Physician workload and the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale: the Predictors of Workload in the Emergency Room (POWER) Study.

INTRODUCTION The Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) is a 5-level triage tool used to determine the priority by which patients should be treated in Canadian emergency departments (EDs). To determine emergency physician (EP) workload and staffing needs, many hospitals in Ontario use a case-mix formula based solely on patient volume at each triage level. The purpose of our study was to describe the distribution of EP time by activity during a shift in order to estimate the amount of time required by an EP to assess and treat patients in each triage category and to determine the variability in the distribution of CTAS scoring between hospital sites. METHODS Research assistants directly observed EPs for 592 shifts and electronically recorded their activities on a moment-by-moment basis. The duration of all activities associated with a given patient were summed to derive a directly observed estimate of the amount of EP time required to treat the patient. RESULTS We observed treatment times for 11 716 patients in 11 hospital-based EDs. The mean time for physicians to treat patients was 73.6 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] 63.6-83.7) for CTAS level 1, 38.9 minutes (95% CI 36.0-41.8) for CTAS-2, 26.3 minutes (95% CI 25.4-27.2) for CTAS-3, 15.0 minutes (95% CI 14.6-15.4) for CTAS-4 and 10.9 minutes (95% CI 10.1-11.6) for CTAS-5. Physician time related to patient care activities accounted for 84.2% of physicians' ED shifts. CONCLUSION In our study, EPs had very limited downtime. There was significant variability in the distribution of CTAS scores between sites and also marked variation in EP time related to each triage category. This brings into question the appropriateness of using CTAS alone to determine physician staffing levels in EDs.

[1]  G. Innes,et al.  Prospective time study derivation of emergency physician workload predictors. , 2005, CJEM.

[2]  Malcolm J. Bond,et al.  Urgency, disposition and age groups: a casemix model for emergency medicine , 2009 .

[3]  R. Beveridge,et al.  CAEP issues. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: a new and critical element in health care reform. Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. , 1998, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[4]  L. Graff,et al.  Emergency physician workload: a time study. , 1993, Annals of emergency medicine.

[5]  G. Innes,et al.  Inter-rater reliability of a computerized presenting-complaint-linked triage system in an urban emergency department. , 2003, CJEM.

[6]  H. Askitopoulou,et al.  Workload and case-mix in a Greek emergency department , 2004, European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine.

[7]  Michael J Murray,et al.  The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: A Canadian perspective on emergency department triage. , 2003, Emergency medicine.

[8]  Anna Ehrenberg,et al.  Emergency department triage: is there a link between nurses' personal characteristics and accuracy in triage decisions? , 2006, Accident and emergency nursing.

[9]  L G Graff,et al.  Formula for emergency physician staffing. , 1990, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[10]  J A Rankin,et al.  Effectiveness of a 6-week online course in the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale for emergency nurses. , 2005, Journal of emergency nursing: JEN : official publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association.

[11]  Dick London Survival models and their estimation , 1988 .

[12]  W H Cordell,et al.  How do physicians and nurses spend their time in the emergency department? , 1998, Annals of emergency medicine.

[13]  The identification of costs associated with emergency department attendances , 2009 .

[14]  S. Walter,et al.  Reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: interrater agreement. , 1999, Annals of emergency medicine.

[15]  S. Walter,et al.  Inter-observer agreement using the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale. , 2002, CJEM.