↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of clinical criteria in directing patient flow from the emergency department to a medical assessment unit in Queensland, Australia: a retrospective chart review of hospital…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of clinical criteria in directing patient flow from the emergency department to a medical assessment unit in Queensland, Australia: a retrospective chart review of hospital administrative data
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12913-021-06537-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonya Osborne, Helen Cleak, Nicole White, Xing Lee, Anthony Deacon, Julian W M de Looze

Abstract

Medical Assessment Units (MAUs) have become a popular model of acute medical care to improve patient flow through timely clinical assessment and patient management. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a consensus-derived set of clinical criteria for patient streaming from the Emergency Department (ED) to a 15-bed MAU within the highly capacity-constrained environment of a large quaternary hospital in Queensland, Australia. Clinically coded data routinely submitted for inter-hospital benchmarking purposes was used to identify the cohort of medical admission patients presenting to the ED in February 2016 (summer) and June 2016 (winter). A retrospective review of patient medical records for this cohort was then conducted to extract MAU admission data, de-identified patient demographic data, and clinical criteria. The primary outcome was the proportion of admissions that adhered to the MAU admission criteria. Of the total of 540 included patients, 386 (71 %) patients were deemed to meet the MAU eligibility admission criteria. Among patients with MAU indications, 66 % were correctly transferred (95 % CI: 61 to 71) to the MAU; this estimated sensitivity was statistically significant when compared with random allocation (p-value < 0.001). Transfer outcomes for patients with contraindications were subject to higher uncertainty, with a high proportion of these patients incorrectly transferred to the MAU (73 % transferred; 95 % CI: 50 to 89 %; p-value = 0.052). Based on clinical criteria, approximately two-thirds of patients were appropriately transferred to the MAU; however, a larger proportion of patients were inappropriately transferred to the MAU. While clinical criteria and judgement are generally established as the process in making decisions to transfer patients to a limited-capacity MAU, our findings suggest that other contextual factors such as bed availability, time of day, and staffing mix, including discipline profile of decision-making staff during ordinary hours and after hours, may influence decisions in directing patient flow. Further research is needed to better understand the interplay of other determinants of clinician decision making behaviour to inform strategies for improving more efficient use of MAUs, and the impact this has on clinical outcomes, length of stay, and patient flow measures in MAUs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 19%
Librarian 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Sports and Recreations 2 10%
Psychology 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2021.
All research outputs
#12,660,697
of 21,851,503 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,263
of 7,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,410
of 349,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,851,503 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them