Elsevier

Annals of Emergency Medicine

Volume 54, Issue 3, September 2009, Pages 381-385
Annals of Emergency Medicine

The practice of emergency medicine/brief research report
A Pilot Study Examining Undesirable Events Among Emergency Department–Boarded Patients Awaiting Inpatient Beds

Presented as a poster at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine annual meeting, April 2005, Boston, MA.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.02.001Get rights and content

Study objective

We describe the frequency of undesirable events among patients boarding at a single, urban, tertiary, teaching emergency department (ED) through retrospective chart abstraction.

Methods

This was a chart review of all patients admitted during 3 randomly selected days in 2003 (n=162) to track the frequency of undesirable events such as missed relevant home medications, missed laboratory test results, arrhythmias, or other adverse events.

Results

One hundred fifty-one charts were abstracted (93.2%); 27.8% had an undesirable event, 17.9% missed a relevant home medication, and 3.3% had a preventable adverse event. There was a higher frequency of undesirable events among older patients (35.9%, aged >50 years; 7.3%, aged 20 to 49 years; 28.6%, aged 0 to 19 years) and those with more comorbidities (44.4% among Charlson score ≥3; 30.8% score 2; 36.1% score 1; 14.5% score 0).

Conclusion

A substantial frequency of undesirable events occurs while patients board in the ED. These events are more frequent in older patients or those with more comorbidities. Future studies need to compare the rates of undesirable events among patients boarding in the ED versus inpatient units.

Introduction

As a consequence of hospital crowding, many patients are spending extended amounts of time “boarding” in the emergency department (ED) as they wait for hospital beds to become available. Because ED care focuses more on stabilization and diagnosis, EDs may be less well equipped than inpatient units to provide inpatient level of care to boarders. In fact, the Institute of Medicine reported that boarding not only compromises the patient's experience but also enhances the potential for errors, delays in treatment, and diminished quality of care.1 Although there are a number of other such studies examining the effects of hospital crowding,1, 2, 3, 4 relatively few have examined ED boarding. Although studies have shown that longer ED length of stay or boarding times are associated with longer hospital length of stay, higher rates of recurrent myocardial infarction, and increased mortality, few studies have directly examined the quality of care for ED boarders at the individual patient level.5, 6, 7 We conducted this pilot study to explore the epidemiology of undesirable events that occur while patients board in the ED.

Section snippets

Study Design

This was a retrospective study designed to describe the characteristics of boarders and serve as a pilot project for a larger study examining the frequency of undesirable events among ED boarders. The institutional review board of the participating institution approved this study.

Setting

The study took place at a Level I trauma, tertiary, urban teaching hospital. No explicit policy exists as to how boarder patients are managed, ie, whether holding orders are written or how long it should be before

Results

During the 3 days we studied, 162 patients were admitted. Of these 162 patients, 151 charts were reviewed; 11 (6.8%) could not be located after multiple attempts.

Table 1 provides characteristics of patients in the study and the percentage who experienced an undesirable event while boarded. More than a quarter of patients had 1 or more undesirable events. Patients who were older than 50 years, had Charlson comorbidity scores greater than zero, or boarded greater than 6 hours were more likely to

Limitations

As with many pilot projects, this project had several limitations. First, our sample size was relatively small. Hence, the number of preventable adverse events observed was limited. However, given that the purpose of the pilot study was to begin to examine undesirable events among boarding patients at a granular level, the study gives insight into how to power future studies.

Because our study collected data only while patients boarded in the ED, it lacks a counterfactual comparison with

Discussion

Despite its limitations and exploratory intent, this study demonstrates several epidemiologic points: (1) more than one fourth of patients experienced an undesirable event while boarding, (2) 3.3% of boarded patients experienced a preventable adverse event, and (3) patients who had undesirable events while boarding were older and had more comorbidities.

The study shows that 27.8% of patients had an undesirable event while boarding, although this was largely attributable to missed home

References (10)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (95)

  • When Safety Event Reporting Is Seen as Punitive: “I've Been PSN-ed!”

    2021, Annals of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Furthermore, all team members are susceptible to error and vulnerable to the fallout, and they may bear silent witness to mistakes while agonizing over conflicting loyalties to patients, institutions, and teams.3 The purpose of reporting systems is to identify safety issues to make changes and improvements in the health system.4–9 However, a culture of blame discourages event reporting, and receiving punitive reports inhibits the development of a just culture,10 thus reducing individual and system improvement in patient safety.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Supervising editor: Robert L. Wears, MD, MS

Author contributions: SWL, JAG, and JSW conceived the study and designed the study. SWL performed initial chart abstraction. SHT and AGH performed secondary implicit chart review. SWL managed the data. SHT provided statistical advice. SWL drafted the article, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. SWL takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article that might create any potential conflict of interest. The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement.

Publication date: Available online March 13, 2009.

Reprints not available from the authors.

View full text