Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Admission prediction rules: some limited promise, but far from proven
  1. Elaine Rabin
  1. Correspondence to Dr Elaine Rabin, Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY 10029, USA; elaine.rabin{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The internationally shared problem of emergency department crowding appears to have generated an interest in admission prediction rules. These are not rules to predict which patients would benefit from an admission—a clinical question—but rather who will be admitted—an administrative question that has repercussions for the entire hospital system. These rules are conceptually different from the prediction rules usually encountered in medicine, which aim to provide clinicians with an evidence basis to better target testing and treatment in order to improve patient outcomes. The immediate goal of the admission prediction rules presented here is to improve the efficiency of care processes. So could these rules still benefit patients, or only hospital administrators? What is the potential utility of such rules? And do those presented here live up to that potential?

In their recent study from Australia, Ebker-White et al validate the Sydney Triage to Admission Risk Tool (START) previously designed for early identification of ED patients who will be discharged.1 The authors then develop an extended tool (START+) to identify patients expected to have lengths of stay of under 48 hours, that is, discharged directly from the ED or from short-stay units. Also in this issue, Kraaijvanger et al report on the development and validation of another admission prediction rule.2 In a previous issue of EMJ, Lucke et al proposed separate rules for patients older and younger than 70 years to predict admissions.3

Though these rules appear primarily concerned with administrative processes, very real improvements in patient outcomes could theoretically result if the rules’ implementation successfully decreases crowding in the ED. The international epidemic of hospital crowding continues, and a large literature demonstrates not only its association with increased morbidity, but even mortality effects.4 ED throughput problems are a minor contributor to crowding compared with impairments in overall patient flow …

View Full Text


  • Contributors ER was exclusively involved in the planning and writing of this editorial.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Author note ER is an associate professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine, associate programme director for the Residency in Emergency Medicine, and director of Resident Research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, New York. She studies and has published on several health policy topics including hospital crowding and emergency department boarding. She previously served as the co-chair of the Crowding Interest Group for the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and currently serves as co-chair of the Choosing Wisely Sub-committee, which focuses on limiting low-value care, of the Quality and Patient Safety Committee for the American College of Emergency Physicians. ER is also a member of the New York Department of Health’s Emergency Department Advisory Group for Non-fatal Opioid Overdoses.

Linked Articles