ED overcrowding: the Ontario approach.

Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Centre, Mount Sinai Hospital, Ontario, Canada.
Academic Emergency Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.2). 12/2011; 18(12):1242-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01220.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Ontario is Canada's most populous province, with approximately 12 million people and 130 emergency departments (EDs). Canada has a national single-payer universal health care system, but provinces are responsible for administration. After years of problems and failed attempts to address chronic ED overcrowding, in April 2008 Ontario embarked on an ambitious program to improve system performance through targeted investments (initially CAN$500 million over 3 years) and realigned incentives. Supporting the program were requirements for hospitals to submit timely data and targets for length of stay (LOS) and annual improvements; results are publicly reported. The program has been continued this year. While not all our provincial level targets have been met as yet, major improvements have been made, especially in access to care and LOS in the ED for patients eventually discharged home. The greatest improvements were made among the cohort of mainly urban, high-volume EDs that had the worst performance at baseline. This presentation will highlight some of the controversies and challenges and key lessons learned. Overall, the Ontario experience suggests ED overcrowding is a soluble problem, but requires a system-level intervention.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Emergency department (ED) crowding is a major public health problem in the United States, with increasing numbers of ED visits, longer lengths of stay in the ED, and the common practice of ED boarding. In the next several years, several measures of ED crowding will be assessed and reported on government websites. In addition, with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), millions more Americans will have health care insurance, many of whom will choose the ED for their care. In June 2011, a consensus conference was conducted in Boston, Massachusetts, by the journal Academic Emergency Medicine entitled "Interventions to Assure Quality in the Crowded Emergency Department." The overall goal of the conference was to develop a series of research agendas to identify promising interventions to safeguard the quality of emergency care during crowded periods and to reduce ED crowding altogether through systemwide solutions. This was achieved through three objectives: 1) a review of interventions that have been implemented to reduce crowding and summarize the evidence of their effectiveness on the delivery of emergency care; 2) to identify strategies within or outside of the health care setting (i.e., policy, engineering, operations management, system design) that may help reduce crowding or improve the quality of emergency care provided during episodes of ED crowding; and 3) to identify the most appropriate design and analytic techniques for rigorously evaluating ED interventions designed to reduce crowding or improve the quality of emergency care provided during episodes of ED crowding. This article describes the background and rationale for the conference and highlights some of the discussions that occurred on the day of the conference. A series of manuscripts on the details of the conference is presented in this issue of Academic Emergency Medicine.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 12/2011; 18(12):1229-33. · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The emergency department (ED) is a “unique operation, optimized to exist at the edge of chaos”. It is the responsibility of the leaders and managers of the ED to ensure that their teams work in an environment where they can deliver the best care to their patients. This environment is defined by people, system and place. People are the most important asset of the ED. One of the most important responsibilities of the ED leaders and managers (senior management) is to foster teamwork. They will also have to ensure that communication between team members is optimal and that there is a structure in place for conflict resolution. ED senior management should be aware of their team dynamics and know the “movers and shakers” in their organization. ED systems should be kept simple. One of the core businesses of an ED is contingency planning. ED senior management must plan, prepare, practice, review, analyze, assess and strategize for unexpected events. The ED physical environment has an impact on the flow of care being delivered to her patients. ED senior management must manage change. Change works only if it takes root in the hearts and minds of the organization's people. The quality of the leaders and managers of the ED will determine whether or not, their teams work in an environment where they can deliver the best care to their patients.
    Journal of Acute Medicine. 09/2013; 3(3):61–66.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As the United States seeks to improve the value of health care, there is an urgent need to develop quality measurement for emergency departments (EDs). EDs provide 130 million patient visits per year and are involved in half of all hospital admissions. Efforts to measure ED quality are in their infancy, focusing on a small set of conditions and timeliness measures, such as waiting times and length-of-stay. We review the history of ED quality measurement, identify policy levers for implementing performance measures, and propose a measurement agenda. Initial priorities include measures of effective care for serious conditions that are commonly seen in EDs, such as trauma; measures of efficient use of resources, such as high-cost imaging and hospital admission; and measures of diagnostic accuracy. More research is needed to support the development of measures of care coordination and regionalization and the episode cost of ED care. Policy makers can advance quality improvement in ED care by asking ED researchers and organizations to accelerate the development of quality measures of ED care and incorporating the measures into programs that publicly report on quality of care and incentive-based payment systems.
    Health Affairs 12/2013; 32(12):2129-38. · 4.64 Impact Factor