Skip to main content
Download PDF

From symptom onset to ED departure: understanding the acute care chain for patients with undifferentiated complaints: a prospective observational study

International Journal of Emergency Medicine volume 17, Article number: 55 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

For most acute conditions, the phase prior to emergency department (ED) arrival is largely unexplored. However, this prehospital phase has proven an important part of the acute care chain (ACC) for specific time-sensitive conditions, such as stroke and myocardial infarction. For patients with undifferentiated complaints, exploration of the prehospital phase of the ACC may also offer a window of opportunity for improvement of care. This study aims to explore the ACC of ED patients with undifferentiated complaints, with specific emphasis on time in ACC and patient experience.

Methods

This Dutch prospective observational study, included all adult (≥ 18 years) ED patients with undifferentiated complaints over a 4-week period. We investigated the patients’ journey through the ACC, focusing on time in ACC and patient experience. Additionally, a multivariable linear regression analysis was employed to identify factors independently associated with time in ACC.

Results

Among the 286 ED patients with undifferentiated complaints, the median symptom duration prior to ED visit was 6 days (IQR 2–10), during which 58.6% of patients had contact with a healthcare provider before referral. General Practitioners (GPs) referred 80.4% of the patients, with the predominant patient journey (51.7%) involving GP referral followed by self-transportation to the ED. The median time in ACC was 5.5 (IQR 4.0-8.4) hours of which 40% was spent before the ED visit. GP referral and referral to pulmonology were associated with a longer time in ACC, while referral during evenings was associated with a shorter time in ACC. Patients scored both quality and duration of the provided care an 8/10.

Conclusion

Dutch ED patients with undifferentiated complaints consulted a healthcare provider in over half of the cases before their ED visit. The median time in ACC is 5.5 h of which 40% is spent in the prehospital phase. Those referred by a GP and to pulmonology had a longer, and those in the evening a shorter time in ACC. The acute care journey starts hours before patients arrive at the ED and 6 days of complaints precede this journey. This timeframe could serve as a window of opportunity to optimise care.

Background

Within the acute care chain (ACC), healthcare providers, such as General Practitioners (GPs), Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Emergency Department (ED) professionals, all aim to provide optimal and timely care for patients. For specific time-sensitive conditions (e.g. stroke, major trauma and myocardial infarction), these professionals work closely together in carepathways, hereby succesfully reducing any delay in appropriate treatment and improving outcomes [1,2,3,4]. These specific time-sensitive conditions, however, are relatively easy to recognise early and comprise only a minority of all patients that visit the ED. In contrast, many other conditions are more difficult to recognise, although these concern a substantial proportion of the ED population. Recognising time-sensitive conditions, such as sepsis, early in the ACC is necessary to improve care for this group of patients as well [5, 6].

Recognition of less specific time-sensitive conditions early in the ACC is, however, challenging. There is a lack of studies on this topic in the prehospital phase and studies in the ED are scarce. Besides, the results of studies on this topic likely depend on the selection of ED patients, which reflects differences in healthcare systems worldwide. One study from Denmark, with a comparable acute care system as the Netherlands, showed that of all adult ED patients, only 35% were referred with a presumptive diagnosis [7,8,9]. A study in Switzerland (where there are more self-referrals than in the Netherlands) found that up to 20% of patients presented with even more undifferentiated complaints (e.g. general weakness), generally referred to as nonspecific complaints. An acute medical problem requiring emergency medical intervention can ultimately be identified in over 50% of these patients [6, 10, 11]. These data show how hard it is to recognise time-sensitive conditions early. However, previous studies on specific time-sensitive conditions demonstrated substantial improvements in both treatment (e.g. early initiation of MONA therapy) and logistic efficiency (e.g. transfer to a catheterization room) [12, 13]. For improvement of care for patients with undifferentiated complaints, similar to care of patients with myocardial infarction, it is important to first explore the entire ACC and to investigate factors associated with the time in ACC [14].

We further believe that in order to optimise care, it is also important to evaluate how undifferentiated patients experience their journey and time in the ACC. Previous studies focused solely on the ED, and these indicated that spending time in the ED can be very stressful for patients [15,16,17].

In this prospective exploratory study, we therefore aimed to explore the characteristics and journey through the entire ACC of adult ED patients with undifferentiated complaints. We will specifically focus on time in ACC, on factors associated with this time, and on the patients’ experience regarding their journey.

Methods

Design and setting

This prospective observational study took place during a 4-week period between March 15th 2021 and April 11th 2021 in Zuyderland Medical Centre, a large teaching hospital with two EDs in the Netherlands. The combined annual census of these 2 EDs is approximately 45,000. In the Netherlands, the first step in emergency care is usually provided by GPs, either in their practices during office hours or in general practitioner centres during out-of-hours. Access to emergency care in the hospital requires either a referral from the GP or a direct transfer by EMS. Patients are discouraged to visit the ED on their own initiative (for more details: [18, 19]).

Patients

All adult (≥ 18y) patients who visited 1 of the 2 participating EDs with undifferentiated complaints were eligible for inclusion. Patients were approached for participation when research staff was present. Most patients were approached during the second half of their stay in the ED. Written informed consent had to be obtained prior to inclusion.

We included adult patients with undifferentiated complaints (e.g. dyspnoea, fever, abdominal pain, general weakness). We excluded those who visited the ED with the following (suspected) specific conditions: stroke, myocardial infarction, ruptured aneurysm and major trauma, and excluded patients primarily presenting for the following specialties: vascular surgery, traumatology, cardiology and neurology. Patients who were unable to understand the questionnaire were excluded. Patients visiting the ED more than once during the study period were included at their first presentation only, as a second visit to the ED may have different patterns.

Data collection

Demographics and time in ACC data were collected from medical records (including hospital files, referral letters and EMS notes) and from a questionnaire filled out by the patient using a Case Report Form (Appendix A, supplementary file 1).

ACC was categorised into three phases of the ACC: the pre-referral phase, the referral phase and the hospital phase. In addition to data on duration of complaints, prior contacts with healthcare providers, prescribed medication prior to ED visit and part of the day of referring contact we defined four different patient journeys:

  • GP referral + own transportation [1].

  • GP referral + EMS transportation [2].

  • Self-referral + own transportation [3].

  • Calling 112 (national emergency number) + EMS transportation [4].

Collected data on the hospital phase were: referred specialty, presenting complaints, ED triage urgency (based on the Manchester Triage System) [20], and ED arrival and departure time. An overview of the ACC is provided in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Visualisation of the acute care chain

Abbreviations: T0 - start of the ACC; GP - general practitioner, GPC - General Practitioner Cooperative, EMS -emergency medical services

*In case of self-referral and no previous contact with a healthcare provider, the time of registration for the ED was considered to be T0

Full size image

The time in ACC was defined as the time between the moment of contacting the referring healthcare provider (physical or telephonic consultation) and the time the patient left the ED. In case of self-referral and no previous contact with a healthcare provider, the time of registration for the ED was considered to be T0.

Patients were also questioned regarding their impression on quality, duration, and timing of the provided care (Appendix A, supplementary file 1).

Analysis and statistics

We performed descriptive analyses of the variables of the pre-referral, the referral and the hospital phase. Continuous variables were reported as means with standard deviations (SD) or medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs). Categorical variables were reported as absolute numbers and valid percentages were used when values were missing.

Univariable linear regression analysis was used to assess the association between time in ACC and the following variables: demographic variables (age and sex), pre-referral variables (duration of complaints, prescribed medication in this disease episode prior to current ED visit (yes/no)), referral variables (part of the day of referring contact and patient journey (GP referral, EMS transportation)) and hospital variables (referred specialty, complaints and triage urgency). For categorical variables, dummy variables were created. We performed a multivariable linear regression analysis using the forced entry method, including all the variables analysed in the univariable analysis. The unstandardized regression coefficient (B) and 95% confidence interval were calculated.

We used a Pearson correlation test to investigate the association between the reported experience and the time in ACC and triage urgency.

We compared demographic variables (age and sex) and triage urgency of included and non-included patients to investigate for possible selection bias. To compare included with non-included patients we used Students’ T test, Mann Whitney U test, One way Anova or Kruskal Wallis test for continuous data when appropriate. For comparison of categorical data, the Chi-square or Fisher exact test was used. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS statistical software version 26 (Chicago, Illinois, USA).

We aimed to include a minimum of 200 patients. No sample size/power calculation was performed for this exploratory study. We used the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for reporting this observational study [45]. The study was approved by the medical ethics committee of Zuyderland (METC-Z nr. 20,200,198).

Results

Participants

During the inclusion period, 625 eligible patients presented to the ED, of which 384 (61.4%) were asked to participate (Fig. 2). Of these, 286 (45.8%) patients were included.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flowchart of study population

Abbreviations: ED – Emergency Department

Full size image

Baseline characteristics

The median age of the included patients was 65 (IQR 52–75) years (Table 1). Patients had complaints for a median of 6 (IQR 2–10) days before ED presentation. In this phase, 58.6% of patients had contacted a healthcare provider at least once, while 32.3% had been prescribed medication.

 

Table 1 Baseline characteristics
Full size table

GPs referred 80.4% of all patients, and 33.6% were transported by EMS. Overall, the predominant patient journey was GP referral + own transportation (51.7%, Fig. 3).

In the ED, 25.0% of patients were triaged as highly urgent, with dyspnoea as most common (38.1%) presenting complaint. Most highly urgent patients (52.1%) were transported by EMS, while the minority of patients with lower urgency (27.8%) were.

Time in ACC

The median time in ACC was 340 (IQR 240–505) minutes, approximately 5.5 h. Of these, 210 (IQR 160–260) minutes (3.5 h) were spent in the ED (Fig. 3). The longest time in ACC was the journey GP referral + EMS transportation, where patients spent 449 (IQR 330–580) minutes. The shortest journey was self-referral with 188 (IQR 155–240) minutes.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Patient journey of adult ED patients with undifferentiated complaints and the time spent in ACC.

Abbreviations: GP – general practitioner, GPC – General Practitioner Cooperative, EMS – emergency medical services, med – median, IQR – interquartile range, min – minutes

Full size image

Associations between demographic, prehospital and hospital factors and time in ACC

Table 2 shows the results of the linear regression analysis regarding the association of different factors with the time in ACC. All assumptions for linear regression were checked and no violations were detected.

Table 2 Factors associated with time in ACC in adult ED patients with undifferentiated complaints
Full size table

In the univariable analysis, contacting the referring healthcare provider in the evening, referral to surgery/orthopaedics, and the group of “other” presenting complaints, were associated with a shorter duration in ACC. GP referral, referral to pulmonology and dyspnoea were associated with a longer duration in ACC.

The multivariable regression analysis showed that first contact with the referring healthcare provider during the evening was independently associated with a shorter time in ACC (Table 2). GP referral and referral to pulmonology were associated with a longer time in ACC.

During the evening, the ACC was shorter than during the day/night, mainly because of a significantly shorter prehospital phase in the evening compared to during the day/night (32 vs. 130 min, p < 0.001), while the ED-phase was shorter, but not significantly different (180 vs. 210 min, p = 0.201).

The overall model was significant (F(15, 149) = 5.290; p < 0.001) and accounted for 34.7% of the variance of the time in ACC.

Patient experience

The median score on the quality of the care process was 8 out of 10 (IQR 8–9). The median score for the duration of the journey was also 8 out of 10 (IQR 8–9). Overall, 76.6% (n = 219) of patients judged the timing of referral to be correct, 18.9% (n = 54) judged they were referred too late, 3.1% (n = 9) judged that they were referred too early and 1.4% (n = 4) did not answer this question.

No associations were found between perceived quality and duration and the time in ACC (p = 0.770 and p = 0.350) nor with triage urgency (p = 0.379 and p = 0.544).

Comparison of included with non-included patients

We found no significant differences in age and ED triage urgency between the included patients and eligible, but non-included patients (n = 339). Included patients, however, were more often female (57.0% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.002) than non-included patients (Supplementary Table 1, Additional file 2).

Discussion

In this prospective study, we investigated adult ED patients with undifferentiated complaints, with a focus on their time in and their journey through the ACC. We found that on the day of ED visit, patients spent more than 5.5 h in the ACC, with 40% of that time spent in the prehospital phase. Patients had complaints for a median of 6 days prior to the ED visit, during which almost 60% already had contact with a healthcare provider before their referral contact and one third had been prescribed medication before their ED visit. In addition, over 80% of patients were referred to the ED by a GP and one third was transported by EMS. This indicates that the prehospital phase comprises a substantial part of the ACC for patients with undifferentiated complaints in terms of time and contacts with healthcare providers.

To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies on the time spent in the ACC in patients with undifferentiated complaints. In this study we showed that prior to ED arrival, patients spent about two hours, a substantial amount of time (40%), in the prehospital setting, and the median time of symptoms before arrival at the ED was even 6 days. In this phase, in many patients (32.2%) medication was prescribed. The phase before the patient enters the ED may offer opportunities for optimising care. An example is that risk stratification can be optimised, and tools to help healthcare providers can be developed [21, 22]. A Swedish study on the quality of prehospital decision-making for referral to alternative levels of care by EMS showed that only 1% of patients not transported by EMS were diagnosed with a time-sensitive condition, which shows that prehospital professionals contribute to optimising care efficiency, but may be in need for extra tools to help them [23]. other options might be to identify those at risk for an ED visit and increase home care, initiate treatment (e.g. nebulisation of bronchodilators, injection of diuretics or individualised antibiotic treatment) or stimulate self-management strategies in these patients. The provided insight in the prehospital phase – duration and involvement of professionals – shows that it is worthwhile to look for opportunities in this phase for optimising care.

Since there are no studies on time in ACC we can only compare the ED-LOS with other studies. We found a longer ED-LOS (50 min) than compared to other Dutch studies [24,25,26]. Which is probably due to differences in patient selection (our patients were relatively old, presented with undifferentiated complaints and often COVID-19 (17.1%)) [27,28,29]. Remarkably, the ED-LOS outside the Netherlands is almost as long as or longer than the total time in ACC in our study, which may be indicative of the efficiency of our acute care organisation [30,31,32].

Three factors were independently associated with time in ACC: [1] contact with a healthcare provider during the evening leading to a shorter time in ACC [2], referral by GP and [3] referral to pulmonology, both leading to a longer time in ACC. An explanation for the shorter time in ACC in the evening, mainly in the prehospital phase, could be that [1] in the evening more self-referrals present to the ED (post-hoc analysis on self-referrals: 27.3% during evenings vs. 13.6% outside evenings) and [2] during out-of-hours, the GP on call is stationed next to the ED of the hospital, which minimises the transport time to the ED. Spending less time in the ED when being referred in the evening is in contrast with other studies [29, 33].

A longer journey in the ACC after referral by a GP is logical compared to those who self-refer. Interestingly we found a relatively high percentage of patients referred by a GP in our study compared to other Dutch studies (80.4% vs. 56–76%) [25, 34, 35]. We hypothesise that this difference is caused by exclusion of patients with differentiated complaints, such as stroke or trauma, as these complaints more often warrant self-referral or an 112 call [24]. The longer time in ACC for pulmonology patients is likely due to the higher than average need for diagnostic imaging and the high incidence of COVID-19 in our cohort (17.1%) [36, 37].

The combined variables (age, sex, duration of complaints, prescribed medication, daypart, GP referral, EMS transportation, referred specialty, presenting complaints and ED triage urgency) collectively could explain one third of the time in ACC. This is in line with studies on ED-LOS reporting that with many factors, such as logistical factors (e.g. bed shortage, waiting time for radiology) and factors beyond the influence of the ED are of influence [33, 38, 39].

Our patients, perceived both quality and duration of the provided care as good (8/10). Interestingly, no association was found between perceived quality of care and time in ACC, which is not in line with other studies where prolonged waiting times in the ED were associated with worse experience [40, 41]. Also, no association was found with urgency levels, in contrast with another study, which showed lower patient satisfaction in patients triaged as non-urgent [42]. A probable explanation for the high perceived quality may be that time in ACC was not the only factor of influence. For example, quality of nursing care is a strong predictor of patients experience, as is relief of symptoms [43, 44]. A qualitative study is needed to investigate this issue in more depth.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of our study is that, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to investigate the entire ACC of patients with undifferentiated complaints, which comprise a significant proportion of the ED population. A possible limitation could be the use of a convenience sample, resulting in a relatively small group of patients presenting out-of-hours. To investigate whether this caused selection bias, we compared the included with the non-included patients and found no differences in age and triage urgency, only in sex. Nevertheless, it is possible that some associations were not accounted for in our analysis.

In order to optimise inclusions in future studies, investigators could consider to extend the informed consent period to 72 h after presentation and 24/7 availability of a research team. One should realise, however, that all prospective studies on this topic will require an enormous effort.

Conclusion

Patients with undifferentiated complaints presenting to the ED had a time in ACC of 5.5 h, with almost 40% of that time spent in the prehospital phase. During their 6 days of complaints before ED visit, more than half had prior contact with a healthcare provider and the most common patient journey was GP referral and self-transportation to the ED. Referral by GP and referral to pulmonology were associated with a longer time in ACC, and referral in the evening with a shorter time in ACC. Patients were generally satisfied with the quality and duration of care, independent of their time in ACC.

The acute care journey starts hours before patients arrive in the ED. Future research should further investigate the phase before patients eventually end up in the ED because it could serve as an important window of opportunity to optimise care.

Data availability

The database generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to participant anonymity issues but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request from.

Abbreviations

ACC:

Acute Care Chain

CI:

Confidence Interval

CT:

Computed Tomography

ED:

Emergency Department

ED-LOS:

Emergency Department Length Of Stay

EMS:

Emergency Medical Services

GP:

General Practitioner

GPC:

General Practitioner Cooperative

IQR:

Interquartile Range

Med:

Median

METC:

Medical Ethics Committee

MTS:

Manchester Triage System

SD:

Standard Deviations

TACC:

Time in the Acute Care Chain

References

  1. Musuka TD, Wilton SB, Traboulsi M, Hill MD. Diagnosis and management of acute ischemic stroke: speed is critical. CMAJ. 2015;187(12):887–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(6):1589–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferrer R, Martin-Loeches I, Phillips G, Osborn TM, Townsend S, Dellinger RP, et al. Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline-based performance improvement program. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(8):1749–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stengaard C, Sørensen JT, Rasmussen MB, Bøtker MT, Pedersen CK, Terkelsen CJ. Prehospital diagnosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Diagnosis (Berl). 2016;3(4):155–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Latten G, Hensgens K, de Bont, Eefje GPM, Muris JWM, Cals JWL, Stassen P. How well are sepsis and a sense of urgency documented throughout the acute care chain in the Netherlands? A prospective, observational study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e036276–036276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Sauter TC, Capaldo G, Hoffmann M, Birrenbach T, Hautz SC, Kämmer JE, et al. Non-specific complaints at emergency department presentation result in unclear diagnoses and lengthened hospitalization: a prospective observational study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018;26(1):60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter-Storch R, Olsen UF, Mogensen CB. Admissions to emergency department may be classified into specific complaint categories. Dan Med J. 2014;61(3):A4802.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baier N, Geissler A, Bech M, Bernstein D, Cowling TE, Jackson T, et al. Emergency and urgent care systems in Australia, Denmark, England, France, Germany and the Netherlands - analyzing organization, payment and reforms. Health Policy. 2019;123(1):1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dionne S, Kringos, Wienke GW, Boerma A, Hutchinson RB, Saltman. Building primary care in changing Europe: case studies. Copenhagen (Denmark): (acting as the host organization for, and secretariat of, the European Observatory. on Health Systems and Policies); 2015.

  10. Nemec M, Koller MT, Nickel CH, Maile S, Winterhalder C, Karrer C, et al. Patients presenting to the emergency department with non-specific complaints: the Basel non-specific complaints (BANC) study. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(3):284–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Diserens L, Egli L, Fustinoni S, Santos-Eggimann B, Staeger P, Hugli O. Emergency department visits for non-life-threatening conditions: evolution over 13 years in a Swiss urban teaching hospital. Swiss Med Wkly. 2015;145:w14123.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Effectiveness of. Intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi Nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Lancet. 1986;1(8478):397–402.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Califf RM. Ten years of benefit from a one-hour intervention. Circulation. 1998;98(24):2649–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mol S, Gaakeer MI, van der Linden M, Christien, Baan-Kooman ECM, Backus BE, de Ridder VA. Crowding, perceived crowding and workload in Dutch emergency departments: should we continue on the same road? Eur J Emerg Med. 2023;30(4):229–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Morley C, Unwin M, Peterson GM, Stankovich J, Kinsman L. Emergency department crowding: a systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0203316.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sonis JD, Aaronson EL, Lee RY, Philpotts LL, White BA. Emergency Department patient experience: a systematic review of the literature. J Patient Exp. 2018;5(2):101–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moes FB, Houwaart ES, Delnoij DMJ, Horstman K. Strangers in the ER: quality indicators and third party interference in Dutch emergency care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(3):390–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kremers MNT, Nanayakkara PWB, Levi M, Bell D, Haak HR. Strengths and weaknesses of the acute care systems in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands: what can we learn from each other? BMC Emerg Med. 2019;19(1):40–y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaakeer MI, Veugelers R, van Lieshout JM, Patka P, Huijsman R. The emergency department landscape in the Netherlands: an exploration of characteristics and hypothesized relationships. Int J Emerg Med. 2018;11(1):35–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Zachariasse JM, Seiger N, Rood PP, Alves CF, Freitas P, Smit FJ, et al. Validity of the Manchester Triage System in emergency care: a prospective observational study. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2):e0170811.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Vest JR, Ben-Assuli O. Prediction of emergency department revisits using area-level social determinants of health measures and health information exchange information. Int J Med Inf. 2019;129:205–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van Dam PMEL, van Doorn, William PTM, van Gils F, Sevenich L, Lambriks L, Meex SJR, et al. Machine learning for risk stratification in the emergency department (MARS-ED) study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial on the implementation of a prediction model based on machine learning technology predicting 31-day mortality in the emergency department. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2024;32(1):5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Magnusson C, Hagiwara MA, Norberg-Boysen G, Kauppi W, Herlitz J, Axelsson C, et al. Suboptimal prehospital decision- making for referral to alternative levels of care - frequency, measurement, acceptance rate and room for improvement. BMC Emerg Med. 2022;22(1):89–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Thijssen WAMH, Kraaijvanger N, Barten DG, Boerma MLM, Giesen P, Wensing M. Impact of a well-developed primary care system on the length of stay in emergency departments in the Netherlands: a multicenter study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:149–z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kraaijvanger N, Rijpsma D, van Leeuwen H, Edwards M. Self-referrals in the emergency department: reasons why patients attend the emergency department without consulting a general practitioner first-a questionnaire study. Int J Emerg Med. 2015;8(1):46–x. Epub 2015 Dec 7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Gaakeer MI, van den Brand, Crispijn L, Veugelers R, Patka P. Inventory of attendance at Dutch emergency departments and self-referrals. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2014;158:A7128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Guo F, Qin Y, Fu H, Xu F. The impact of COVID-19 on Emergency Department length of stay for urgent and life-threatening patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):696–1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Chang H, Kang MW, Paek SH. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department utilization patterns in South Korea: a retrospective observational study. Med (Baltim). 2022;101(8):e29009.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Brouns SHA, Stassen PM, Lambooij SLE, Dieleman J, Vanderfeesten ITP, Haak HR. Organisational Factors Induce Prolonged Emergency Department length of Stay in Elderly Patients–A retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(8):e0135066.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Jones S, Moulton C, Swift S, Molyneux P, Black S, Mason N, et al. Association between delays to patient admission from the emergency department and all-cause 30-day mortality. Emerg Med J. 2022;39(3):168–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wessman T, Ärnlöv J, Carlsson AC, Ekelund U, Wändell P, Melander O, et al. The association between length of stay in the emergency department and short-term mortality. Intern Emerg Med. 2022;17(1):233–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Trotzky D, Tsur AM, Fordham DE, Halpern P, Ironi A, Ziv-Baran T, et al. Medical expertise as a critical influencing factor on the length of stay in the ED: a retrospective cohort study. Med (Baltim). 2021;100(19):e25911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Asaro PV, Lewis LM, Boxerman SB. The impact of input and output factors on emergency department throughput. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(3):235–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Linden M, de Christien RAY, Meylaerts SAG, van den Brand, Crispijn L, van der Linden N. The impact of medical specialist staffing on emergency department patient flow and satisfaction. Eur J Emerg Med. 2019;26(1):47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zorgautoriteit N. Marktscan acute zorg 2017, 2017.

  36. Machnicki S, Patel D, Singh A, Talwar A, Mina B, Oks M, et al. The usefulness of Chest CT Imaging in patients with suspected or diagnosed COVID-19: a review of literature. Chest. 2021;160(2):652–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sharif PM, Nematizadeh M, Saghazadeh M, Saghazadeh A, Rezaei N. Computed tomography scan in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pol J Radiol. 2022;87:e1–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Driesen BEJM, van Riet, Bauke HG, Verkerk L, Bonjer HJ, Merten H, Nanayakkara PWB. Long length of stay at the emergency department is mostly caused by organisational factors outside the influence of the emergency department: a root cause analysis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(9):e0202751.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. van der Linden C, Reijnen R, Derlet RW, Lindeboom R, van der Linden N, Lucas C, et al. Emergency department crowding in the Netherlands: managers’ experiences. Int J Emerg Med. 2013;6(1):41–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Nyce A, Gandhi S, Freeze B, Bosire J, Ricca T, Kupersmith E, et al. Association of Emergency Department Waiting Times with patient experience in admitted and discharged patients. J Patient Exp. 2021;8:23743735211011404.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Boudreaux ED, D’Autremont S, Wood K, Jones GN. Predictors of emergency department patient satisfaction: stability over 17 months. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(1):51–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hansagi H, Carlsson B, Brismar B. The urgency of care need and patient satisfaction at a hospital emergency department. Health Care Manage Rev. 1992;17(2):71–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hagerty SF, Burke RC, Isbell LM, Barasz K, Smulowitz P. Patient perceptions of diagnostic certainty at discharge and patient satisfaction in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2021;28(11):1318–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kremers MNT, Zaalberg T, van den Ende ES, van Beneden M, Holleman F, Nanayakkara PWB, et al. Patient’s perspective on improving the quality of acute medical care: determining patient reported outcomes. BMJ Open Qual. 2019;8(3):e000736–000736. eCollection 2019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Audrey Merry for her valuable statistical support and assistance in organising this study.

Funding

There are no sources of funding to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Lieke Claassen, Laura Magdalena Ritter & Gideon Hubertus Petrus Latten

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division General Medicine, Section Acute Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Noortje Zelis

  3. Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Jochen Willo Lennert Cals

  4. Department of Internal Medicine, Division General Medicine, Section Acute Medicine, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Patricia Maria Stassen

Authors
  1. Lieke Claassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Magdalena Ritter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gideon Hubertus Petrus Latten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Noortje Zelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jochen Willo Lennert Cals
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patricia Maria Stassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LC, GL and PS participated in planning the study design. LR took part in the data collection. LR and LC analysed the data and drafted the first version of the manuscript. NZ helped with statistical testing and revised the manuscript. GL and PS made crucial revisions to the manuscript. JC revised the manuscript. LC completed the final manuscript. All authors agreed on the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lieke Claassen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was reviewed and approved by the medical ethics committee of Zuyderland (METC-Z nr. 20200198). We certify that the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and from a parent and/or legal guardian.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Claassen, L., Ritter, L.M., Latten, G.H.P. et al. From symptom onset to ED departure: understanding the acute care chain for patients with undifferentiated complaints: a prospective observational study. Int J Emerg Med 17, 55 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-024-00629-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-024-00629-x

Keywords

International Journal of Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1865-1380

Contact us