Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:52:18.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patients' satisfaction and wait times at Guelph General Hospital Emergency Department before and after implementation of a process improvement project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2015

Michèle Preyde ,
Kim Crawford  and
Laura Mullins
Michèle Preyde*
Affiliation:
College of Social and Applied Human Sciences, University of Guelph
Kim Crawford
Affiliation:
Ambulatory Care and the Emergency Department, Guelph General Hospital, Guelph, ON
Laura Mullins
Affiliation:
College of Social and Applied Human Sciences, University of Guelph
*
College of Social and Applied Human Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1; mpreyde@uoguelph.ca

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:

A process improvement program (PIP) was implemented in the emergency department (ED) at Guelph General Hospital in July 2009. The purpose of this study was to examine patients' satisfaction and wait times by level of Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) score before and 6 months after implementation of this program.

Methods:

Two samples were recruited: one was recruited before implementation of the PIP, January to June 2009 (T1), and one was recruited 6 months after implementation, January to June 2010 (T2). Patients were contacted by telephone to administer a survey including patient satisfaction with quality of care. Time to physician initial assessment, numbers left without being seen, and length of stay (LOS) were obtained from hospital records to compare wait times before and 6 months after implementation of the PIP.

Results:

Patients (n = 301) reported shorter wait times after implementation (e.g., 12% reported seeing a physician right away at T1 compared to 29% at T2). Time to physician initial assessment improved for patients with CTAS scores of III, IV, and V (average decrease from 2.1 to 1.7 hours), fewer patients (n = 425) left without being seen after implementation, and the mean and 90th percentile of LOS decreased for all patients except the mean LOS for discharged patients with a CTAS score of I. Total time spent in the ED for admitted patients decreased from 11.11 hours in the 2009 period to 9.95 in the 2010 period, and for nonadmitted patients, the total time decreased from 3.94 to 3.29 hours. The overall satisfaction score improved from a mean of 3.17 to 3.4 (of 4; p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Implementation of the ED PIP corresponded with decreased wait times, increased patient satisfaction, and improved patient flow for patients with CTAS scores of III, IV, and V.

Keywords

emergency department patient flowlength of staynumbers left without being seenpatient satisfactionphysician initial assessmentprocess improvementwait times
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , March 2012 , pp. 157 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2012

References

REFERENCES

1.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Understanding emergency department wait times: who is using the emergency departments and how long are they waiting? Available at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H118-31-2005E.pdf (accessed July 28, 2009).Google Scholar
2.Ontario Hospital Association, Improving access to emergency care: addressing system issues. Report of the Physician Hospital Care Committee 2006. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Toronto: Ontario Hospital Association; 2006.Google Scholar
3.Mohsin, M, Forero, R, Ieraci, S, et al. A population follow-up study of patients who left an emergency department without being seen by a medical officer. Emerg Med J 2007;24:175–9, doi:10.1136/emj.2006.038679.Google Scholar
4.Ministry of HealthLong-Term Care. ED process improvement project resource binder. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Hospital Association; 2009.Google Scholar
5.Womack, J, Jones, D, Ross, D. The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson Associates; 1990.Google Scholar
6.Daley, AT. Pro: lean six sigma revolutinizing health care of tomorrow. Clinical Leadership and Management Review 2006;20: E2.Google Scholar
7.de Koning, H, Verver, JP, van den Heuvel, J, et al. Lean six sigma in healthcare. J Healthc Qual 2006;28:4–11.Google Scholar
8.Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS), 2010. Available at: http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/internet/en/document/types+of+care/hospital+care/emergency+care/services_nacrs (accessed November 18, 2010).Google Scholar
9.Wilde Larsson, B, Larsson, G, Larsson, M, et al. Quality of care: development of a patient centred questionnaire based on a grounded theory model. Scand J Caring Sci 1994;8:39–48.Google Scholar
10.Larsson, G, Wilde Larsson, B, Munck, IME. Refinement of the questionnaire quality of care from the patient’s perspective using structural equation modelling. Scand J Caring Sci 1998;12:111–8, doi:10.1080/02839319850163048.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Wilde Larsson, B, Larsson, G. Patients’ views on quality of care: do they merely reflect their sense of coherence? J Adv Nurs 1999;30:33–9, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01046.x.Google Scholar
12.Wilde Larsson, B. Does the methods of data collection affect patients’ evaluations of quality of care? J Nurs Pract 2000;6:284–91, doi:10.1046/j.1440-172x.2000.00235.x.Google Scholar
13.Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992;112:155–9, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.Google Scholar
14.Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario wait times. Available at: http://edrs.waittimes.net/En/ProvincialSummary.aspx?view=1/ (accessed December 12, 2010).Google Scholar
15.Thompson, DA, Yarnold, PR, Adams, SL, et al. How accurate are waiting time perceptions of patients in the emergency department? Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:652–6, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70089-6.Google Scholar
16.Richardson, DB. Increase in patient mortality at 10 days associated with emergency department overcrowding. Med J Aust 2006;184:213–6.Google Scholar
17.Sprivulis, PC, Silva, JA, Jacobs, IG, et al. The association between hospital overcrowding and mortality among patients admitted via Western Australian emergency departments. Med J Aust 2006;184:208–12.Google Scholar
18.Olshaker, JS. Managing emergency department overcrowding. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2009;27:593–603, doi:10.1016/j.emc.2009.07.004.Google Scholar
19.Mowen, J, Licata, J, McPhail, J. Waiting in the emergency room: how to improve patient satisfaction. J Health Care Mark 1993;13:26–33.Google Scholar
20.Thompson, D, Yarnold, P, Williams, D, et al. Effects of actual waiting time, perceived waiting time, information delivery, and expressive quality on patient satisfaction in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:657–65, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70090-2.Google Scholar
21.Sadosty, A, Kruse, B, Vadeboncoeur, T. Five simple steps to improve an emergency physician’s efficiency. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26:1056–7, doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2007.11.004.Google Scholar
22.Venugopal, R, Lange, E, Doyle, K, et al. A workshop to improve workflow efficiency in emergency medicine. CJEM 2008;10:525–31.Google Scholar
23.Simmons, J. Promoting new ways to provide quality care and service in the emergency department. Qual Lett Healthc Lead 2002;14:2–13.Google Scholar
24.Ng, D, Vail, G, Thomas, S, et al. Applying the Lean principles of the Toyota production system to reduce wait times in the emergency department. CJEM 2010;12:50–7.Google Scholar
25.Hoffenberg, S, Hill, M, Houry, D. Does sharing process differences reduce patient length of stay in the emergency department? Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:533–40, doi:10.1067/mem.2001.119426.Google Scholar
26.Polit, D, Tatano Beck, C. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 8th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar