BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is a focus for emergency department (ED) and hospital administrators. ED patient satisfaction studies have tended to be single site and focused on patient and clinician factors. Inclusion of satisfaction scores in a large, national operations database provided an opportunity to conduct an investigation that included diverse operational factors. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2019 Academy of Administrators in Academic Emergency Medicine/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM/AACEM) benchmarking survey to identify associations between operational factors and patient satisfaction. We identified 59 database variables as potential predictors of Press Ganey likelihood-to-recommend and physician overall scores. Using random forest modeling, we identified the top eight predictors in the models and described their associations. RESULTS: Forty-three (57.3%) academic departments responding to the AAAEM/AACEM survey reported patient satisfaction scores for 78 EDs. Likelihood to recommend ranged from 30.0 to 93.0 (median = 74.8) and was associated with ED length of stay, boarding, use of hallway spaces, hospital annual admissions, faculty base clinical hours, proportion of patients leaving before treatment complete (LBTC), and provider in triage hours per day. Physician overall score ranged from 53.3 to 93.4 (median = 81.9) and was associated with faculty base clinical hours, x-ray utilization, annual ED arrivals, LBTC, use of hallway spaces, arrivals per attending hour, and CT utilization. CONCLUSIONS: ED patient satisfaction was associated with intrinsic and extrinsic factors, some being potentially manageable within the ED but others being relatively fixed or outside the control of ED operations. For likelihood to recommend, patient flow was dominant, with erosion of satisfaction observed with increased boarding and longer LOS. Factors associated with physician overall score were more varied. The use of hallway spaces and base clinical hours greater than 1,500 per year were associated with both lower likelihood-to-recommend and lower physician overall scores.

OBJECTIVES: The Academy of Administrators in Academic Emergency Medicine Benchmark Survey of academic emergency departments (EDs) was conducted in 2017. We compared operational measures between pediatric and adult (defined as fewer than 5% pediatric visits) EDs based on survey data. Emergency departments in dedicated pediatric hospitals were not represented. METHODS: Measures included: (1) patient volumes, length of stay, and acuity; and 2) faculty staffing, productivity, and percent effort in academics. t Tests were used to compare continuous measures and inferences for categorical variables were made using Pearson chi test. RESULTS: The analysis included 17 pediatric and 52 adult EDs. We found a difference in the number of annual visits between adult (median, 66,275; interquartile range [IQR], 56,184-77,702) and pediatric EDs (median, 25,416; IQR, 19,840-29,349) (P < 0.0001). Mean "arrivals per faculty clinical hour" and "total arrivals per treatment space" showed no differences. The proportion of visits (1) arriving by emergency medical services and (2) for behavioral health were significantly higher in adult EDs (both P < 0.0001). The mean length of stay in hours for "all" patients was significantly longer in adult (5.4; IQR, 5.0-6.6) than in pediatric EDs (3.5; IQR, 2.9-4.3; P = 0.017). A similar difference was found for "discharged" patients (P = 0.004). Emergency severity indices, professional evaluation and management codes, and hospitalization rates all suggest higher acuity in adult EDs (all P < 0.0001). There were no differences in mean work relative value units per patient or in the distribution of full time equivalent effort dedicated to academics. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, significant differences in operational measures exist between academic adult and pediatric EDs. No differences were found when considering per unit measures, such as arrivals per faculty clinical hour or per treatment space.

BACKGROUND: Academic and non-academic emergency departments (EDs) are regularly compared in clinical operations benchmarking despite suggestion that the two groups may differ in their clinical operations characteristics. and outcomes. We sought to describe and compare clinical operations characteristics of academic versus non-academic EDs. METHODS: We performed a descriptive, comparative analysis of academic and non-academic adult and general EDs with 40,000+ annual encounters, using the Academy of Academic Administrators of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM)/Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) and Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA) survey results. We defined academic EDs as primary teaching sites for emergency medicine (EM) residencies and non-academic EDs as sites with minimal resident involvement. We constructed the academic and non-academic cohorts from the AAAEM/AACEM and EDBA surveys, respectively, and analyzed metrics common to both surveys. RESULTS: Eighty and 454 EDs met inclusion criteria for academic and non-academic EDs, respectively. Academic EDs had more median annual patient encounters (73,001 vs 54,393), lower median proportion of pediatric patients (6.3% vs 14.5%), higher median proportion of EMS patients (27% vs 19%), and were more commonly designated as Level I or II Trauma Centers (94% vs 24%). Median patient arrival-to-provider times did not differ (26 vs 25 min). Median length-of-stay was longer (277 vs 190 min) for academic EDs, and left-before-treatment-complete was higher (5.7% vs 2.9%). MRI utilization was higher for academic EDs (2.2% patients with at least one MRI vs 1.0 MRIs performed per 100 patients). Patients-per-hour of provider coverage was lower for academic EDs with and without consideration for advanced practice providers and residents. CONCLUSIONS: Demographic and operational performance measures differ between academic and non-academic EDs, suggesting that the two groups may be inappropriate operational performance comparators. Causes for the differences remain unclear but the differences appear not to be attributed solely to the academic mission.

OBJECTIVES: The societal contribution of emergency care in the United States has been described. The role and impact of academic emergency departments (EDs) has been less clear. Our report summarizes the results of a benchmarking effort specifically focused on academic emergency medicine (EM) practices. METHODS: From October through December 2016, the Academy of Academic Administrators of Emergency Medicine (AAAEM) and the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) jointly administered a benchmarking survey to allopathic, academic departments and divisions of emergency medicine. Participation was voluntary and nonanonymous. The survey queried various aspects of the three components of the tripartite academic mission: clinical care, education and research, and faculty effort and compensation. Responses reflected a calendar year from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. RESULTS: Of 107 eligible U.S. allopathic, academic departments and divisions of emergency medicine, 79 (74%) responded to the survey overall, although individual questions were not always answered by all responding programs. The 79 responding programs reported 6,876,189 patient visits at 97 primary and affiliated academic clinical sites. A number of clinical operations metrics related to the care of these patients at these sites are reported in this study. All responding programs had active educational programs for EM residents, with a median of 37 residents per program. Nearly half of the overall respondents reported responsibility for teaching medical students in mandatory EM clerkships. Fifty-two programs reported research and publication activity, with a total of $129,494,676 of grant funding and 3,059 publications. Median faculty effort distribution was clinical effort, 66.9%; education effort, 12.7%; administrative effort, 12.0%; and research effort, 6.9%. Median faculty salary was $277,045. CONCLUSIONS: Academic EM programs are characterized by significant productivity in clinical operations, education, and research. The survey results reported in this investigation provide appropriate benchmarking for academic EM programs because they allow for comparison of academic programs to each other, rather than nonacademic programs that do not necessarily share the additional missions of research and education and may have dissimilar working environments.