PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 21, 2025Academic Emergency Medicine0 citationsOpen Access

Operational Impact of Redirection From the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Matched Cross‐Sectional Study

View Full Paper
EMErica McDonaldBBBrett BursteinKCKelly Cummins

Key Points

  • A matched cross-sectional study shows redirected patients had a shorter length of stay than non-redirected patients.
  • Of 6164 eligible patients, 900 were redirected, indicating a 14.6% redirection rate with significant effects on patient flow.
  • Patient redirection did not change overall ED operations, as metrics like daily proportion hospitalized remained stable.
  • Refining eligibility criteria is essential to enhance patient safety in pediatric emergency settings.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Programs redirecting patients with non‐urgent presentations from Emergency Departments (EDs) to the community (ED2C), by providing them a booked community appointment in lieu of waiting for ED care, may reduce ED crowding. We sought to evaluate the department‐ and patient‐level impact of an ED2C program in an urban tertiary pediatric ED. Methods We conducted a matched cross‐sectional study to describe patients redirected by a pediatric ED2C program and determine if the program changed ED operations. Days with the program were matched on day type (weekday vs. weekend) and department volume (±10%) to days when ED patients were not being redirected. Measures of ED flow and utilization on days with and without the program were compared using t ‐tests and linear regression models. Results Of the 6164 patients eligible for the ED2C program for 53 days that redirection was offered, 900 were redirected (14.6%). On average, 17.7 (SD 8.5) patients were redirected and 92.4 (SD 23.7) eligible patients were not redirected each day the ED2C was in operation. Patients who were redirected had a significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) than those who were eligible but not redirected (2.9 ± 2.0 h vs. 8.5 ± 4.3 h, p ‐value < 0.0001). Three patients who were redirected (0.3%) and 11 eligible but not redirected (0.2%) returned to the ED and were hospitalized. Average median departmental LOS, time to physician assessment, daily proportion hospitalized patients, proportion of patients left without being seen, and ED return visits did not differ on days with and without the program. Conclusions A small proportion of eligible patients were redirected. These patients experienced a lower LOS, without increasing the proportion of return visits. ED operations were unchanged. Refining eligibility criteria for pediatric redirection with an emphasis on patient safety is necessary.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

McDonald et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d46cb831b076d99fa6872dhttps://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70151
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Redirection of low-acuity emergency department patients to nearby medical clinics using an electronic medical support system: effects on emergency department performance indicators2024 · 10 citations
  2. 2Using Future Information to Reduce Waiting Times in the Emergency Department via Diversion2016 · 88 citations
  3. 3The Effect of Emergency Department Crowding on Clinically Oriented Outcomes2008 · 1,169 citations
  4. 4Validity of the Canadian Paediatric Triage and Acuity Scale in a tertiary care hospital2009 · 87 citations
  5. 5Characteristics and Admission Preferences of Pediatric Emergency Patients and Their Waiting Time Prediction Using Electronic Medical Record Data: Retrospective Comparative Analysis2023 · 14 citations