This cohort analysis reveals that longer waiting times are linked to higher mortality rates, especially for the elderly.
Introduction: This study investigates whether waiting times for a medical helpline are associated with mortality rates at 1 and 30 days. Methods: Using data from 2014 to 2018 from the Capital Region of Denmark’s medical helpline, researchers conducted a registry-based cohort analysis. This helpline offers hospital referrals, ambulance dispatch, or self-care advice. Calls were grouped by waiting times: <30 seconds, 0:30–2:59, 3–9:59, and ≥10 minutes, aligned with regional service targets. Logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between waiting times and mortality, controlling for age and sex. Results: The study included 1,244,252 callers who made a total of 3,956,243 calls. Notably, 78% of calls were answered within 10 minutes. Overall, 30-day mortality across all callers was 1% (16,560 deaths). Findings revealed that longer waiting times correlated with higher mortality rates, particularly within the first minute. Among women aged 85–110, 30-day mortality was 9.6% for calls answered in under 30 seconds, rising to 10.8% between 30 seconds and 1 minute, and then slightly dropping to 9.1% for 1–2 minutes. Men in this age group showed similar trends, with mortality increasing from 11.1% (under 30 seconds) to 12.9% (30 seconds to 1 minute). For individuals with high comorbidity (Charlson score ≥2), longer waiting times were similarly linked to higher mortality. Ambulance dispatch rates also declined as waiting times increased, from 4% of calls answered in under 30 seconds to 2% for calls waiting over 10 minutes. Conclusion: The study concludes that longer helpline waiting times are linked with increased mortality, especially within the first minute for elderly and high-comorbidity callers. This suggests the importance of minimizing waiting times to improve health outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andersen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: