Validation of the National Emergency Department Overcrowding Score (NEDOCS) in a UK non-specialist emergency department

被引:10
作者
Hargreaves, Duncan [1 ]
Snel, Sophie [2 ]
Dewar, Colin [3 ]
Arjan, Khushal [2 ]
Parrella, Piervirgilio [4 ]
Hodgson, Luke Eliot [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Western Sussex Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Intens Care Med & Anaesthesia, Worthing BN11 2DH, England
[2] Brighton & Sussex Med Sch, Brighton, E Sussex, England
[3] Western Sussex Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Emergency Dept, Worthing, England
[4] Western Sussex Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Res Dept, Worthing, England
[5] Western Sussex Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Intens Care, Worthing, England
[6] Univ Surrey, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, Guildford, Surrey, England
关键词
SCALE; MODEL;
D O I
10.1136/emermed-2019-208836
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Introduction Emergency department (ED) crowding has significant adverse consequences, however, there is no widely accepted tool to measure it. This study validated the National Emergency Department Overcrowding score (NEDOCS) (range 0-200 points), which uses routinely collected ED data. Methods This prospective single-centre study sampled data during four periods of 2018. The outcome against which NEDOCS performance was assessed was a composite of clinician opinion of crowding (physician and nurse in charge). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) and calibration plots were produced. Six-hour stratified sampling was added to adjust for temporal correlation of clinician opinion. Staff inter-rater agreement and NEDOCS association with opinion of risk, safety and staffing levels were collected. Results From 905 sampled hours, 448 paired observations were obtained, with the ED deemed crowded 18.5% of the time. Inter-rater agreement between staff was moderate (weighted kappa 0.57 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.60)). AUROC for NEDOCS was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.86). Adjusted for temporal correlation, AUROC was 0.80 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.88). At a cut-off of 100 points sensitivity was 75.9% (95% CI 65.3% to 84.6%), specificity 72.1% (95% CI 67.1% to 76.6%), positive predictive value 38.2% (95% CI 30.7% to 46.1%) and negative predictive value 92.9% (95% CI 89.3% to 95.6%). NEDOCS underpredicted clinical opinion on Calibration assessment, only partially correcting with intercept updating. For perceived risk of harm, safety and insufficient staffing, NEDOCS AUROCs were 0.71 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.82), 0.71 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.80) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.76), respectively. Conclusions NEDOCS demonstrated good discriminatory power for clinical perception of crowding. Prior to implementation, determining individual unit ED cut-off point(s) would be important as published thresholds may not be generalisable. Future studies could explore refinement of existing variables or addition of new variables, including acute physiological data, which may improve performance.
引用
收藏
页码:801 / 806
页数:6
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Comparison of emergency department crowding scores: a discrete-event simulation approach
    Ahalt, Virginia
    Argon, Nilay Tanik
    Ziya, Serhan
    Strickler, Jeff
    Mehrotra, Abhi
    [J]. HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2018, 21 (01) : 144 - 155
  • [2] Measuring emergency department crowding in an inner city hospital in the Netherlands
    Anneveld M.
    Linden C.V.D.
    Grootendorst D.
    Galli-Leslie M.
    [J]. International Journal of Emergency Medicine, 6 (1)
  • [3] A conceptual model of emergency department crowding
    Asplin, BR
    Magid, DJ
    Rhodes, KV
    Solberg, LI
    Lurie, N
    Camargo, CA
    [J]. ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2003, 42 (02) : 173 - 180
  • [4] Barish Robert A, 2012, Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc, V123, P304
  • [5] Validation of the short form of the International Crowding Measure in Emergency Departments: an international study
    Boyle, Adrian
    Atkinson, Paul
    Verdejo, Carlos Basaure
    Chan, Edward
    Clouston, Robin
    Gilligan, Paedar
    Grewal, Karan
    Higginson, Ian
    Liston, Paul
    Newcombe, Virginia
    Norton, Valerie
    Richter, Sophie
    Stoica, George
    Wakai, Abel
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2019, 26 (06) : 405 - 411
  • [6] Comparison of the International Crowding Measure in Emergency Departments (ICMED) and the National Emergency Department Overcrowding Score (NEDOCS) to measure emergency department crowding: pilot study
    Boyle, Adrian
    Abel, Gary
    Raut, Pramin
    Austin, Richard
    Dhakshinamoorthy, Vijayasankar
    Ayyamuthu, Ravi
    Murdoch, Iona
    Burton, Joel
    [J]. EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2016, 33 (05) : 307 - 312
  • [7] Initial validation of the International Crowding Measure in Emergency Departments (ICMED) to measure emergency department crowding
    Boyle, Adrian
    Coleman, James
    Sultan, Yasmin
    Dhakshinamoorthy, Vijayasankar
    O'Keeffe, Jacqueline
    Raut, Pramin
    Beniuk, Kathleen
    [J]. EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2015, 32 (02) : 105 - 108
  • [8] ROBUST TESTS FOR EQUALITY OF VARIANCES
    BROWN, MB
    FORSYTHE, AB
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 1974, 69 (346) : 364 - 367
  • [10] Evaluation of ambulance offload delay at a university hospital emergency department
    Cooney D.R.
    Wojcik S.
    Seth N.
    Vasisko C.
    Stimson K.
    [J]. International Journal of Emergency Medicine, 6 (1)