Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T10:02:36.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Data collection on patients in emergency departments in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Brian H. Rowe ,
Kenneth Bond ,
Maria B. Ospina ,
Sandra Blitz ,
Michael Schull ,
Douglas Sinclair  and
Michael Bullard
Brian H. Rowe*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta Evidence-Based Practice Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton
Kenneth Bond
Affiliation:
Evidence-Based Practice Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton
Maria B. Ospina
Affiliation:
Evidence-Based Practice Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton
Sandra Blitz
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta
Michael Schull
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, and Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont
Douglas Sinclair
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Michael Bullard
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Rm. 1G1.43 WMC, 8440 – 112th St., Edmonton AB T6G 2B7

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

Relatively little is known about the ability of Canadian emergency departments (EDs) and the federal, provincial and territorial governments to quantify ED activity. The objectives of this study were to determine the use of electronic patient data in Canadian EDs, the accessibility of provincial data on ED visits, and to identify the data elements and current methods of ED information system (EDIS) data collection nationally.

Methods:

Surveys were conducted of the following 3 groups: 1) all ED directors of Canadian hospitals located in communities of >10 000 people, 2) all electronic EDIS vendors, and 3) representatives from the ministries of health from 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions who had knowledge of ED data collection.

Results:

Of the 243 ED directors contacted, 158 completed the survey (65% response rate) and 39% of those reported using an electronic EDIS. All 11 EDIS vendor representatives responded. Most of the vendors provide a similar package of basic EDIS options, with add-on features. All 13 provincial or territorial government representatives completed the survey. Nine (69%) provinces and territories collect ED data, however the source of this information varies. Five provinces and territories collect triage data, and 3 have a comprehensive, jurisdiction-wide, population-based ED database. Thirty-nine percent of EDs in larger Canadian communities track patients using electronic methods. A variety of EDIS vendor options are available and used in Canada.

Conclusion:

The wide variation in methods and in data collected presents serious barriers to meaningful comparison of ED services across the country. It is little wonder that the majority of information regarding ED overcrowding in Canada is anecdotal, when the collection of this critical health information is so variable. There is an urgent need to place the collection of ED information on the provincial and national agenda and to ensure that the collection of this information consistent, comprehensive and mandatory.

Keywords

emergency departmentsEDISemergency department information systemdatabasesmedical records
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 8 , Issue 6 , November 2006 , pp. 417 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2006

References

1.Rowe, BH, Bond, K, Ospina, MB, et al. Frequency, determinants, and impact of overcrowding in emergency departments in Canada: a national survey of emergency department directors. Tech rep no 67.3. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.Google Scholar
2.Beveridge, R, Clarke, B, Janes, L, et al. Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale: implementation guidelines. Can J Emerg Med 1999;1(3 suppl). Online version available at: www.caep.ca (accessed 2006 Oct 12).Google Scholar
3.Dong, SL, Bullard, MJ, Meurer, DP, et al. Emergency department triage: evaluating the validity of a computerized triage tool [abstract]. Can J Emerg Med 2004;6(3):209.Google Scholar
4.Grafstein, EJ, Innes, GD, Westman, J, et al. The inter-rater reliability of triage in an acute care emergency department setting. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Dong, SL, Bullard, MJ, Meurer, DP, et al. Emergency triage: comparing a novel computer triage program with standard triage. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:502–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Ospina, MB, Bond, K, Schull, M, et al. Measuring overcrowding in emergency departments: a call for standardization. Tech rep no 67.1. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.Google Scholar
7.Richardson, DB. Association of access block with decreased ED performance. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8(5):575–6.Google Scholar
8.Innes, G, Murray, M, Grafstein, E; for the Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) working group. A consensus-based process to define standard national data elements for a Canadian emergency department information system. Can J Emerg Med 2001;3(4):277–84.Google Scholar
9.Grafstein, E, Unger, B, Bullard, M, et al; for the Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) Working Group. Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) Presenting Complaint List (Version 1.0). Can J Emerg Med 2003;5(1):27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar