and reduced ED overcrowding. The changes focused on patient input, throughput, and output. In terms of input, we revamped the triage and admission processes. To improve throughput, we modified the physical layout of the urgent care area to maximize efficiency in staff movement and communications, changed staffing patterns to match anticipated patient volume, and revised our policies regarding exchanges with the radiology staff. To facilitate patient flow out of the ED, we identified the causes of delays in discharges and admissions, instituted the practice of flagging the charts of patients ready for discharge, and implemented admission orders to decrease patient waiting times. Improving patient throughput increases ED efficiency, and thus capacity, in terms of the number of patients that can be treated over a given time period, and it promotes the cost-effective use of institutional resources. Decreased waiting times should ultimately lead to increased patient satisfaction and better patient care.
    Managed care (Langhorne, Pa.) 07/2006; 15(6):54-9.


1 Download
Available from