
==== Front
Open Access Emerg Med
Open Access Emerg Med
oaem
Open Access Emergency Medicine : OAEM
1179-1500
Dove

457942
10.2147/OAEM.S457942
Original Research
Association of Emergency Department Length of Stay and Hospital Mortality in Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19
Dadeh et al
Dadeh et al
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1111-6589
Dadeh Ar-aishah 1
Chaisuwaseth Itsada 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1406-7922
Sookmee Wainik 1
1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Songklanagarind Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand
Correspondence: Ar-aishah Dadeh, Department of Emergency Medicine, Songklanagarind Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand, Tel +66 74-451705, Fax +66 74-451704, Email dadehstou@gmail.com
16 9 2024
2024
16 231243
04 1 2024
12 9 2024
© 2024 Dadeh et al.
2024
Dadeh et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
Objective

We aimed to determine the association between hospital mortality of patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 and emergency department length of stay (EDLOS).

Patients and Methods

A retrospective study was conducted from April 3, 2020 to April 2, 2022. Adult PUI who presented with both clinical and epidemiological risk factors for COVID-19 disease and underwent sample collection with nasal swab for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction were included in the study. The factors associated with EDLOS and hospital mortality were investigated using univariate logistic regression and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

A total of 961 PUI were enrolled that included 836 (87%) non-COVID-19 patients. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) EDLOS durations for 7-day and 30-day mortality of all PUI were 3.1 hours (2.1,4.3, P = 0.231) and 3.2 hours (2.1,4.3, P = 0.653). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the significant factors associated with EDLOS longer than 4 hours were consultation of three departments (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 27.3, 95% CI 2.42–309.71, P = 0.007), emergency severity index (ESI) level 3 (aOR 2.31, 95% CI 1.37–3.9), investigations >2 (aOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.62–4.25), nebulization (aOR 2.34, 95% CI 1.39–3.96), administration of intravenous fluid (aOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.59–4.33), performing ≥1 procedure (aOR 3.35, 95% CI 1.51–7.43), and discharged patients (aOR 2.13, 95% CI 1.02–4.48).

Conclusion

The significant factors associated with prolonged EDLOS in PUI included consultation of three departments, ESI level 3, investigations >2, ED treatment, ED procedures, and discharged patients. The median times of EDLOS and hospital LOS were 3.2 hours and 5.7 days. The EDLOS had no significant association with short-term mortality.

Keywords

emergency department length of stay
pandemic
COVID-19
patients under investigation
hospital mortality
The Faculty of Medicine The Faculty of Medicine funded this research.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an infectious disease that caused the worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The first case detected was in Wuhan, Hubei Province, Republic of China in December 2019. The virus spread rapidly to other countries around the world.1 The pandemic is an ongoing global crisis that has a widespread impact on every aspect of life. Nowadays, there are new cases, patients, and deaths from COVID-19 and a continued increase. According to a report in December 2019, there were more than 287.7 million confirmed cases and more than 5,458,145 deaths worldwide,2–4 which led to an enormous stress on the healthcare system as a whole. Emergency departments (EDs) around the world have been faced with severe stress because they are on the frontlines of the health care system. Due to the increasing number of patients in the ED that can lead to overcrowding, some emergency patients possibly received delayed treatment or they experienced increased ED length of stay (EDLOS) potentially affecting quality of treatment. Longer durations of EDLOS were reported to be associated with increased inpatient mortality and modest increases in length of stay and costs for admitted patients.5,6 Previous studies showed that the length of time a patient spent in the emergency department affected the death rate and hospital length of stay (HLOS). The death rate was 2.5% for patients who boarded for less than 2 hours and 4.5% for those who stayed for more than 12 hours, and the HLOS increased from 5.6 to 8.7 days. Furthermore, the outcome of ICU patients with a 6-hour delay in ICU transfer from an ED had a longer HLOS (7 vs 6 days) and a higher mortality rate (10.7% vs 8.4%).7,8 In the year 2000, the Department of Public Health of England established standards of care in the National Health Service (NHS) development plan (NHS plan) that specified the duration of all ED visits should not exceed four hours.9,10 In Thailand, Panitpichetvong reported that the median EDLOS was 1 hour, 51 minutes.11 Thongphan and Chantaphet reported the time spent for imaging studies, evening shift (16:01–24:00), and specialist consultation were the leading causes of patients spending >8 hours in the ED.12 On the other hand, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Singh reported that the median (interquartile range [IQR]) EDLOS was 1.75 hours (0–30 hours).13 O’Reilly et al reported that the strong clinical predictors of the SARS-CoV-2 test result included self-reported fever, sore throat, bilateral infiltrates on chest X-rays, and absence of leukocytosis in the initial ED blood tests (P < 0.05).14 Kurihara et al reported a prevalence of COVID-19 of 17.9% (457/2,555) while the prevalence of non-COVID-19 diagnoses was 82.1% of all cases, and the common cold had the highest prevalence of 33.0% of all final diagnoses.15 In summary, many potentially fatal diseases remain hidden among patients who present with suspected COVID-19 symptoms (COVID-19 mimics). A thorough differential diagnosis needs to be considered before diagnosing COVID-19. Kim and colleagues investigated the characteristics of patients who visited regional emergency medical centers. A particular emphasis was placed on the changes in EDLOS and emergency room use for severely ill patients using the Korean Triage and Acuity Scale. The study concluded there was a 37.6% decrease in total emergency room visits, a 203.7% increase in EDLOS for severely ill patients, and a 9.0% increase in emergency hotline ambulance utilization rate for emergency patients. Furthermore, a 2.1% increase in severity in the emergency room and an increase in emergency room deaths of severely ill patients were observed following the COVID-19 outbreak.16 To date, few studies or analyses have been published on the impact of the widespread outbreak of COVID-19 on EDLOS of patients who visit the ED. The aim of this study was to determine the association between hospital mortality of patients under investigation for COVID-19 and EDLOS.

Patients and Methods

Study Design and Setting

This single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients aged ≥18 years who were patients under investigation (PUI) for coronavirus disease 2019 during an ED visit at Songklanagarind Hospital, which is a tertiary referral and academic hospital on the campus of Prince of Songkla University in southern Thailand. The hospital electronic medical record database was reviewed for patient data from April 3, 2020 to April 2, 2022.

Study Population

Adult patients aged 18 years and older who visited the ED and met the criteria of PUI for coronavirus disease 2019 were included in the study. The excluded patients included dead on arrival, either referred from or to another hospital, trauma patients, and patients with incomplete data. The study sample size was calculated using a two-tailed test based on a study by Kurihara.15 The sample size was calculated using n4Studies and found to be 1,171 patients. However, the researchers included all patients who were PUI of coronavirus disease 2019 during the two-year study period.

Data Collection

The PUI patients were categorized into either the positive COVID-19 or negative COVID-19 (non-COVID) based on the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. The data collected from the electronic medical records and ED data registry included baseline characteristics, comorbidities, visit type, triage level, presenting symptoms, investigations, treatment in the ED, consulted department(s), ED shift, number of patients during that shift, EDLOS, type of ED disposition, and mortality.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was to determine the association between hospital mortality of PUI for COVID-19 and EDLOS. The secondary outcome was to identify the factors affecting EDLOS in PUI and treatment outcomes. Patients who presented with both clinical and epidemiological risk factors for the COVID-19 disease and defined as PUI (Table 1)17 who underwent sample collection with nasal swab for RT-PCR were included in the study. The patients were categorized into COVID-19 positive PUI and non-COVID-19 PUI groups. The exclusion criteria were patients who presented with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest on ED arrival, referred patients from other facilities, and patients who were transferred to other hospitals. Table 1 Definition of Patients Under Investigation (PUI) Who Presented with Both Clinical and Epidemiological Risk Factors for a COVID-19 During the Study Period

Signs and Symptoms	Risk factors	
Scenario 1: Surveillance at points of entry quarantine stations
Patient with body temperature ≥37.3 °C or any of the following respiratory symptoms such as cough, runny nose, sore throat, anosmia, tachypnea, or shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing	Having history of travel to or from foreign countries from all flights and points of entry	
Scenario 2: Surveillance in PUI/patients
2.1 Symptomatic PUI with any of the following respiratory symptoms such as cough, runny nose, sore throat, anosmia, tachypnea, or shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing and/or having temperature ≥37.5 °C	(1) Any history within 14 days prior to symptom onset as follows:
(1.1) Travel history to/ from or reside in areas with ongoing local transmission in the past month
(1.2) History of contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case
(1.3) Travel history to crowded places in the community or places of gathering where confirmed cases have been reported in the past month eg, flea markets, malls, hospitals, public transportation
(1.4) Work in a quarantine facility
(2) Suspected of having COVID-19 by attending physician	
2.2 Patients with pneumonia	Any of the following characteristics:
(1) Severe symptoms requiring intubation or death
(2) Etiology unclear or cannot be identified within 48 hours
(3) Suspected of having COVID-19 by attending physician	
Scenario 3: Surveillance in health personnel
With any of the following symptoms: history of fever/body temperature ≥37.5 °C, cough, runny nose, sore throat, anosmia, ageusia, tachypnea, or shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing	Working in health care facilities eg, hospitals, clinics, health promotion hospitals, laboratories, drug stores, members of investigation teams or personnel working in quarantine facilities (test as determined appropriate)	
Scenario 4: Surveillance in community clusters of patients with respiratory infection - A cluster of ≥3 health personnel in the same department

- A cluster of ≥5 patient with respiratory symptoms in the same specific area (for school setting: in the same classroom)

	Clusters in the same area, in the same week with epidemiological linkage.	
Notes: Data from Ministry of Public Health.17

Statistical Analysis

The study population sample size was calculated using the n4Studies program to test two independent proportions, which was based on a study by Kurihara.15 The total final calculated sample size was 1,171 patients assuming a 10% drop-out rate. We included a total of 961 PUI with complete recorded data and met the enrolment criteria. All data were entered into EpiData Manager (version 4.4.2.1). R software (version 4.0.3) was used for all statistical analyses (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Continuous data are reported as median (IQR) or the mean and standard deviation. Counts and percentages were used to present categorical data. The categorical variables were compared using Pearson’s chi-square test. In the analysis to determine any independent factors of the primary outcome variables, variables having a P-value <0.2 in a univariate analysis and those regarded clinically relevant were included in the multivariate analysis using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Compliance with Ethical Requirements

The ethics committee of Prince of Songkla University approved this study. The institutional review board of Prince of Songkla University is affiliated with the International Conference on Harmonization in Good Clinical Practice. According to our institutional review board protocol for waiver of informed consent, the requirement for consent was waived because the participants had no more than minimal risk and the patients received standard treatment procedures. All research information was kept as confidential data in an encrypted file with password and limited data access by only the researcher and assistant. The ethical registration number was REC. 65–380-20-4. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

Characteristics of the Study Population

During the study period, 1,672 PUI visited the ED. A total of 961 patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study (Figure 1). The baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 2. The median (IQR) age of all participants was 72.6 years (59.9, 82.3) and 53.4% were male. The number of patients in the non-COVID-19 group was 836 (86.9%) and the median (IQR) age of this group was older than the median (IQR) of the COVID-19 group (73 [60.9, 82.5] vs 70.1 [58.3, 80.8], P < 0.075). The non-COVID-19 group had a higher percentage of visits during the day shift (52.6% vs 48%, P = 0.001) and a higher percentage of ED triage emergency severity index (ESI) level 1 (27.9% vs 18.4%, P = 0.053). However, the presenting symptoms were not different between the two groups. The three common presenting symptoms were respiratory symptoms (74.4%), gastrointestinal symptoms (9.2%), and neurological symptoms (8.3%). The five most common co-morbidities in the non-COVID-19 group compared with the COVID-19 group were hypertension (46.8% vs 41.6%, P = 0.324), diabetes mellitus (30.3% vs 25.6%, P = 0.337), chronic kidney disease (20.6% vs 20.8%, P = 1.000), malignancy (21.1% vs 12%, P = 0.025), and cerebrovascular disease (16.1% vs 15.2%, P = 0.89). Figure 1 Study flow diagram of enrollment process.

Table 2 Demographic and Baseline Characteristics of Patients Under Investigation (PUI)

Characteristics	COVID-19 patients
(n = 125)	Non-COVID-19 patients (n = 836)	Total (n = 961)	P value	
Gender				0.733	
 Male	69 (55.2)	444 (53.1)	513 (53.4)		
 Female	56 (44.8)	392 (46.9)	448 (46.6)		
Age, median (IQR)	70.1 (58.3,80.8)	73 (60.9,82.5)	72.6 (59.9,82.3)	0.075	
Mode of arrival				0.62	
 Walk in	102 (81.6)	694 (83)	796 (82.8)		
 BLS	11 (8.8)	68 (8.1)	79 (8.2)		
 EMS	8 (6.4)	32 (3.8)	40 (4.2)		
 Referral	0 (0)	1 (0.1)	1 (0.1)		
 OPD	4 (3.2)	41 (4.9)	45 (4.7)		
Work shift				0.001	
 8:00–16:00	60 (48)	440 (52.6)	500 (52)		
 16:01–24:00	55 (44)	248 (29.7)	303 (31.5)		
 00:01–07:59	10 (8)	148 (17.7)	158 (16.4)		
ED Triage				0.053	
 ESI 1 (Resuscitated)	23 (18.4)	233 (27.9)	256 (26.6)		
 ESI 2 (Emergent)	77 (61.6)	494 (59.1)	571 (59.4)		
 ESI 3 (Urgency)	24 (19.2)	106 (12.7)	130 (13.5)		
 ESI 4 (Less urgency)	1 (0.8)	3 (0.4)	4 (0.4)		
Presenting symptoms					
 Respiratory	95 (76)	620 (74.2)	715 (74.4)	0.742	
 Cardiovascular	4 (3.2)	39 (4.7)	43 (4.5)	0.612	
 GI	12 (9.6)	76 (9.1)	88 (9.2)	0.986	
 Neurologic	8 (6.4)	72 (8.6)	80 (8.3)	0.508	
 Skin	0 (0)	18 (2.2)	18 (1.9)	0.193	
 Others	10 (8)	64 (7.7)	74 (7.7)	1.000	
Comorbidities					
 Asthma	5 (4)	40 (4.8)	45 (4.7)	0.873	
 COPD	6 (4.8)	66 (7.9)	72 (7.5)	0.297	
 Hypertension	52 (41.6)	391 (46.8)	443 (46.1)	0.324	
 Diabetes mellitus	32 (25.6)	253 (30.3)	285 (29.7)	0.337	
 Coronary heart disease	18 (14.4)	121 (14.5)	139 (14.5)	1.000	
 Liver disease	5 (4)	37 (4.4)	42 (4.4)	1.000	
 Chronic kidney disease	26 (20.8)	172 (20.6)	198 (20.6)	1.000	
 Malignancy	15 (12)	176 (21.1)	191 (19.9)	0.025	
 Cerebrovascular disease	19 (15.2)	135 (16.1)	154 (16)	0.89	
 Dementia	2 (1.6)	26 (3.1)	28 (2.9)	0.515	
Investigation					
 Uninvestigated	4 (3.2)	13 (1.6)	17 (1.8)	0.348	
 Laboratory (blood)	97 (77.6)	764 (91.4)	861 (89.6)	<0.001	
 Plain film X-ray	121 (96.8)	800 (95.7)	921 (95.8)	0.736	
 CT scan	7 (5.6)	84 (10)	91 (9.5)	0.156	
 Ultrasonography	0 (0)	10 (1.2)	10 (1)	0.449	
ED treatment					
 Nebulization	12 (9.6)	150 (17.9)	162 (16.9)	0.028	
 Intravenous fluid	59 (47.2)	441 (52.8)	500 (52)	0.288	
 IV antibiotics	68 (54.4)	476 (56.9)	544 (56.6)	0.662	
Type of oxygen therapy					
 None	60 (48)	341 (40.8)	401 (41.7)	0.153	
 Oxygen cannula	40 (61.5)	294 (59.4)	334 (59.6)	0.844	
 Oxygen mask with bag	5 (7.7)	40 (8.1)	45 (8)	1.000	
 HFNC	8 (12.3)	39 (7.9)	47 (8.4)	0.331	
 BiPAP	6 (9.2)	85 (17.2)	91 (16.2)	0.146	
 Endotracheal intubation	19 (29.2)	159 (32.1)	178 (31.8)	0.742	
Procedures					
 CVC insertion	0 (0)	4 (0.5)	4 (0.4)	0.976	
 Intercostal drainage	2 (1.6)	17 (2)	19 (2)	1.000	
 Cardiopulmonary resuscitation	1 (0.8)	9 (1.1)	10 (1)	1.000	
Consulted department					
 General medicine	109 (87.2)	750 (89.7)	859 (89.4)	0.487	
 General surgery	8 (6.4)	72 (8.6)	80 (8.3)	0.508	
 Neurological surgery	3 (2.4)	12 (1.4)	15 (1.6)	0.671	
 Orthopedic surgery	1 (0.8)	12 (1.4)	13 (1.4)	0.874	
 Ophthalmology	1 (0.8)	2 (0.2)	3 (0.3)	0.85	
 Otolaryngology	1 (0.8)	22 (2.6)	23 (2.4)	0.349	
 Obstetrics and gynecology	2 (1.6)	24 (2.9)	26 (2.7)	0.602	
 Psychiatry	0 (0)	3 (0.4)	3 (0.3)	1.000	
 Anesthetist	2 (1.6)	6 (0.7)	8 (0.8)	0.628	
Number of total consulted departments, median (IQR)	1 (1,1)	1 (1,1)	1 (1,1)	0.017	
Number of patients during that shift, median (IQR)	40 (33,45)	39 (30,45)	39 (30,45)	0.066	
ED Disposition				<0.001	
 Admit to general ward	4 (3.2)	704 (84.2)	708		
 Admit to COVID ward	106 (84.8)	4 (0.5)	110		
 Admit to ICU	4 (3.2)	92 (11)	96		
 Transfer	0 (0)	24 (2.9)	24		
 Discharge	11 (8.8)	10 (1.2)	21		
 Dead	0 (0)	2 (0.2)	2		
ED length of stay (hours)				0.015	
 <4	98 (78.4)	534 (63.9)	632		
 4–8	26 (20.8)	280 (33.5)	306		
 8–12	1 (0.8)	21 (2.5)	22		
 >16	0 (0)	1 (0.1)	1		
EDLOS (hours), median (IQR)	2.6 (1.9,3.8)	3.2 (2.3,4.6)	3.2 (2.2,4.5)	<0.001	
HLOS (days), median (IQR)	9.6 (4.9,14.8)	5.7 (2.1,12)	5.8 (1.9,12.1)	<0.001	
Note: Data are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Abbreviations: COVID-19, coronavirus disease-2019; IQR, interquartile range; BLS, basic life support; EMS, emergency medicine services; OPD, outpatient department; ED, emergency department; ESI, emergency severity index; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CT, computed tomography; IV, intravenous; HFNC, high flow nasal cannula; BiPAP, bi-level positive airway pressure; CVC, central venous catheter; ICU, intensive care unit; EDLOS, emergency department length of stay; HLOS, hospital length of stay.

The non-COVID-19 group had a higher percentage of performing blood test than the COVID-19 group (91.4% vs 77.6%, P < 0.001). The rate of nebulization was significantly higher in the non-COVID-19 group than the COVID-19 group (17.9% vs 9.6%, P = 0.028). Oxygen therapy in all patients was oxygen cannula in 59.6% and intubation in 31.8%.

Patients in the non-COVID-19 group were more likely to be admitted to the general ward (84.2% vs 3.2%, P < 0.001) and intensive care unit (ICU) than the COVID-19 group (11% vs 3.2%, P < 0.001). The EDLOS in the non-COVID-19 group was longer than the COVID-19 group (median [IQR] 3.2 hours [2.3, 4.6] vs 2.6 [1.9, 3.8], P < 0.001). On the other hand, patients in the non-COVID-19 group had a shorter HLOS (median [IQR] 5.7 days [2.1, 12] vs 9.6 [4.9, 14.8], P < 0.001).

EDLOS, Hospital Mortality, and Factors Affecting EDLOS in PUI

The median (IQR) EDLOS times in 7-day and 30-day mortality of all PUI were 3.1 hours (2.1,4.3, P = 0.231) and 3.2 hours (2.1,4.3, P = 0.653), respectively (Table 3). The median (IQR) HLOS durations among the PUI who died at 7 days and 30 days were 2 days (0.6,4.7) (P < 0.001) and 6.2 days (1.1,13) (P = 0.123), respectively (Table 3). The univariate logistic regression analysis showed that the factors for an increased likelihood of EDLOS longer than 4 hours were performing a blood test (OR 5.34, 95% CI 2.82–10.11), requesting a computed tomography scan (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.13–5.1), requesting ultrasonography (OR 7.74, 95% CI 1.63–36.66), and orthopedic surgery consultation (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.00–9.49) (Table 4). The factors that doubled the OR of longer ED stay included presenting with skin symptoms (OR 2.36, 95% CI 0.97–5.75), intercostal drainage insertion (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.06–6.68), general surgery consultation (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.47–3.62), and the number of consulted departments (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.52–3.17). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that consultation of three departments had the greatest adjusted OR (aOR) that was statistically significant (aOR 27.3, 95% CI 2.42–309.71, P = 0.007) (Table 5). Moreover, ESI level 3 (aOR 2.31, 95% CI 1.37–3.9), investigations >2 (aOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.62–4.25), nebulization (aOR 2.34, 95% CI 1.39–3.96), administration of intravenous fluid (aOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.59–4.33), performing ≥1 procedure (aOR 3.35, 95% CI 1.51–7.43), and discharged patients (aOR 2.13, 95% CI 1.02–4.48) were revealed to be significant factors identified in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Table 3 Comparison of EDLOS and 7-Day and 30-Day Hospital Mortality of All PUI

Variables	7-day mortality
(n = 47)	Survival >7 days
(n = 868)	Total
(n = 915)	P value	
EDLOS (hours), median (IQR)	3.1 (2.1,4.3)	3.2 (2.3,4.6)	3.2 (2.2,4.5)	0.231	
EDLOS (hours)				0.711	
 < 4	30 (63.8)	568 (65.4)	598 (65.4)		
 4–8	17 (36.2)	279 (32.1)	296 (32.3)		
 8–12	0 (0)	20 (2.3)	20 (2.2)		
 >16	0 (0)	1 (0.1)	1 (0.1)		
HLOS (days), median (IQR)	2 (0.6,4.7)	6.9 (3.1,13.2)	5.8 (1.9,12.1)	<0.001	
	30-day mortality
(n = 78)	Survival >30 days
(n = 837)	Total
(n = 915)	P value	
EDLOS (hours), median (IQR)	3.2 (2.1,4.3)	3.1 (2.3,4.6)	3.2 (2.2,4.5)	0.653	
EDLOS (hours)				0.932	
 <4	51 (65.4)	547 (65.4)	598 (65.4)		
 4–8	26 (33.3)	270 (32.3)	296 (32.3)		
 8–12	1 (1.3)	19 (2.3)	20 (2.2)		
 >16	0 (0)	1 (0.1)	1 (0.1)		
HLOS (days), median (IQR)	6.2 (1.1,13)	6.4 (3,12.3)	5.8 (1.9,12.1)	0.123	
Note: Data are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Abbreviations: EDLOS, emergency department length of stay; IQR, interquartile range; HLOS, hospital length of stay.

Table 4 Univariate Logistic Regression Analysis of Factors Affecting EDLOS in Patients Under Investigation (PUI) and Treatment Outcomes

Variables	Odds ratio	95% CI	P value	
Gender: Male	1.25	0.96–1.62	0.091	
Age > 65 years	1.13	0.86–1.48	0.394	
Mode of arrival				
 Walk in	1	1	0.042	
 BLS	0.61	0.36–1.04	0.068	
 EMS	0.68	0.36–1.31	0.252	
 OPD	1.69	0.93–3.06	0.086	
Work shift				
 8:00–16:00
 16:01–24:00	1
0.56	1
0.41–0.75	<0.001
<0.001	
 00:01–07:59	0.5	0.34–0.74	<0.001	
ESI triage				
 ESI 1 (Resuscitated)	1	1	0.015	
 ESI 2 (Emergent)	1.56	1.13–2.14	0.006	
 ESI 3 (Urgency)	1.82	1.18–2.8	0.007	
 ESI 4 (Less urgency)	0.67	0.07–6.13	0.726	
Presenting symptoms				
 Respiratory symptoms	0.56	0.42–0.75	<0.001	
 Cardiovascular symptoms	1.16	0.63–2.15	0.639	
 GI symptoms	1.86	1.22–2.84	0.004	
 Neurologic symptoms	1.29	0.83–2.02	0.253	
 Skin symptoms	2.36	0.97–5.75	0.059	
 Others	1.45	0.91–2.3	0.119	
Comorbidities				
 Asthma	0.95	0.53–1.69	0.85	
 COPD	0.81	0.49–1.35	0.417	
 Hypertension	0.95	0.73–1.23	0.678	
 Diabetes mellitus	0.88	0.66–1.17	0.369	
 Coronary heart disease	0.99	0.68–1.43	0.939	
 Liver disease	1.02	0.54–1.93	0.96	
 Chronic kidney disease	0.98	0.71–1.36	0.903	
 Malignancy	1.23	0.89–1.69	0.208	
 Cerebrovascular disease	1.27	0.9–1.81	0.175	
 Dementia	1.23	0.57–2.67	0.592	
Investigation				
 Uninvestigated	0.09	0.01–0.69	0.02	
 Laboratory (blood)	5.34	2.82–10.11	<0.001	
 Plain film X-ray	1.92	0.97–3.81	0.06	
 CT scan	3.3	2.13–5.1	<0.001	
 Ultrasonography	7.74	1.63–36.66	0.01	
ED Treatment				
 Nebulization	0.89	0.62–1.27	0.515	
 Intravenous fluid	1.48	1.14–1.92	0.003	
 IV antibiotics	1.33	1.02–1.73	0.034	
Type of oxygen therapy				
 None	1.17	0.9–1.51	0.252	
 Oxygen cannula	1.49	1.04–2.13	0.031	
 Oxygen mask with bag	0.82	0.43–1.57	0.551	
 HFNC	1.56	0.85–2.86	0.151	
 BiPAP	0.9	0.56–1.46	0.677	
 Endotracheal intubation	0.85	0.58–1.24	0.395	
Procedures				
 CVC insertion	1.9	0.27–13.56	0.521	
 Intercostal drainage	2.66	1.06–6.68	0.037	
 Cardiopulmonary resuscitation	0.63	0.17–2.34	0.489	
Consulted department				
 General Medicine	1.03	0.69–1.54	0.875	
 General surgery	2.3	1.47–3.62	<0.001	
 Neurological surgery	1.7	0.65–4.45	0.278	
 Orthopedic surgery	3.08	1–9.49	0.05	
 Ophthalmology	0.95	0.09–10.49	0.965	
 Otolaryngology	1.23	0.52–2.86	0.639	
 Obstetrics and gynecology	1.67	0.78–3.55	0.183	
 Psychiatry	0.95	0.09–10.49	0.965	
 Anesthetist	0.63	0.13–3.14	0.573	
Number of consulted departments	2.2	1.52–3.17	<0.001	
Number of patients	1.02	1.01–1.04	<0.001	
ED disposition				
 Admitted to general ward	1	1	0.008	
 Admitted to COVID ward	0.45	0.27–0.72	0.001	
 Admitted to ICU	0.62	0.38–0.99	0.046	
 Transferred	1.03	0.48–2.21	0.941	
 Discharged	1.08	0.59–1.99	0.799	
 Dead	0.56	0.06–5.42	0.618	
Abbreviations: EDLOS, emergency department length of stay; CI, confidence interval; BLS, basic life support; EMS emergency medical services; OPD, outpatient department; ESI, emergency severity index; GI, gastrointestinal; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CT, computed tomography; ED, emergency department; IV, intravenous; HFNC, high flow nasal cannula; BiPAP, bi-level positive airway pressure ventilator; CVC, central venous catheter; COVID, coronavirus disease.

Table 5 Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of Factors Affecting EDLOS in PUI and Treatment Outcomes

	Crude OR (95% CI)	aOR (95% CI)	P value	
Work shift				
 16:01–0.24:00	0.56 (0.41–0.75)	0.57 (0.41–0.79)	< 0.001	
 00:01–07:59	0.5 (0.34–0.74)	0.6 (0.38–0.94)	0.026	
ESI triage				
 ESI 2 (Emergent)	1.56 (1.13–2.14)	1.77 (1.23–2.55)	0.002	
 ESI 3 (Urgent)	1.82 (1.18–2.8)	2.31 (1.37–3.9)	0.002	
 ESI 4 (Less urgent)	0.67 (0.07–6.13)	1.89 (0.19–19.17)	0.588	
Respiratory symptoms	0.56 (0.42–0.75)	0.69 (0.49–0.96)	0.028	
Cerebrovascular disease	1.27 (0.9–1.81)	1.32 (0.91–1.92)	0.146	
Investigations >2	3.12 (2.03–4.8)	2.62 (1.62–4.25)	<0.001	
ED treatment				
 Nebulization	2.26 (1.41–3.63)	2.34 (1.39–3.96)	0.001	
 Intravenous fluid	2.6 (1.65–4.08)	2.62 (1.59–4.33)	<0.001	
 IV antibiotics	1.85 (1.08–3.18)	1.87 (1.01–3.47)	0.046	
 Others	2.32 (0.99–5.4)	2.82 (1.11–7.15)	0.029	
Procedures ≥ 1	1.82 (0.91–3.65)	3.35 (1.51–7.43)	0.003	
Number of consulted departments				
 1	1.62 (0.69–3.81)	2.23 (0.78–6.35)	0.132	
 2	3.92 (1.48–10.36)	4.39 (1.37–14.1)	0.013	
 3	19.71 (2.02–192.7)	27.4 (2.42–309.71)	0.007	
 4	3.29 (0.18–59.6)	1.16 (0.05–24.68)	0.924 	
Number of patients ≥40	1.7 (1.31–2.21)	1.37 (1–1.87)	0.049	
Disposition				
 Admitted to COVID ward	0.45 (0.27–0.72)	0.55 (0.33–0.92)	0.024	
 Admitted to ICU	0.62 (0.38–0.99)	0.68 (0.4–1.17)	0.167	
 Transferred	1.03 (0.48–2.21)	1.22 (0.53–2.82)	0.639	
 Discharged	1.08 (0.59–1.99)	2.13 (1.02–4.48)	0.045	
 Dead	0.56 (0.06–5.42)	0.79 (0.06–10.34)	0.857 	
Abbreviations: EDLOS, emergency department length of stay; PUI, patients under investigation; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; ESI, emergency severity index; ED, emergency department; IV, intravenous; COVID, coronavirus disease; ICU, intensive care unit.

Discussion

The primary outcome of the present study revealed no association between 7-day and 30-day hospital mortality of PUI for COVID-19 and EDLOS. The multivariate logistic regression analysis that was conducted for the secondary outcome analysis revealed that the following factors significantly influenced EDLOS in PUI: three departments consulted, performing one procedure, investigations >2, administration of intravenous fluid, nebulization, ESI level 3, and discharged patients.

The definition of prolonged EDLOS varies across studies and ranges from 4 to 12 hours. An internationally recognized performance indicator to assess the quality of emergency care in western countries is EDLOS <6 hours for critically ill patients admitted to the ICU from the ED.18 The median EDLOS durations of patients who died at 7 days and 30 days in all PUI found in our study were 3.1 hours and 3.2 hours, respectively, without statistical significance. To our knowledge, limited data is available on the association of EDLOS in PUI and hospital mortality. In contrast to our data, one retrospective observation study demonstrated an increased EDLOS for patients who were triaged as life threatening or critical patients and managed in isolation for COVID 19 infection prevention and control precautions. The median (IQR) EDLOS was 4.3 (3.5,6.3) hours for the isolation group and 3.4 (2.1–4.9) hours for the non-isolation group, which was a difference of 54 minutes (P < 0.001) in the median EDLOS times. Isolation was independently associated with a 23% increase in EDLOS (P = 0.002) and doubled the odds of an ED stay of more than four hours (aOR 2.2 [1.4–3.4], P = 0.001).19 Several previous studies discussed only the general ED population that was not specific to PUI. Strong evidence of a connection between EDLOS and mortality risk in general ED patients was not found in an earlier study conducted by Boudi et al.20 Nevertheless, other negative outcomes of prolonged EDLOS were reported that included prolonged HLOS,21 increased risks of undesirable event, and missed a relevant home medication.22 During the pandemic era, the EDLOS was significantly shorter than normal due to a variation in patient flow, the lockdown, and hospital setup with better availability of resources and ED protocols.23 Also, in a study that showed no negative effect of prolonged EDLOS on patient mortality, the ED had sufficient capability to perform appropriate resuscitation protocols and had fewer incidences of overcrowding. Data during the pandemic era possibly resulted in shorter EDLOS due to early admission; therefore, we stratified the severity of illness based on the triage system and adjusted the causal model accordingly. The present investigation was carried out during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this unique circumstance, the short EDLOS possibly represented hospital policies that included the hospital management system and the flow of hospital patient care, which might not be applicable in regular or normal practice.

One frequent and significant component of ED practice that can cause delays in patient flow is interdepartmental consultation. Consultations can be for a variety of purposes that include admission, opinion only, special treatments, transfer of care, and outpatient referrals.24 The present study revealed that consultation of three departments had the greatest aOR that was statistically significant (aOR 27.3, 95% CI 2.42–309.71, P = 0.007). In our study, the median (IQR) age of all PUI was in the elderly age group (72.6 years [59.9,82.3]). Prolonged EDLOS was also linked to age >65 years. Older patients were more likely to be under-triaged because of non-specific symptoms or vital signs compared to younger patients, which could result in extended EDLOS.25 Due to multiple chronic diseases, exceptional physiology resulting in atypical presentations with delayed symptoms, unreliable vital signs in response to disease, and unpredictable physical examination results, elderly patients were likely to stay in the ED longer. Elderly patients needed more investigations, imaging studies, and consulting services.26 Our data collection represents the early stages of the first wave of COVID-19 that hit Thailand. During that time, the medical teams were instructed to wear complete personal protective equipment prior to any contact with PUI. Due to the strict hygiene protocol, N95 masks were constantly worn during the pandemic. The time needed for “donning” and “doffing” possibly delayed patient care especially when multiple department consultations were needed.

Emerging trends in emergency medicine indicate that telemedicine is a promising tool for streamlining emergency care. The development of telemedicine was one of the most significant shifts in emergency treatment during the COVID-19 epidemic. There are advantages and challenges in telehealth methods that are being implemented in emergency care.27 The use of remote consultation may facilitate decreasing EDLOS in PUI with specific disorders, but may have some limitations in evaluating clinical signs and symptoms in severe and critically ill patients. Telehealth methods need to be investigated further to confirm their validity.

In the study setting of this current research, the ESI triage system was used to categorize the severity of the patients. We found that ESI level 3 triage presented with an aOR of 2.31 for an EDLOS longer than four hours. In concordance with a previous study that compared patients assigned to higher acuity scores during the initial triage, patients with lower acuity ratings were more likely to experience a longer EDLOS.28 Prolonged EDLOS in patients with lower acuity scores may be explained by a variety of factors, such as a deteriorating clinical condition while the patient is in the ED, diagnostic uncertainty that requires additional diagnostic testing and specialist consultations, and lowering the priority of patients assigned to higher severity scores.29

The study period of the present study was conducted during the initial stage of a pandemic. The short EDLOS may reflect only the hospital policy that included the hospital management system and the flow of hospital care during a special event; therefore, it may not apply in normal or routine practice.

Limitations

Our study has some limitations. This was a single-center study, and our results may not be generalizable to other institutions. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature that resulted in selection bias due to the exclusion of patients with incomplete data. Furthermore, other possible confounders such terminal illness, duration of mechanical ventilation, and referral after admission were not taken into account in this study, which may have had an impact on the primary results.

Conclusion

Significant factors associated with prolonged EDLOS in PUI included consultation of three departments, ESI level 3, investigations >2, emergency department treatment, ED procedures, and discharged patients. The median durations of EDLOS and HLOS were 3.2 hours and 5.7 days, respectively. The EDLOS had no significant association with short-term mortality. The emergency department workflow for patients who present with ESI level 3, which requires multiple resources, needs to be optimized. A specific multidepartment consultation protocol would reduce ED stay with a positive impact on ED workflow. Future research should focus on the long-term outcomes of PUI with various EDLOS and assess the impact of particular healthcare system components on EDLOS and patient outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Ms. Kingkarn Waiyanak for article searches and retrieval, Ms. Jirawan Jayuphan, Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University for statistical assistance, and Glenn K. Shingledecker for his help in editing the manuscript.

Data Sharing Statement

The retrospective data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Author Contributions

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
==== Refs
References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) situation reports [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2021 [cited June 15, 2021.]. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports. Accessed September 13, 2024.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for disease control and prevention: cases in the US [Internet]; 2021 [cited June 15, 2022.]. Available from: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker. Accessed September 13, 2024.
3. Ministry of Public Health. Department of Disease Control. Corona virus disease (COVID-19) [Internet]; 2021 [cited July 19, 2022.]. Available from: https://ddc.moph.go.th/viralpneumonia/index.php. Accessed September 13, 2024.
4. Lucero A, Sokol K, Hyun J, et al. Worsening of emergency department length of stay during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2021;2 :e12489. doi:10.1002/emp2.12489 34189522
5. Sun BC, Hsia RY, Weiss RE, et al. Effect of emergency department crowding on outcomes of admitted patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61 :605–611. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.10.026 23218508
6. Da Costa Sousa V, Da Silva MC, De Mello MP, Guimarães JAM, Perini JA. Factors associated with mortality, length of hospital stay and diagnosis of COVID-19: data from a field hospital. J Infect Public Health. 2022;15 :800–805. doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2022.06.010 35753155
7. Chalfin DB, Trzeciak S, Likourezos A, Baumann BM, Dellinger RP. DELAY-ED study group. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients from the emergency department to the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2007;35 (6 ):1477–1483. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000266585.74905.5A 17440421
8. Singer AJ, Thode Jr HC, Viccellio P, Pines JM. The association between length of emergency department boarding and mortality. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18 (12 ):1324–1329. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01236.x 22168198
9. Department of Health. Health building note 15-01: accident & emergency departments. Planning and design guidance [Internet]; 2013 [cited June 15, 2022.]. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/15_01final3_v3.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2024.
10. Geelhoed GC, Klerk NH. Emergency department overcrowding, mortality and the 4‐hour rule in Western Australia. Med J Aust. 2012;196 :122–126. doi:10.5694/mja11.11159 22304606
11. Panitpichetvong K. Factor associated with length of stay more than 4 hours at the emergency department of Vachira Phuket Hospital. Reg 11 Med J. 2022;37 :47–61.
12. Thongphan T, Chantaphet C. Factors related with length of stay more than 8 hours at the emergency department of Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital. CDEM. 2020;1 :32–39.
13. Singh S, Koirala B, Thami R, et al. Length of stay in the emergency department during COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary care hospital: a descriptive cross-sectional study. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2021;59 :490–493. doi:10.31729/jnma.6281 34508425
14. O’Reilly GM, Mitchell RD, Mitra B, et al. Epidemiology and clinical features of emergency department patients with suspected COVID-19: insights from Australia’s ‘second wave’ (COVED-4). Emerg Med Australas. 2021;33 :331–342. doi:10.1111/1742-6723.13706 33315310
15. Kurihara S, Nakajima M, Kaszynski RH, et al. Prevalence of COVID-19 mimics in the emergency department. Intern Med. 2021;60 :3087–3092. doi:10.2169/internalmedicine.6434-20 34334560
16. Kim YS, Kim IB, Kim SR, Cho BJ. Changes in emergency department case severity and length of stay before and after COVID-19 outbreak in Korea. Healthcare. 2022;10 (8 ):1540. doi:10.3390/healthcare10081540 36011197
17. Ministry of Public Health. Department of disease control. Patient under investigation: PUI [Internet]; 2021 [cited July 19, 2022.]. Available from: https://ddc.moph.go.th/viralpneumonia/file/g_srrt/g_srrt_130463.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2024.
18. Lee KS, Min HS, Moon JY, et al. Patient and hospital characteristics predict prolonged emergency department length of stay and in-hospital mortality: a nationwide analysis in Korea. BMC Emerg Med. 2022;22 :183. doi:10.1186/s12873-022-00745-y 36411433
19. O’Reilly GM, Mitchell RD, Mitra B, et al. Impact of patient isolation on emergency department length of stay: a retrospective cohort study using the registry for emergency care. Emerg Med Australas. 2020;32 :1034–1039. doi:10.1111/1742-6723.13607 32794298
20. Boudi Z, Lauque D, Alsabri M, et al. Association between boarding in the emergency department and in-hospital mortality: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15 :e0231253. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231253 32294111
21. Lord K, Parwani V, Ulrich A, et al. Emergency department boarding and adverse hospitalization outcomes among patients admitted to a general medical service. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36 :1246–1248. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2018.03.043 29605480
22. Liu SW, Thomas SH, Gordon JA, Hamedani AG, Weissman JS. A pilot study examining undesirable events among emergency department–boarded patients awaiting inpatient beds. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54 :381–385. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.02.001 19303168
23. Cho SJ, Jeong J, Han S, et al. Decreased emergency department length of stay by application of a computerized consultation management system. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18 :398–402. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01039.x 21496143
24. Lee RS, Woods R, Bullard M, Holroyd BR, Rowe BH. Consultations in the emergency department: a systematic review of the literature. Emerg Med J. 2008;25 :4–9. doi:10.1136/emj.2007.051631 18156528
25. Grossmann FF, Zumbrunn T, Ciprian S, et al. Undertriage in older emergency department patients–tilting against windmills. PLoS One. 2014;9 :e106203. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106203 25153120
26. Spangler R, Van Pham T, Khoujah D, Martinez JP. Abdominal emergencies in the geriatric patient. Int J Emerg Med. 2014;7 :43. doi:10.1186/s12245-014-0043-2 25635203
27. Witkowska-Zimny M, Nieradko-Iwanicka B. Telemedicine in emergency medicine in the COVID-19 pandemic-experiences and prospects-A narrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19 :8216. doi:10.3390/ijerph19138216 35805873
28. Pitts SR, Pines JM, Handrigan MT, Kellermann AL. National trends in emergency department occupancy, 2001 to 2008: effect of inpatient admissions versus emergency department practice intensity. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60 :679–686.e3. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.05.014 22727201
29. Berg LM, Ehrenberg A, Florin J, Östergren J, Discacciati A, Göransson KE. Associations between crowding and ten-day mortality among patients allocated lower triage acuity levels without need of acute hospital care on departure from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;74 :345–356. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.04.012 31229391
