An Analysis of Waiting Time for Emergency Treatment and Optimal Allocation of Nursing Manpower
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Article Review
2.1. Emergency Medical Service
2.2. Illness Classification Criteria
- Level 1: Emergency resuscitation: in cases of hemorrhage and unconsciousness from a car accident, first aid must be given immediately;
- Level 2: Critical: in cases of bleeding from a car accident, but with stable vital life signs, the recommended treatment and waiting time is 10 min;
- Level 3: Urgent: in cases of mild respiratory distress and breathing difficulties, the recommended wait and reassessment time is 30 min;
- Level 4: Sub-urgent: the recommended wait and reassessment time is 60 min;
- Level 5: Non-urgent: the recommended wait and reassessment time is 120 min.
2.3. Problems Pertaining to Emergency Care Waiting Time
2.4. Nursing Manpower
2.5. Queueing Theory
- Customer: This component has two characteristics, one of which is the population, i.e., the total number of customers. It is roughly divided into the two categories of a limited group and an unlimited group. The other component is the customer arrival rate, or inter-arrival time, which requires a suitable statistical allocation to describe;
- Waiting line: The main feature is the waiting line capacity, which can be divided into wired and wireless. Since the mode in the wireless case is much easier than that in the wired case, when the capacity of the waiting line is large enough, it is assumed that the waiting line capacity is infinite. In addition, the waiting line capacity plus the number of customers that the service facility can accommodate are equal to the system capacity;
- Waiting rules: The order by which customers receive services, and the most common rule is first come first served (FCFS). There are also waiting rules based on random selection or priority;
- Service facilities: A service agency can contain one or more servants. Facilities that contain more than one servant are called facilities with parallel services. Service facilities have the service rate attribute.
3. Methods and Materials
3.1. Clinical Trials
3.1.1. The Impact of Long Reported Wait Time on Waiting Time
3.1.2. The Influence of Nursing Manpower on Waiting Time
3.1.3. The Effect of the Doctor’s Treatment Time on Waiting Time
3.1.4. The Effect of Patient Flow on Waiting Time
3.1.5. The Impact of the Implementation of a Special Line for Mild Illness on Wait Times
4. Results
4.1. Demographics
- This study obtained the samples from a medical center in New Taipei City, and the effective sample was 2000 people. In terms of gender, 1150 (57.5%) were male and 850 (42.5%) were female; 1190 (59.5%) belonged to the surgery department, 630 (31.5%) belonged to the internal medicine department, and 180 (9%) belonged to the pediatric department;
- The proportion of illnesses at all levels was, as follows: The effective sample was 2000 people for the proportion of illnesses at all levels. The first level had 30 people (1.5%), the second level had 210 (10.5%), the third level had 740 (37%), the fourth level had 690 (34.5%), and the fifth level had 330 people (16.5%);
- Regarding the use of X-rays in each department: In the surgery department, 520 people (43.7%) did not have X-rays, while 670 people (56.3%) had X-rays; in the internal medicine department, 130 people (20.63%) did not have X-rays, while 500 people (79.37%) had X-rays; in the pediatric department, 60 people (33.33%) did not have X-rays, while 120 people (66.67%) had X-rays;
- Regarding the post-treatment status of patients in each department: There were 620 people (52.1%) in the surgery department who were allowed to leave the hospital, 120 people (10.1%) who were hospitalized, and 450 people (37.82%) who remained under observation; in the internal medicine department, 390 (61.9%) were allowed to leave the hospital, 30 (4.76%) were hospitalized, and 210 (33.33%) remained under observation; in the pediatric department, 150 people (83.33%) were allowed to leave the hospital, 0 (0%) were hospitalized, and 30 (16.67%) remained under observation.
4.2. Model Verification Results
- The average arrival rate in Queue 1 (illness classification) was 11.84 person/hour, and the average service rate was 11.84 person/hour, thus, there was no overcrowding;
- The average arrival rate in Queue 2 (internal medical department) was 3.5 person/hour, and the average service rate was 3.5 person/hour, thus, there was no overcrowding;
- The average arrival rate in Queue 3 (surgical department) was 7.2 person/hour, and the average service rate was 7.2 person/hour, thus, there was no overcrowding;
- The average arrival rate in Queue 4 (pediatric department) was 1.14 person/hour, and the average service rate was 1.14 person/hour, thus, there was no overcrowding;
- The average arrival rate in Queue 5 (Internal Medicine) was 3.5 person/hour, the average service rate was 2.25 person/hour, and the average arrival rate was greater than the average service rate, which resulted in overcrowding;
- The average arrival rate in Queue 6 (inspection) was 4.25 person/hour, and the average service rate was 4.25 person/hour, thus, there was no overcrowding;
- The average arrival rate in Queue 7 (surgical care) was 7.2 person/hour, the average service rate was 4.25 person/hour, and the average arrival rate was greater than the average service rate, which resulted in overcrowding;
- The average arrival rate in Queue 8 (pediatric care) was 1.14 person/hour, the average service rate was 0.67 person/hour, and the average arrival rate was greater than the average service rate, which resulted in overcrowding;
- The measured time in Queue 1 (illness classification) was 1 min, the estimated time was 1 min, and the difference was 0%;
- The measured time in Queue 2 (internal medical department) was 7.02 min and the estimated time was 8.82 min, with a difference of 20.4%;
- The measured time in Queue 3 (surgical department) was 6.47 min and the estimated time was 4.81 min, with a difference of 25.66%;
- The measured time in Queue 4 (pediatric department) was 3.78 min and the estimated time was 2.07 min, with a difference of 45.2%;
- The measured time in Queue 5 (Internal Medicine) was 16.89 min and the estimated time was 9.27 min, with a difference of 45.1%;
- The measured time in Queue 6 (inspection) was 1.4 min and the estimated time was 1.97 min, with a difference of 28.9%;
- The measured time in Queue 7 (surgical care) was 18.58 min and the estimated time was 10.97 min, with a difference of 41.33%;
- The measured time in Queue 8 (pediatric care) was 10.79 min and the estimated time was 6.61 min, with a difference of 38.7%.
5. Discussion
Manpower Allocation of Emergency Care
- Make adjustments according to the time period. The nursing staff at each site can be flexibly increased during peak periods. The on-site observation results of this survey show that the time period for the highest number of emergency visits is between 18:00 and 20:00, whereas the lowest number occurs between 03:00 and 04:00. The head nurse can flexibly deploy the number of personnel according to the dynamic changes in patients in each part of the day to achieve maximum work efficiency for the existing manpower. Due to the uncertainty of the number of visits by emergency patients, there may be emergencies or batches of patients at any time, especially in the early hours; therefore, reasonable preparation for shifts is particularly important. In addition, nursing staff can be reasonably allocated according to the characteristics of the month. According to the results of this survey, a higher number of emergency patient visits occurred in March, April, July, and August, which may be related to the temperature rise and hot weather. In addition, nursing staff can be reasonably allocated according to the characteristics of different types of workdays;
- Make adjustments according to the proportion of the number of people in different inspection categories. As patient arrival times in the hospital are not fixed, it is difficult to effectively plan human resources in advance; however, the current number of people in the hospital can be monitored by a sliding time window, and this method can be based on the total number of people in the hospital, or according to the number of different emergency sites. Taking the latter as an example, due to the different resources and processes required for the treatment of patients in different classes, the required nursing human resources should also be adjusted. According to the queueing structure of this study, in order to optimize waiting times, for example, when the proportion of patients in each class is equal, stations 1, 2, 3, and 4 can be allocated with one, two, one, and one nurse, respectively, to perform related nursing operations. However, when the proportion of patients in each class linearly increases, one, one, two, and three nursing staff can be allocated to perform related nursing operations at stations 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The arrangement of the time window can be estimated according to the time distribution of patient arrivals, and then be adjusted, according to the actual progress of the medical treatment;
- Make adjustments according to the waiting time at each station. As the clinical path of each patient is different, the general medical process will cause larger waiting times for patients with more repeated processes. Due to the variable number and repetition of processes, it is difficult to make predictions in advance; therefore, the assigned manpower can be dynamically adjusted according to the waiting time of each site. The waiting time of each station can be calculated based on the waiting time of a single station, or the accumulated waiting time starting from triage. The calculation basis can also be divided into individual or overall waiting times, in order to determine the nursing manpower required by each site. In general, site manpower allocation can be carried out according to the personal characteristics of the nursing staff on duty that day, as well as the nature of the business content of each site. It is worth mentioning that this manpower allocation method is completely dynamic; that is, the human resources of each station are completely dependent on the current patient waiting times. At the same time, regardless of the dynamic adjustment method applied, it requires the cooperation of relevant medical resources (such as doctor manpower and free wards) to produce the best configuration effect [27,28].It can be seen from the relevant literature that the allocation of nursing manpower in emergency room cases that can leave at any time is related to the patient’s care time and satisfaction. The correlation between less manpower allocation and poor outcomes is not clear. In particular, there is a lack of evidence regarding the impact of manpower allocation on direct patient outcomes, as well as a lack of sufficient economic analysis to provide information for decision-making on the allocation of nursing manpower. At present, it has been proved that there is a correlation between the level of allocation of nursing manpower and the outcomes of hospitalized patients, thus, more evidence is needed to understand nursing manpower allocation in emergency care [29].
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hashemi, S.M.E.F.; Asiabar, A.S.; Rezapour, A.; Azami-Aghdash, S.; Amnab, H.H.; Mirabedini, S.A. Patient waiting time in hospital emergency departments of Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med. J. Islamic Repub. Iran 2017, 14, 79. [Google Scholar]
- Lusa, L.; David, B. Providing patients visiting emergency departments with useful information using public real time data: A case study based on Italian data. J. Eval. Clin. Pr. 2019, 25, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landau, S.F.; Bendalak, J.; Amitay, G.; Marcus, O. Factors related to negative feelings experienced by emergency department patients and accompanying persons: An Israeli study. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 2018, 7, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liddy, C.; Poulin, P.A.; Hunter, Z.; Smyth, C.E.; Keely, E. Patient perspectives on wait times and the impact on their life: A waiting room survey in a chronic pain clinic. Scand. J. Pain 2017, 17, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabriz, A.A.; Trogdon, J.G.; Fried, B.J. Association between adopting emergency department crowding interventions and emergency departments’ core performance measures. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2019, 38, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhand, A.; Luke, D.; Lang, C.; Tsiaklides, M.; Feske, S.; Lee, J.M. Social networks and risk of delayed hospital arrival after acute stroke. Nat. Commun. 2019, 14, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yarmohammadian, M.H.; Rezaei, F.; Haghshenas, A.; Tavakoli, N. Overcrowding in emergency departments: A review of strategies to decrease future challenges. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2017, 22, 23. [Google Scholar]
- Ang, B.Y.; Lam, S.W.S.; Pasupathy, Y.; Ong, M.E.H. Nurse workforce scheduling in the emergency department: A sequential decision support system considering multiple objectives. J. Nurs. Manag. 2018, 26, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.; Barnes, S.; Golden, B. Applying queueing theory to the study of emergency department operations: A survey and a discussion of comparable simulation studies. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2017, 25, 7–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shindul-Rothschild, J.; Read, C.Y.; Stamp, K.; Flanagan, J. Nurse staffing and hospital characteristics predictive of time to diagnostic evaluation for patients in the emergency department. J. Emerg. Nurs. 2017, 43, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bornemann-Shepherd, M.; Le-Lazar, J.; Makic, M.B.F.; DeVine, D.; McDevitt, K.; Paul, M. Caring for inpatient boarders in the emergency department: Improving safety and patient and staff satisfaction. J. Emerg. Nurs. 2015, 41, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aimms, B.V. Experience Business Optimization like Never Before. Available online: http://aimms.com/ (accessed on 10 December 2016).
- Tyrańska-Fobke, A.; Robakowska, M.; Ślęzak, D.; Pogorzelczyk, K.; Basiński, A. Searching for the optimal method of financing hospital emergency departments—Comparison of polish and selected European solutions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IBM. IBM CPLEX Optimizer—United States. Available online: https://www-01.ibm.com/software/commerce/optimization/cplex-optimizer/ (accessed on 12 August 2016).
- Trépanier, S.G.; Fernet, C.; Austin, S.; Boudrias, V. Work environment antecedents of bullying: A review and integrative model applied to registered nurses. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016, 31, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Health and Welfare Health Insurance. The Standards for the Application of Emergency Medicine. Available online: https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=0EBFD8ACD8756539&topn=0B69A546F5DF84DC (accessed on 12 March 2020).
- Elder, E.; Johnston, A.N.B.; Crilly, J. Systematic review of three key strategies designed to improve patient flow through the emergency department. Emerg. Med. Australas. 2015, 27, 94–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, U.; Concato, J. Care in the emergency department: How crowded is overcrowded? Acad. Emerg. Med. 2004, 11, 1097–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forster, A.J.; Murff, H.J.; Peterson, J.F.; Gandhi, T.K.; Bates, D.W. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann. Intern. Med. 2003, 138, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, E. The NHS Plan: Reducing Waiting Times and Providing High-Quality Patient Care in the UK. Available online: https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/nhs-plan-reducing-waiting-times-providing-high-quality-patient-care-uk/ (accessed on 12 August 2020).
- Brooten, D.; Youngblut, J.M.; Kutcher, J.; Bobo, C. Quality and the nursing workforce: APNs patient outcomes and health care costs. Nurs. Outlook 2004, 52, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bala, R.; Kaur, S.; Yaddanapudi, L.N. Exploratory study on nursing manpower required for caring critically ill patients in intensive care unit. Nurs. Midwifery Res. J. 2010, 6, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacPhee, M.; Ellis, J.; Sanchez, A. Nurse staffing and patient safety. Can. Nurs. 2006, 102, 19. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, D.; Guan, P.; Zhang, X.; Lei, J. Physicians’ perceptions of physician-nurse interactions and information needs in China. Inf. Health Soc. Care 2018, 43, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, A.; Fitzpatrick, L.; Augustine, S.; Trzebucki, A.; Cheng, S.L.; Presseau, C.; Mersmann, C.; Heckman, B.; Kachnowski, S. Synchronous communication facilitates interruptive workflow for attending physicians and nurses in clinical settings. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2009, 78, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, K.; Morra, D.; Lo, V.; Quan, S.; Wu, R. The use of smartphones on general internal medicine wards. Appl. Clin. Inf. 2014, 5, 814–823. [Google Scholar]
- Vainieri, M.; Panero, C.; Coletta, L. Waiting times in emergency departments: A resource allocation or an efficiency issue? BMC Health Serv. Res. 2020, 20, 549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wretborn, J.; Henricson, J.; Ekelund, U.; Wilhelms, D.B. Prevalence of crowding, boarding and staffing levels in Swedish emergency departments—A national cross sectional study. BMC Emerg. Med. 2020, 20, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Recio-Saucedo, A.; Pope, C.; Dall’Ora, C.; Griffiths, P.; Jones, J.; Crouch, R.; Drennan, J. Safe staffing for nursing in emergency departments: Evidence review. Emerg. Med. J. 2015, 32, 888–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Change | Waiting Time Value of Each Station | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Medical Consultation | Inspection | Nursing | ||
Surgical department | 1 | 4.28 | 1.83 | 8.98 |
2 | 3.86 | 1.56 | 8.83 | |
3 | 3.36 | 1.37 | 8.65 | |
4 | 2.78 | 1.32 | 8.26 | |
5 | 2.22 | 1.26 | 8.01 | |
Internal medicine department | 1 | 8.76 | 1.83 | 9.03 |
2 | 8.32 | 1.75 | 8.87 | |
3 | 8.09 | 1.67 | 8.62 | |
4 | 7.84 | 1.58 | 8.42 | |
5 | 7.80 | 1.55 | 8.17 | |
Pediatric department | 1 | 2.01 | 1.83 | 6.34 |
2 | 1.88 | 1.76 | 6.03 | |
3 | 1.73 | 1.64 | 5.82 | |
4 | 1.65 | 1.46 | 4.99 | |
5 | 1.57 | 1.25 | 4.76 |
Change | Waiting Time Value of Each Station | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Medical Consultation | Inspection | Nursing | ||
Surgical department | 1 | 4.42 | 1.83 | 8.98 |
2 | 3.67 | 1.32 | 8.72 | |
3 | 3.01 | 1.16 | 8.39 | |
4 | 2.36 | 1.10 | 8.11 | |
5 | 1.57 | 1.09 | 7.69 | |
Internal medicine department | 1 | 8.76 | 1.83 | 9.03 |
2 | 8.28 | 1.63 | 8.62 | |
3 | 7.95 | 1.53 | 8.37 | |
4 | 7.76 | 1.42 | 8.15 | |
5 | 7.68 | 1.34 | 8.02 | |
Pediatric department | 1 | 2.01 | 1.83 | 6.34 |
2 | 1.76 | 1.64 | 6.01 | |
3 | 1.54 | 1.41 | 5.64 | |
4 | 1.32 | 1.19 | 4.72 | |
5 | 1.09 | 1.02 | 4.53 |
Change | Waiting Time Value of Each Station | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Medical Consultation | Inspection | Nursing | ||
Surgical department | 5 | 4.75 | 1.83 | 8.98 |
6 | 4.42 | 1.34 | 8.65 | |
7 | 4.28 | 1.18 | 8.37 | |
8 | 4.03 | 1.08 | 8.16 | |
9 | 3.89 | 1.00 | 7.92 | |
Internal medicine department | 8 | 6.76 | 1.83 | 9.03 |
9 | 6.54 | 1.63 | 8.55 | |
10 | 6.35 | 1.41 | 8.32 | |
11 | 6.18 | 1.25 | 8.04 | |
15 | 5.92 | 1.07 | 7.69 | |
Pediatric department | 2 | 1.01 | 1.83 | 6.34 |
3 | 0.89 | 1.65 | 6.17 | |
4 | 0.76 | 1.39 | 5.98 | |
5 | 0.71 | 1.17 | 4.73 | |
6 | 0.54 | 1.05 | 4.38 |
Change α (k = 3.0) | Waiting Time Value of Each Station | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Medical Consultation | Inspection | Nursing | ||
Surgical department | 1 | 4.58 | 1.83 | 8.98 |
1.5 | 6.39 | 2.56 | 10.29 | |
2 | 8.32 | 4.38 | 13.75 | |
2.5 | 9.76 | 6.97 | 18.56 | |
3 | 11.35 | 9.84 | 22.83 | |
Internal medicine department | 1 | 8.76 | 1.83 | 9.03 |
1.5 | 9.23 | 2.04 | 10.54 | |
2 | 9.98 | 3.16 | 11.97 | |
2.5 | 10.14 | 5.32 | 13.65 | |
3 | 12.56 | 7.74 | 14.82 | |
Pediatric department | 1 | 2.01 | 1.83 | 6.34 |
1.5 | 2.98 | 2.45 | 7.02 | |
2 | 4.03 | 4.53 | 8.09 | |
2.5 | 5.78 | 6.97 | 9.28 | |
3 | 7.62 | 9.73 | 11.05 |
Change | Waiting Time Value of Each Station | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Medical Consultation | Inspection | Nursing | ||
Surgical department | 0.1 | 4.65 | 1.83 | 8.98 |
0.2 | 4.37 | 1.62 | 8.82 | |
0.3 | 4.15 | 1.51 | 8.53 | |
0.4 | 3.98 | 1.46 | 8.28 | |
0.5 | 3.76 | 1.43 | 8.02 | |
Internal medicine department | 0.1 | 8.76 | 1.83 | 9.03 |
0.2 | 8.54 | 1.62 | 8.82 | |
0.3 | 8.36 | 1.48 | 8.76 | |
0.4 | 8.07 | 1.27 | 8.55 | |
0.5 | 7.86 | 1.19 | 8.38 | |
Pediatric department | 0.1 | 2.01 | 1.82 | 6.34 |
0.2 | 1.93 | 1.80 | 6.26 | |
0.3 | 1.90 | 1.72 | 6.05 | |
0.4 | 1.87 | 1.57 | 5.81 | |
0.5 | 1.83 | 1.48 | 5.62 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liao, P.-H.; Chu, W.; Ho, C.-S. An Analysis of Waiting Time for Emergency Treatment and Optimal Allocation of Nursing Manpower. Healthcare 2022, 10, 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050820
Liao P-H, Chu W, Ho C-S. An Analysis of Waiting Time for Emergency Treatment and Optimal Allocation of Nursing Manpower. Healthcare. 2022; 10(5):820. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050820
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiao, Pei-Hung, William Chu, and Chen-Shie Ho. 2022. "An Analysis of Waiting Time for Emergency Treatment and Optimal Allocation of Nursing Manpower" Healthcare 10, no. 5: 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050820
APA StyleLiao, P. -H., Chu, W., & Ho, C. -S. (2022). An Analysis of Waiting Time for Emergency Treatment and Optimal Allocation of Nursing Manpower. Healthcare, 10(5), 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050820