This paper documents a complete audit of the Regina Health District's Emergency rooms. The issues examined were triage, non-urgent visits, waiting times, and information management. The results, presented in the two studies following, describe the initial audit and recommendations, as well as the follow-up research and subsequent recommendations. Our findings demonstrate how an audit can effectively monitor the functioning of the Emergency Room (ER) and provide data essential to continuous quality improvement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PosavacEJCareyRG. Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1992, pp. 1–22.
2.
GrimesMTSnasdell-TaylorB.Continuous quality improvement: Status of Canadian healthcare organizations. Healthcare Management Forum1998; 11(3): 48–49.
3.
GraysonNKaplowM.Continuous quality improvement: The nursing/social work experience improving discharge planning. Canadian Journal of Quality in Healthcare1996; 3(2): 17–19.
4.
LynchJRSandersonJT. Program evaluation and audit. In GarrettJTCrawleyLJ (Eds.), Industrial Hygiene Management, 1988 pp. 235–258. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
5.
CrombieIKDaviesH.Towards good audit. British Journal of Hospital Medicine1992; 48(3): 182–185.
6.
DerletRWKinserDRayLHamiltonBMcKenzieJ.Prospective identification and triage of nonemergency cases out of an emergency department: A 5-year study. Annals of Emergency Medicine1995; 25(2): 215–233.
7.
LoweRABindmanABUlrichSKNormanGScarlettaTAKeaneD. Refusing care to emergency department patients: Evaluation of published triage guidelines. Annals of Emergency Medicine1994; 23(2): 286–293.
8.
GillJM. Non-urgent use of the emergency department: Appropriate or not?Annals of Emergency Medicine1994; 24(5): 953–957.
9.
HolbrookJ. (1990). A computerized audit of 15,009 emergency department records. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 19(2), 139–144.
