title: Emergency department crowding: a point in time.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This is a pilot study designed to assess the feasibility of a point prevalence study to assess the degree of crowding in hospital emergency departments (EDs). In addition, we sought to measure the degree of physical crowding and personnel shortage in our sample.
  
  
  METHODS
  A mail survey was sent to a random sample of 250 EDs chosen from a database compiled by the American College of Emergency Physicians of 5,064 EDs in the United States. In addition to demographic information, respondents were asked to count the patients and staff in their EDs at 7 PM local time on Monday, March 12, 2001 (index time).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The response rate was 36%. At the index time, there was an average of 1.1 patients per treatment space, and 52% of EDs reported more than 1 patient per treatment space. There was also evidence of personnel shortage, with a mean of 4.2 patients per registered nurse and 49% of EDs having each registered nurse caring for more than 4 patients. There was a mean of 9.7 patients per physician. Sixty-eight percent of EDs had each physician caring for more than 6 patients. There was crowding present in all geographic areas and all hospital types (teaching-nonteaching status of the hospital). Consistent with the crowded conditions, 11% of institutions were on ambulance diversion and not accepting new acute patients. Delays in transfer of admitted patients out of the ED contributed to the physical crowding. Twenty-two percent of patients in the ED were already admitted and were awaiting transfer to an inpatient bed; 73% of EDs were boarding 2 or more inpatients. The amount of crowding quantified by this point prevalence study was confirmed by the amount of crowding reported for the previous week: 48% of EDs were boarding inpatients during the previous week for a mean of 8.9 hours, 4.2 days per week; 31% had been on diversion; 59% had been routinely using their halls for patients; 38% had been doubling their rooms; and 47% had been using nonclinical space for patient care.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our low response rate limits this pilot study. Nonetheless, this study, as well as others, demonstrates that EDs throughout the United States are severely crowded. Such crowding raises concerns about the ability of EDs to respond to mass casualty or volume surges.
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.sandra_schneider@urmc.rochester.edu
authors.forename: Sandra M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Schneider
authors.forename: Michael E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Gallery
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Schafermeyer
authors.forename: Frank L
authors.initials: FL
authors.lastname: Zwemer
mesh_terms: D001509:Bed Occupancy / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003441:Crowding; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006302:Health Services Research; D006742:Hospital Bed Capacity / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D007374:Interior Design and Furnishings / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D007902:Length of Stay / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D008505:Medical Staff, Hospital / Q000600:supply & distribution*; D020380:Needs Assessment; D009741:Nursing Staff, Hospital / Q000600:supply & distribution*; D010360:Patient Transfer / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D010561:Personnel Staffing and Scheduling / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008486:Physician Executives; D010865:Pilot Projects; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013997:Time Factors; D014481:United States; D000078329:Workforce