Evidence Hub

Rural-urban differences in emergency department wait times

Hutten-Czapski P

Canadian journal of rural medicine : the official journal of the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada = Journal canadien de la medecine rurale : le journal officiel de la Societe de medecine rurale du Canada, 2010

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: I sought to determine whether emergency department (ED) volume is associated with differing ED wait times.

METHODS: I conducted a retrospective analysis of the Emergency Department Reporting System database of the Ontario Ministry of Health. I abstracted ED length of stay for patient visits to 117 hospital EDs during the second quarter of 2008, representing 89% of ED visits in the province during that period. Annual volume of ED visits, lengths of stay in the ED and acuity levels of patients were measured.

RESULTS: All EDs were more efficient in managing the treatment of low-acuity patients compared with high-acuity patients. Small rural EDs in Ontario had the shortest wait times for both high- and low-acuity patients (medians 2.35 h for high-acuity and 1.46 h for low-acuity patients in small rural EDs v. 4.98 h for high-acuity and 2.85 h for low-acuity patients in teaching hospitals).

CONCLUSION: Among the hospitals studied, rural EDs had the shortest wait times for both low- and high-acuity patients.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free