Original Article

Waiting in the Accident and Emergency Department: Exploring Problematic Experiences

Authors: Nanne Bos, PhD, Henk van Stel, PhD, Augustinus Schrijvers, PhD, Leontien Sturms, PhD

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the relation between perceived waiting times and patients’ overall ratings of accident and emergency departments (A&Es) and to explore which patients view waiting times as problematic.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was held in 21 A&Es in the Netherlands. From each A&E, a random sample of patients was investigated. Patients younger than 18 years and patients who had arrived by ambulance were excluded. Respondents’ perceived waiting times and overall quality ratings of their A&E visit were collected and correlated. Respondents were divided into a “no problem” or “problem” group on the basis of the perceived waiting time before treatment. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore factors potentially related to problematic waiting experiences, such as the amount of information received while waiting and perceived pain and acuity.

Results: The study included 3483 patients. Longer perceived waiting time was associated with a decrease in overall rating and increased reports of problematic experiences. Multivariate analysis showed that problematic waiting experiences were significantly associated with perceived pain (odds ratio [OR] 1.1), higher perceived acuity (emergency/urgent/nonurgent ORs: 2.7/2.2/1.0) and limited information before treatment. The OR for patients who did not receive any information about what to expect during a visit to the A&E versus patients who were completely informed was 3.3. For uninformed versus completely informed patients, the OR for information about how quickly patients needed to be helped with their health problem was 3.4.

Conclusions: Providing information before treatment, controlling the perception of pain, and managing perceived acuity not only reduced problematic experiences concerning perceived waiting time but also improved experienced quality of care.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Handel D, Epstein S, Khare R, et al. Interventions to improve the timeliness of emergency care. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18:1295-1302.
 
2. Heyworth J. Emergency medicine-quality indicators: the United Kingdom perspective. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18:1239-1241.
 
3. Bernstein SL, Aronsky D, Duseja R, et al. The effect of emergency department crowding on clinically oriented outcomes. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16:1-10.
 
4. Crossing the Quality Chasm. A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2005.
 
5. Derlet RW, Richards JR. Overcrowding in the nation’s emergency departments: complex causes and disturbing effects. Ann Emerg Med 2000;35:63-68.
 
6. Hall MF, Press I. Keys to patient satisfaction in the emergency department: results of a multiple facility study. Hosp Health Serv Admin 1996;41:515-532.
 
7. Boudreaux ED, O’Hea EL. Patient satisfaction in the emergency department: a review of the literature and implications for practice. J Emerg Med 2004;26:13-26.
 
8. Taylor C, Benger JR. Patient satisfaction in emergency medicine. Emerg Med J 2004;21:528-532.
 
9. Trout A, Magnusson AR, Hedges JR. Patient satisfaction investigations and the emergency department: what does the literature say? Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:695-709.
 
10. Thompson DA, Yarnold PR, Williams DR, 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;28:657-665.
 
11. Sun BC, Adams J, Orav EJ, et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction and willingness to return with emergency care. Ann Emerg Med 2000;35: 426-434.
 
12. Bos N, Sturms LM, Schrijvers AJ, et al. The Consumer Quality Index (CQindex) in an accident and emergency department: development and first evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:284.
 
13. Bos N, Sturms LM, Stellato RK, et al. The Consumer Quality Index in an accident and emergency department: internal consistency, validity and discriminative capacity. Health Expect 2013 Sep 16 [epub ahead of print] .
 
14. Gilboy N, Tanabe P, Travers D, et al. Emergency Severity Index, Version 4: Implementation Handbook. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, 2005.
 
15. Mackway-Jones K, Marsden J, Windle J. Emergency Triage. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.
 
16. van der Wulp I, Schrijvers AJ, van Stel HF. Predicting admission and mortality with the Emergency Severity Index and the Manchester Triage System: a retrospective observational study. Emerg Med J 2009;26:506-509.
 
17. Bursch B, Beezy J, Shaw R. Emergency department satisfaction: what matters most? Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:586-591.
 
18. Pitrou I, Lecourt AC, Bailly L, et al. Waiting time and assessment of patient satisfaction in a large reference emergency department: a prospective cohort study, France. Eur J Emerg Med 2009;6:177-182.
 
19. Jensen K, Kaplan J, Dempsey C. Managing waits: the psychology of waiting. In: Strauss RW, Mayer TA, eds. Strauss and Mayer’s Emergency Department Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.
 
20. Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen (HAN), Nederlandse Vereniging van Spoedeisende Hulp Verpleegkundigen (NVSHV), Landelijk Expertisecentrum Verpleging & Verzorging (LEVV). Guideline Triage in the Accident and Emergency Department 2008. Nijmegen: Hogeschool Arnhem en Nijmegen; 2008.
 
21. Thompson DA, Yarnold PR, Adams SL. How accurate are waiting time perceptions of patients in the emergency department? Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:652-656.
 
22. Woodcock T, Poots AJ, Bell D. The impact of changing the 4 h emergency access standard on patient waiting times in emergency departments in England. Emerg Med J 2012;30. e22.
 
23. Howell E. Key Findings Report: Emergency Department Survey Results 2008. Oxford: Picker Institute Europe, 2008.
 
24. McMillan JR, Younger MS, DeWine LC. Satisfaction with hospital emergency department as a function of patient triage. Health Care Manage Rev 1986;11:21-27.
 
25. van der Wulp I, Sturms LM, de Jong A, et al. Pain assessments at triage with the Manchester triage system: a prospective observational study. Emerg Med J 2011;28:585-589.
 
26. Boudreaux ED, Cruz BL, Baumann BM. The use of performance improvement methods to enhance emergency department patient satisfaction in the United States: a critical review of the literature and suggestions for future research. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:795-802.
 
27. Muntlin AM, Gunningberg LA, Carlsson MA. Different patient groups request different emergency careVa survey in a Swedish emergency department. Int Emerg Nurs 2008;16:223-232.
 
28. Keijzers G, Crilly J, Walters B, et al. Does a dedicated pediatric team within a busy mixed emergency department make a difference in waiting times, satisfaction, and care transition? Pediatr Emerg Care 2010;26:274-280.
 
29. Strauss RW, Mayer TA. Strauss and Mayer’s Emergency Department Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.
 
30. Pines JM, Iyer S, Disbot M, et al. The effect of emergency department crowding on patient satisfaction for admitted patients. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:825-831.
 
31. Wiler JL, Handel DA, Ginde AA, et al. Predictors of patient length of stay in 9 emergency departments. Am J Emerg Med 2012;30:1860-1864.