Two years after presentation of recommendations to improve the quality and efficiency of the Emergency Room (ER), we systematically examined changes in the ER with respect to volumes, triage status, and waiting times. We also interviewed 10 key informants about their perceptions of the level of implementation of the recommendations. The results suggested that while some progress had been made, there was still considerable room for improvement and further recommendations were needed. The study highlights the importance of the follow-up process and the need for ongoing quality improvement in the ER.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeveridgeRC. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: A new and critical element in healthcare reform. Journal of Emergency Medicine1998; 16: 507–511.
2.
YoungBCDoyleKR. Quality assurance in Canadian emergency departments: A national survey. Journal of Emergency Medicine1995; 13(5): 721–727.
3.
HolbrookJ.A computerized audit of 15,009 emergency department records. Annals of Emergency Medicine1990; 19(2): 139–144.
4.
FernandesCMChristensonJMPriceA.Continuous quality improvement reduces length of stay for fast-track patients in an emergency department. Academy of Emergency Medicine1996; 3(3): 258–263.
5.
WongTWTsengGLeeLW. Report of an audit of nurse triage in an accident and emergency department. Journal of Accident and Emergency Medicine1994; 11(2): 91–95.
6.
CookSSinclairD.Emergency department triage: A program assessment using the tools of continuous quality improvement. Journal of Emergency Medicine1997; 15(6): 889–894.
