Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Emergency department crowding: A systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions

  • Claire Morley ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

  • Maria Unwin,

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, Tasmanian Health Service–North, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia

  • Gregory M. Peterson,

    Roles Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Medicine, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

  • Jim Stankovich,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations School of Medicine, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, Department of Neurosciences, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

  • Leigh Kinsman

    Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, Tasmanian Health Service–North, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia



Emergency department crowding is a major global healthcare issue. There is much debate as to the causes of the phenomenon, leading to difficulties in developing successful, targeted solutions.


The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse and summarise the findings of peer-reviewed research studies investigating the causes and consequences of, and solutions to, emergency department crowding.


The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A structured search of four databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science) was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed research publications aimed at investigating the causes or consequences of, or solutions to, emergency department crowding, published between January 2000 and June 2018. Two reviewers used validated critical appraisal tools to independently assess the quality of the studies. The study protocol was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017073439).


From 4,131 identified studies and 162 full text reviews, 102 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority were retrospective cohort studies, with the greatest proportion (51%) trialling or modelling potential solutions to emergency department crowding. Fourteen studies examined causes and 40 investigated consequences. Two studies looked at both causes and consequences, and two investigated causes and solutions.


The negative consequences of ED crowding are well established, including poorer patient outcomes and the inability of staff to adhere to guideline-recommended treatment. This review identified a mismatch between causes and solutions. The majority of identified causes related to the number and type of people attending ED and timely discharge from ED, while reported solutions focused on efficient patient flow within the ED. Solutions aimed at the introduction of whole-of-system initiatives to meet timed patient disposition targets, as well as extended hours of primary care, demonstrated promising outcomes. While the review identified increased presentations by the elderly with complex and chronic conditions as an emerging and widespread driver of crowding, more research is required to isolate the precise local factors leading to ED crowding, with system-wide solutions tailored to address identified causes.


Emergency Department (ED) crowding has been described as both a patient safety issue and a worldwide public health problem [1]. While many countries, including Ireland [2], Canada [3], and Australia [4], report significant and unsustainable increases in ED presentations, a growing number of studies have found that these increases cannot be explained by population growth alone [46]. Crowding in the ED can occur due to the volume of patients waiting to be seen (input), delays in assessing or treating patients already in the ED (throughput), or impediments to patients leaving the ED once their treatment has been completed (output) [7]. Consequently, there are likely to be many different causes of crowding, depending on when and where in the patient journey the crowding occurs. Therefore, if the international crisis [8] of ED crowding is to be solved, it is crucial that interventions designed to resolve the problem are tailored to address identified causes.

Recognising that crowding had become a major barrier to patients receiving timely ED care, Asplin and colleagues [7], in 2003, issued a ‘call to arms’ to researchers and policy makers to focus their efforts on alleviating the problem. Many answered the call, and there now exists considerable published research addressing the ED crowding agenda. Despite this, and perhaps due to the relative lack of published studies investigating the causes of crowding, many myths seem to persist as to the drivers of the problem [9, 10], thereby making the implementation of successful, sustainable solutions difficult. A systematic and critical review of the available evidence can aid researchers, clinicians and managers to make decisions regarding the best course of action [11].

The most recent comprehensive synthesis of the literature, that we identified, investigating the causes, effects and solutions to ED crowding, was undertaken ten years ago (2008) [8]. With the fast changing pace of research in the emergency medicine arena, it was anticipated that in the intervening years there would have been many developments as regards identifying both causes and consequences of ED crowding, as well as the implementation of successful solutions. The aim of this review was to expand on and provide an updated critical analysis of the findings of peer-reviewed research studies exploring the causes or consequences of, or solutions to, ED crowding.


Definition of crowding

There is currently no consensus on the correct tool or unit of measurement to define ED crowding [12], with one systematic review identifying 71 unique measures currently in use [13]. We therefore elected to include papers that had used any of the most commonly accepted metrics. These included: ED length of stay (EDLOS), rates of ‘left without being seen’ (LWBS) or did not wait (DNW), hours of ambulance bypass/diversion, hours of access block/boarding hours, proportion of presentations meeting nationally mandated, timed patient disposition targets (e.g. the Australian National Emergency Access Target (NEAT), the UK 4-hour target or the NZ Shorter-stays-in-emergency-departments target), Emergency Department Work Index (EDWIN) score, National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale (NEDOCS) and ED census. Some studies used more than one of these measures as the dependent variable.

Search strategy

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed (S1 Table) [11]. A search was performed on four electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. Search terms used were: ‘emergency department’, ‘accident and emergency’, ‘ED’, ‘emergency service’ “AND” ‘crowding’, ‘overcrowding’, ‘utilisation’, ‘congestion’ “AND” “OR” ‘consequences’, ‘outcomes’, ‘harm’, ‘negative impact’, ‘mortality’, ‘causes’ ‘strategies’, ‘solutions’, ‘interventions’. All research published in the English language between January 2000 and June 2018 was eligible for inclusion. There was no restriction on types of studies, with quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies all eligible for inclusion. Studies had to satisfy the following inclusion criteria to be considered: full text original research articles, published in peer-reviewed journals, investigating the causes and/or consequences of, and/or solutions to, crowding in general EDs. As research suggests that crowding may have different effects in paediatric populations compared to adults [14], studies undertaken in paediatric EDs were excluded. Full details of the search strategy are available in supplementary material (S1 File).

Study selection, assessment and data extraction

One reviewer (CM) reviewed the titles and abstracts to identify relevant articles. Two reviewers (CM and MU) independently reviewed the full text articles to determine which of the studies met all of the inclusion criteria. Where consensus could not be reached by discussion, a third reviewer (LK) acted as adjudicator until unanimity was achieved. Two reviewers (CM and MU) used the Scottish Integrated Guidelines Network (SIGN) critical appraisal tools [15] to assess the quality of the studies. Four reviewers worked in two pairs (MU and GP, LK and JS), using a standardised form, to extract data from the included studies. Extracted data included study design, setting and population, sample size, primary and secondary outcomes, and whether consequences affected staff, patients or the system, and causes and solutions were related to input, throughput or output factors. Disagreements were resolved by discussion until a consensus was reached, with the fifth reviewer (CM) available to act as arbitrator, if required. Details of the protocol for this systematic review were registered on PROSPERO [16] (S2 File).


The database search returned 5,766 articles. Thirteen additional articles were added after searching the reference lists from identified studies, leaving a total of 4,131 articles after duplicates were removed. After the initial review of titles and abstracts, 162 full text articles were retrieved for full review, with 102 of these satisfying all of the inclusion criteria, and therefore included in the final review (Fig 1).

Study characteristics

The majority of studies were quantitative (95%) and retrospective in nature (87%), with eight prospective studies included, four each for studies investigating consequences [1720] or solutions [2124]. Four randomised control trials evaluating potential solutions were included [2528], with the remaining studies being mixed-methods or statistical modelling. The majority of studies were from the USA (47%), Australia (18%) and Canada (9%), with 72% of studies having been published in the previous ten years (2009–2018). The largest proportion of studies addressed either the solutions to (51%) or consequences of (39%) ED crowding (Tables 1 and 2). Only 14 included studies (14%) investigated potential causes (Table 3). Two studies looked at both causes and consequences [29, 30], and two studies investigated causes and potential solutions [20, 31].

Table 1. Studies investigating potential solutions to reduce ED crowding (n = 52).

Table 2. Studies investigating potential consequences of ED crowding (n = 40).

Table 3. Studies investigating potential causes of ED crowding (n = 14).

Study quality

The SIGN appraisal tools guidelines [15] recommend that all retrospective or single cohort studies receive a rating of no higher than ‘acceptable’. Consequently, the majority of the included studies (59%) were rated as being of acceptable quality. The remaining studies were rated as high (7%) and low (34%) quality. The main area of weakness was inadequate consideration of potential confounders, leading to uncertainty about claims of cause and effect. The level of statistical analysis was often basic, with confidence intervals frequently absent in the reporting of results and few multivariate analyses. Similarly, although percentage and time improvements were frequently noted, often there was no indication whether or not the improvement values were statistically significant. Two survey studies [29, 30], one focus group study [31], and two interview studies [20, 24] without confirmatory numerical data, were also included. Furthermore, with the exception of one study [19], all of the 40 studies that investigated the consequences of crowding reported negative effects. Similarly, all included studies evaluating potential solutions, with two exceptions [57, 58], reported significant improvements in measures of crowding, leading to questions about the potential for publication bias in this area of research. As regards the solution studies, in many cases it was not possible nor advisable to blind clinicians to the interventions. This makes them vulnerable to the Hawthorne effect, whereby an initiative improves outcomes as participants are aware that their practice is being observed and therefore modify their behaviour. However, for the majority of the interventions in this type of health services improvement research it could be unethical to undertake a blinded randomised control trial.

Consequences of ED crowding

Forty of the included studies examined the consequences of ED crowding, with three of these being prospective [18, 19, 81] (Table 2). Almost all were undertaken in single EDs and reported negative consequences associated with ED crowding. The included studies investigating the consequences of ED crowding can be broadly categorised into patient, staff or system level effects (Table 4).


Effects on patients included delays in being assessed and receiving required care [29, 30, 7679, 81, 83, 84, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98, 103, 104], increased frequency of exposure to error [18], including medication errors [17], reduced patient satisfaction [102], increased inpatient length of stay (IPLOS) [82, 88, 95, 99, 101] and poorer outcomes [29, 30, 75, 92, 107]; the latter included increased inpatient mortality [3, 80, 85, 96, 99101].

Delayed assessment and treatment.

A significant delay in time to balloon inflation for patients experiencing an acute myocardial infarction and transferred to the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) from the ED during times of crowding, was identified in one American retrospective cohort study [81]. Similarly, delays in undergoing surgery for patients presenting to crowded EDs with a fractured neck of femur, were identified in one Australian study [97]. A number of studies investigated the effects of crowding on time to medication administration in the ED. Findings were predominantly adverse, with crowding associated with delays in time to receive analgesic [79, 87, 91, 93] and antibiotic therapy [76, 77, 89, 90, 98], as well as delays in patients receiving their usual prescribed or ‘home’ medications [83]. Two studies reported negative impacts of crowding on timely care for patients with acute stroke [94, 103]. One study reported significant delays in triage times, with a significant number of patients not assigned any triage score in times of crowding [104].

Exposure to error.

One American prospective observational study identified an increased frequency of medication errors, including the administration of incorrect and contraindicated medications, during times of crowding [17]. As well as delays in receiving medication, three studies reported an association between crowding and total failure to administer required analgesics or antibiotics [87, 90, 91]. ED crowding was independently associated with increased rates of blood culture contamination in one Taiwanese study, with the rate of contamination strongly correlated with the degree of crowding [18].

Increased IPLOS.

All of the five studies examining the relationship between ED crowding and IPLOS reported a positive association [82, 88, 95, 99, 101]. One Australian study compared the effect of access block on the IPLOS of 11,906 admitted patients, and reported a mean increased IPLOS of 0.8 days in patients who experienced access block [95]. Richardson’s study highlighted that the access block effect on IPLOS was relatively independent of illness severity or diagnosis, but was greatest in patients admitted in the out-of-hours period [95]. Similarly, Sun and colleagues reported a 0.8% increase in IPLOS for patients admitted via an ED which was experiencing crowding, defined by this group as the top quartile of the daily number of ambulance diversion hours [101].

Increased inpatient mortality.

Although the majority of papers investigating the effects of ED crowding on inpatient mortality reported that as crowding worsened mortality increased, three studies found no relationship [19, 75, 77]. Two of the studies were focussed on specific groups of patients, namely patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI) [75] and patients with severe sepsis [77]. The third study, undertaken in a tertiary teaching hospital in Belgium, was the only prospective study included in this review that specifically investigated inpatient mortality [19]. Verelst and colleagues measured the outcomes of 32,866 adult patients admitted via the ED over a two-year period. They divided crowding into four quartiles, based on the ratio of the total number of ED patients to the total number of treatment bays, with quartile four considered as ED crowding. After adjusting for severity of illness they reported no association between ED crowding and risk of inpatient mortality at 10 days [19].

Conversely, the seven retrospective studies that investigated the effect of ED crowding on inpatient mortality all reported that mortality increased as crowding worsened [3, 80, 85, 96, 99101]. The varying results can be partially explained by differences in study designs, making it difficult to compare findings between studies. There were wide-ranging differences in measures of crowding, with daily hours of ambulance diversion [101], boarding time for admitted patients [99], mean ED occupancy [96], EDLOS [3] and relative ED occupancy [80, 85] variously applied as proxy measures of crowding. Similarly, there were differences in study populations, with most studies including all adult admitted patients [96, 99101]. However, one study included only critically ill admitted patients [80], another included admitted and discharged patients [85], and another study considered only the outcomes for patients discharged from the ED [3]. However, Verelst et al. justified their finding of no association between ED crowding and increased risk of inpatient mortality as being due to their large sample size, controlling for multiple confounders and their use of a validated measure of crowding, in this case ED occupancy rate [19].


Identified negative effects on staff included increased stress [29], increased exposure to violence [29, 86], and non-adherence to best practice guidelines during times of ED overcrowding [18, 7579, 8991, 93, 94, 98, 103, 104]. Arguably, the latter could also be positioned with consequences for patients, but here we use it in the context of staff being unable to properly undertake their roles during times of increased crowding.

Increased stress and violence.

In a Canadian survey study of 158 ED directors, increased stress among nurses was the most commonly perceived major or serious impact of ED crowding [29]. Staff stress was identified by more participants as an issue than increased wait times or poor patient outcomes. Increased physician stress was also identified as being driven by crowding [29]. A significant association between ED crowding and violence towards staff was reported in one study involving a retrospective chart review [86]. Physical violence was the most frequently documented type, with violence directed towards staff the majority of the time [86].

Adherence to guidelines.

Poor adherence to approved guidelines was reported to be a consequence of ED crowding in 13 studies [18, 7579, 8991, 93, 94, 98, 103]. Increased time to assessment of pain and/or delays in administration of analgesics were found to be positively associated with ED crowding in all four studies investigating this issue [78, 79, 91, 93]. Similarly, of six studies investigating the effects of crowding on time to antibiotic therapy initiation, five identified a positive association between delayed time to administration and ED crowding [76, 77, 89, 90, 98]. One American study, involving the analysis of data from a voluntary registry tracking guideline adherence, found that patients with non-STEMI who boarded for long periods of time in the ED were less likely to receive guideline-recommended therapies and were at higher risk for repeat MI [75].


System-level consequences identified were those that led to ‘bottle-necks’ in the system, namely increases in length of stay (LOS), both within the ED itself (EDLOS) [29, 84, 105, 106] and also for those patients admitted to the hospital (IPLOS) [82, 88, 95, 99, 101]. Again, these could also be viewed as consequences for patients.

Increased EDLOS.

The three studies that investigated the impact of crowding on EDLOS reported that EDLOS increased with increased crowding. An American, multi-site, retrospective cohort study investigated the effect of crowding on the EDLOS of 226,534 ED presentations at four sites over 12 months [84]. McCarthy and colleagues reported that (i) the number of patients in the waiting room had the greatest impact on time spent in the waiting room, (ii) the number of boarders in the ED was the most consistent factor associated with delays in ED care and (iii) more positively, ED crowding had little effect on time to treatment [84]. While studying only the outcomes in terms of EDLOS of discharged patients, White et al. reported a 10% increase in EDLOS for patients who presented during times of crowding, defined by this group as the top quartile of boarder burden [105]. One Swedish study reported significant increases in median EDLOS for both high and low acuity patients presenting with one of the ten principal medical or surgical complaints during times of crowding [106].

Increased IPLOS.

As reported under patient effects previously, all of the studies examining the relationship between ED crowding and IPLOS reported a positive association [82, 88, 95, 99, 101]. It should be noted that in the literature this is generally taken to mean that ED crowding leads to increases in IPLOS; however, as is the case with all observational studies, this type of research can only identify an association between EDLOS and IPLOS rather than identifying with any certainty a causative relationship in either direction. For instance, long IPLOS could reduce the availability of beds for patients in ED waiting to be admitted, thereby worsening ED crowding. This limitation is identified in the majority, but not all, of the observational studies included in this review.

Causes of ED crowding

Fourteen included studies investigated potential causes of ED crowding. The majority were retrospective cohort or data analysis studies, with four qualitative explorations [20, 2931], and two data modelling studies [113, 117] (Table 3). Using the conceptual model of ED crowding developed by Asplin et al. [7], which divides ED crowding into three interdependent components, the studies that focussed on the causes of crowding can be broadly categorised as identifying input, throughput or output causes (Table 5).


Causes of crowding related to the input phase of the ED process suggested increases in types of presentations, including those with urgent and complex needs [20, 2931, 108], low-acuity presentations (LAPs) [29, 117], and presentations by the elderly [20, 31, 114, 115], as the main drivers. Access to appropriate care outside of the ED was identified as an issue in four studies [29, 31, 109, 117].

Types of presentations.

Increased complexity and acuity of patients were perceived to be a cause of ED crowding by 54% of respondents in one American survey study [29]. A similar finding was replicated in an interview study comparing perceived causes of crowding in the Netherlands and Pakistan [20]. Similarly, a 4.6% annual average increase in ED presentations over a six-year period was attributed to increases in presentations of people with urgent and complex care needs, in a population-based longitudinal study in one Australian state [108]. Aboagye-Sarfo and colleagues reported significant increases in presentations allocated Australian Triage Score (ATS) 2 and 3 (high acuity), as well as increases in patients requiring admission, and found that a greater proportion of patients admitted over the six-year period were aged 65 years and older [108]. Increased ED presentations by the elderly, as a factor contributing to crowding was a finding of two Canadian studies, one a retrospective cohort study [115] and the other exploratory field work involving seven focus groups with key ED staff [31]. Likewise, a Japanese study that undertook a cross-sectional analysis of all adult ED presentations at one ED concluded that older people in the ED had a significant negative impact on ED crowding [114]. Kawano et al. reported that crowding worsened as the mean age of patients in the ED increased [114].

Conversely, two studies reported that increased presentations by patients with LAPs was a driver of ED crowding [29, 117]. One was the result of survey research with 158 ED directors [29], while the other was the result of statistical modelling undertaken using the results of a large number of surveys exploring Canadian health system utilisation [117]. Moineddin et al. reported that improved access to primary care could significantly reduce the odds of ED presentations for patients with LAPs [117].

Access to other forms of care.

Poor access to primary care was identified as a cause of ED crowding in four studies [29, 31, 109, 117]. A large UK study that used a cross-sectional, population-based design to investigate whether timely access to GP care led to fewer self-referred ED visits, reported an association. The model developed by this group predicted 10.2% fewer self-referred ED visits for those GP practices ranked in the top quintile for access, with patients able to secure a GP appointment within two days less likely to self-refer to the ED with low acuity conditions [109]. Similarly, a Canadian study concluded that having access to a primary care provider had the potential to reduce non-urgent ED visits (patients allocated triage categories 4 or 5) by 40% [117].


ED nursing staff shortages as a cause of ED crowding was highlighted in exploratory fieldwork undertaken with 158 ED directors in Canada [31], and in one American study that surveyed 210 ED directors [30]. Adding one junior doctor to a shift increased the EDLOS for discharged patients by one minute, while having no statistically significant effect on EDLOS for admitted patients, in one Japanese study that modelled the effect of additional staff on EDLOS [113]. One interview study that compared the views of ED staff in the Netherlands and Pakistan on causes of crowding identified delays in receiving laboratory test results and delays in patient disposition decisions as issues in both countries [20]. These low quality, predominantly opinion-based studies, were the only included publications to suggest a throughput cause for crowding.


All studies that reported on output factors as a cause of ED crowding concluded that access block, that is, the inability to transfer a patient out of the ED to an inpatient bed once their ED treatment has been completed, was the major contributor [20, 2931, 110112, 116].

Access block.

Two studies analysed both ED and inpatient datasets to understand the relationship between hospital occupancy, access block and ED crowding [111, 112]. The Canadian study reported a significant relationship between ED crowding and hospital occupancy, with a 10% increase in hospital occupancy leading to an 18 minute increase in average EDLOS [112]. The Australian group found a linear relationship between ED occupancy during periods of hospital access block and total ED occupancy, with a similar relationship noted between access block and ambulance diversion and EDLOS, two other commonly used indicators of crowding [111]. An American multi-site, retrospective cohort study reported a significant positive relationship between mean EDLOS for both intensive care and telemetry bed census, but did not find a significant relationship between ED crowding and total hospital census [116]. Lucas et al. acknowledged that EDLOS is likely to be impacted by total hospital census in times of high occupancy (>90%) but as the majority of their study was undertaken on days of occupancy <90%, the study would have been unable to detect this association [116].

One small Australian study used a novel approach to investigate the effect of access block on crowding. A short period (13 days) of industrial action led to the cancellation of all elective surgery and therefore to significant improvements in bed availability for ED admitted patients [110]. Dunn compared ED performance during the time of increased bed access with a 13-day period prior to and a 13-day period after the industrial action. When there was no elective surgery and an associated reduction in hospital occupancy, there were significant reductions in access block days, EDLOS for patients allocated triage categories 2–5 (ATS 1 excluded from analysis), and patients who did not wait for treatment [110]. Similarly, results of survey research with ED directors [29, 30] and multi-site, focus group research with key ED staff [31], highlighted lack of inpatient bed availability as one of the main perceived causes of ED crowding.

Solutions to ED crowding

Fifty-two of the included studies trialled, modelled or suggested potential solutions to ED crowding. The majority were retrospective, with four RCTs [2528], one statistical modelling [64], and four prospective interventional studies [2123, 38] (Table 1). Again, Asplin’s [7] conceptual model can be used to categorise the studies that investigated potential solutions to crowding in the ED (Table 6).


Input factors focused on improved access to other forms of care, such as GP-led walk-in centres (WIC) [32, 33], a co-located GP within or near EDs [64], extended GP opening hours [37, 43, 58, 72] or providing a choice of ED [64]. Results of a number of social interventions were trialled over a 12 year period in one study from Singapore [32].

Co-located GPs and walk-in centres.

The effect of a co-located GP on duration of wait for triage category 2 (high acuity) patients in the ED was modelled in one Australian study [64]. Sharma and Inder reported a 19% lower wait time for category 2 patients in EDs with a co-located GP, when compared to EDs without a GP [64]. The impact of a GP-led WIC on demand for ED care was the focus of one UK study [33]. This group used linear modelling to estimate the effect of the WIC on daytime GP-type attendances to other urgent care services in the area. A significant reduction of 8.3% in GP-type presentations to adult EDs was reported [33]. Opening of a WIC in Singapore was found to have no effect on ED presentations as the authors reported that the WICs attracted their own clientele who were unlikely to have attended the ED [32].

Increased GP opening hours.

Another UK group evaluated the impact of a pilot 7-day opening of GP practices in central London [43]. Their analysis highlighted a significant, 17.9% reduction in weekend ED attendances by patients registered with practices involved in the pilot program. Dolton and Pathania also reported both a 19% fall in admissions among the elderly and a 29% reduction in elderly cases arriving by ambulance [43]. Similarly, another UK study that investigated the effect of later opening hours and 7-day opening of GP practices reported a 26% relative reduction in patients registered with the intervention practices self-referring to EDs with minor problems [72]. The opening of an after-hours (AH) GP located in a large regional Australian town, serviced by one ED and with limited AH services, resulted in a significant 8.2% daily decrease in total ED presentations of patients allocated ATS 4 and 5 (low acuity) [37]. Buckley et al. also reported an unexplained increase in ED presentations of those allocated ATS 1–3 (high acuity), of 1.36 per day, but that the opening of the AH service led to a ‘gradual permanent change’ in ED presentations [37].

Conversely, another Australian study that modelled the effect of AHs GPs on LAPs to six EDs in Perth, Western Australia, concluded that providing AHs GP LAP services was unlikely to reduce ED attendance, as LAPs were an ‘inexpensive but constant part of ED workload’ [58].

Social interventions.

A study that reported on a number of social intervention trialled in Singapore over a 12 –year period reported mixed results. Public education campaigns were found to be effective initially but presentations reverted to pre-campaign levels some months after the end of each campaign [32]. Implementation of financial disincentives for non-emergency presentations began to reduce presentations once the fee exceeded the fees charged by primary health care clinics [32]. Redirection of non-emergencies to alternate facilities was successful initially, but was discontinued due to adverse public relations incidents [32].


The majority of studies (60%) that reported on potential solutions to ED crowding focussed on expediting patients’ throughput within the ED. These potential solutions mainly concentrated on ‘front-ending’ care earlier in the patient journey by providing earlier physician assessment [21, 23, 38, 50, 63, 65, 67, 71], including physician-led triage [25, 40, 45, 47, 60]. Dividing patients by level of acuity on arrival has also been successful in increasing throughput times, whether by opening a fact-track or flexible care area for lower acuity presenters [42, 55], or dividing patients within the same triage code [34]. Other throughput interventions included reducing the turnaround-time of laboratory tests [26, 27, 52, 53, 66], the introduction of an ED nurse flow coordinator [35, 44, 69], increasing medical and nursing staff numbers in the ED [69], bedside registration immediately following triage [68], nurse initiated protocols [28], strategies to ensure earlier review by admitting teams [49] and increasing bed numbers in the ED [57, 69].

Early physician assessment.

Eight included papers investigated the effects of early physician assessment on measures of ED crowding [21, 23, 38, 50, 63, 65, 67, 71]. Seven of these studies reported significant decreases in EDLOS [21, 23, 38, 63, 65, 67, 71], while four reported significant decreases in numbers of patients who either LWBS or DNW [23, 38, 67, 71]. One Australian group introduced a suite of interventions to improve throughput and output within their large tertiary ED, which had previously been named as the worst preforming ED in Australia in terms of its NEAT ‘4-hour-rule’ compliance [67]. Sullivan et al. also reported significant reductions in inpatient mortality rates between baseline and the post-reform period.

Conversely, when one Dutch urban ED initiated Medical Team Evaluation as a means of improving ‘front-end operations’ through a host of initiatives, including team triage and a quick registration process, results showed a significant increase in EDLOS for patients in triage categories 2–4, regardless of discharge destination [50]. Lauks and colleagues attributed this rise to the increase in orders for diagnostic radiology during the intervention period [50].

Five groups investigated the effect of a physician in triage (PIT) model on common ED crowding metrics [25, 40, 45, 47, 60]. Although the interventions were slightly different, all involved a senior physician triaging patients early in their arrival to the ED. All reported a significant reduction in EDLOS post implementation; however, one found this decrease to apply only for patients who were subsequently discharged [45]. Han and colleagues did report an increase in boarding time for admitted patients during the intervention period, a potential reason for the intervention having little effect on EDLOS for admitted patients [45]. Only one study reported a significant decrease in patients who left without being seen [40], and two studies reported significant reductions in the number of hours on ambulance bypass during the intervention period [45, 47]. Significant decreases in both 7-day and 30-day mortality post ED visit were also reported by Burström et al. after the introduction of a PIT scheme [40].

Fast-track and flexible-care areas.

Fast-track [42] or use of a flexible-care area [55] to improve flow within the ED were reported in two papers. Both of these studies reported significant reductions in EDLOS for triage category 4 (low acuity) patients only. As the majority of patients diverted to these areas were triaged as category 4, it is not surprising that the intervention had the greatest effect in this patient group. The fast-track group also reported significant improvements in meeting national standards for wait times for patients triaged as category 4 [42]. Similarly, an American group that geographically separated triage category 3 patients with low variability (that is, with conditions likely to follow a standardised work flow), in order to fast-track these patients through the department, reported significant decreases in EDLOS for all category 3 and 4 discharged patients [34]. Arya and colleagues attributed the decreased LOS for higher variability category 3 patients to the decreased throughput of patients through the urgent area of the ED, thereby reducing the workload of staff in this area [34].

Reducing laboratory test turnaround-times.

Reducing the time taken to turnaround laboratory tests as a means of reducing EDLOS was investigated in four studies. Three studies reported on the use of point-of-care testing (POCT) in the ED versus central laboratory pathology testing [26, 52, 53], while one employed dedicated laboratory technicians within the central laboratory who were available 24/7 to undertake all laboratory testing for the ED [66]. All four studies reported significant reductions in EDLOS attributed to the interventions, although one noted that the reduction in EDLOS was only significant if patients had all three available tests performed [52]. One American group undertook a RCT to assess the impact of earlier initiation of diagnostic tests whilst triage category 3 patients with abdominal pain were in the waiting room [27]. Begaz and colleagues reported a significant 44 minute reduced mean EDLOS for patients randomised to the intervention versus the control arm of the trial [27].

ED nurse flow coordinator.

The introduction of a senior nurse (emergency journey coordinator), focussed on identifying and resolving delays for patients who had been in the ED for 2–3 hours, led to a 4.9% significant increase in the number of patients meeting NEAT targets in one Australian ED [35]. Similarly, a nurse navigator role trialled as part of a non-RCT reported significant increases in the proportion of patients meeting NEAT time and reductions in mean EDLOS during days when the trial was operational [44]. A NZ group, who investigated the impact of nationally mandated times for patient disposition at four hospitals, reported the introduction of nurse flow coordinators at all four institutions as one of many interventions introduced to successfully reduce crowding [69].


Bedside registration immediately following triage, occurring concurrently with physician evaluation, resulted in a significant decrease in time from triage to treatment room allocation for non-urgent patients, in one American before-after intervention study [68]. However, after an initial significant reduction in room-to-disposition time, this improvement was not sustained to 12 months after the intervention [68]. Three of six nurse-initiated protocols were reported to significantly reduce mean EDLOS in one American study [28]. A Korean study that used short text message reminders when ED patients waited more than two and more than four hours for inpatient consultations resulted in a significant 36 minute reduction in median EDLOS for admitted patients [49]. The expansion of the ED from 33 to 53 beds, with no changes to staffing ratios, resulted in a significant 20 hours per day increase in ED boarding in one American study [57]. Conversely, in one NZ study, provision of extra ED beds in three out of the four hospitals studied, as well as the provision of additional ED nursing and medical staff, resulted in a decreased median EDLOS [69].


Solutions looking at output factors exclusively focused on getting admitted patients out of the ED in a timely manner once their ED assessment and treatment was complete, that is, reducing access block. Suggested and trialled strategies included more active bed management [20, 36, 39, 46], leadership support to expedite hospital admissions from the ED [24, 39, 69] including leadership programs [61, 67], and implementation of nationally mandated timed disposition targets [48, 59, 62, 67, 69], which have included; giving ED staff admitting rights [63, 67], ensuring admitting teams prioritise patients waiting in the ED during times of high ED census [67], and increasing inpatient bed capacity [69]. Alternative admission units, including an ED-managed, acute care unit [22] and flexible acute admission units [51, 69, 70], have also been trialled. Implementation of an independent or full capacity program to provide alternative options for admission in times of crowding has been trialled in two studies [41, 73].

Bed management.

An active bed management strategy to alleviate ED crowding was evaluated by one American study [46]. The initiative resulted in a 98 minute average reduction in EDLOS for admitted patients, as well as a reduction in the number of hours the hospital was on alert, in this case limiting the types of patients that could be transported by ambulance to the ED [46]. The intervention strategy involved introducing a bed manager who assessed bed availability in real time and who could triage and admit patients to inpatient beds, and a bed director who could call on other resources, including extra staff or admitting medical patients to non-medical beds, to avoid the hospital being put on alert [46]. Similarly, an intervention that included the implementation of a position to ensure timely identification and allocation of beds, coupled with improved communication and education for staff around a new bed management strategy, resulted in a mean 21% decrease in EDLOS for admitted patients, and a 52% reduction in mean boarding time in one American ED [36]. When ED patients were given priority over inpatient beds, as one of a number of quality improvement initiatives to reduce crowding in one American study, there was a significant reduction in median time from bed assignment to disposition and significant reductions in median EDLOS [39].

Leadership programs and leadership support.

One American hospital convened hospital leaders and ED staff to work collaboratively to expedite hospital admissions from the ED [61]. This group introduced a computerised tracking system to ensure the ability for real time tracking of ED admit wait times. The group agreed to measurable goals in terms of the time between the decision to admit and final transfer to an inpatient bed. Patel and colleagues reported a significant 16% increase in patients transferred to an inpatient bed within 60 minutes of the decision to admit [61]. The group also reported significant decreases in boarding time, patients who LWBS and hours of ambulance diversion [61]. An Australian group also convened a taskforce with senior executive sponsorship to provide oversight and direction for initiatives to improve hospital admission targets [67]. Results of this initiative have been discussed under throughput solutions above and access targets, below. An American study that endeavoured to identify the different strategies used by high preforming, low preforming and improving hospitals, in relation to their levels of ED crowding found that no specific interventions were related to performance level [24]. They did, however, report that four organisational domains were associated with high preforming hospitals, one of which was executive leadership involvement [24]. Tenbensel and colleagues reported that leadership involvement in influencing cultural change was a key factor in implementing hospital-wide initiatives to meet mandated, timed admission targets in NZ [69].

Introduction of nationally mandated, timed, patient disposition targets.

Six studies have recently reported on the effect of timed patient disposition targets on commonly reported ED crowding measures [48, 54, 59, 62, 67, 69]. One Australian study reported hospital-wide education to increase awareness of NEAT in the six months prior to its implementation as the only intervention [62]. Perera et al. reported a significant increase in the number of patients leaving the ED within the guideline recommended 4-hours, post-NEAT implementation, which was sustained in their second evaluation period, one-year post-implementation [62]. A significant reduction in access block was also reported. However, this group also found a significant increase in IPLOS and in the numbers of inter-unit transfers within 48 hours of admission. They attributed this to the possibility of ‘rushed referrals’ by ED staff in an effort to meet NEAT targets [62].

Conversely, Sullivan et al. report on a plethora of reforms introduced at their large, tertiary referral hospital [67]. These included reforms both within the ED itself, as well as hospital-wide interventions. Many of these initiatives were aimed at reducing access block in the ED, such as: ED staff able to organise direct admission for stable patients, clear limits on response times to ED referrals by inpatient teams, and improved processes for timely discharge of inpatients [67]. As discussed under throughput solutions above, this group reported significant decreases in EDLOS and inpatient mortality [67]. The only negative outcome reported by this group was a small, but statistically significant, increase in re-presentations to the ED within 48 hours, which was seen by the researchers to be clinically insignificant [67].

Ngo and colleagues reported on a longitudinal analysis of the effect of NEAT on five hospitals in Western Australia, without giving the specifics of interventions introduced at each hospital prior to NEAT implementation [59]. Similar to the above studies, they reported significant reductions in percentage of access block hours in all five hospitals and significant decreases in median EDLOS, primarily for high acuity (ATS 1–3) patients, at three out of the five hospitals [59]. The UK study did not give the specifics of interventions but stated that a whole-system approach was expected to be adopted to achieve the target [54]. Mason et al. reported a 29% reduction in the proportion of patients who remained in the ED after four hours as well as a 25% reduction in unadjusted median EDLOS for admitted patients [54].

The NZ studies also reported reductions in median EDLOS post target implementation [48, 69]. One study reported on the outcomes in relation to when they had the biggest impact and their success in relation to the increased use of short-stay units (SSU) [69]. Tenbensel and colleagues found that after an initial reduction in total EDLOS (time in ED plus time in SSU), this reduction slowed in later years, indicating an increased reliance on the use of SSUs to meet target disposition times [69]. Their interview data indicated that transfer to a SSU was sometimes initiated without clinical justification in an effort to meet targets. Nevertheless, they acknowledged that from a patient perspective, time in the SSU is preferable to a longer EDLOS [69]. Jones et al. determined a priori quantitative changes that were deemed to be of clinical importance, regardless of statistical significance [48]. They reported clinically significant reductions in median IPLOS, median EDLOS, and access block hours [48]. Although there was no change in 2-day ED representations, they did report a clinically significant 1% increase in 30-day readmissions. Similar to Tenbensel and colleagues [69], Jones et al. reported an increase in use of SSUs, with < 5% of ED admissions to SSUs in 2009 (pre implementation) versus almost 13% in 2012 [48]. However, the latter study found statistically and clinically significant reductions in total EDLOS, which was greatest for admitted patients, indicating that the SSUs were not merely used to ‘stop the clock’.

Alternative admission policies.

One American study explored the impact of a 14-bed monitored inpatient unit, staffed by the ED, on ED crowding [22]. Kelen and colleagues reported significant decreases in both rates of LWBS and hours of ambulance diversion [22]. Similarly, a Taiwanese study reported significant reductions in mean EDLOS for admitted patients after the introduction of a 14-bedded ‘high turnover’ unit, specifically used for ED admissions [51]. Utilising empty beds throughout the hospital in the out-of-hours period to accommodate non-specialist admissions to reduce EDLOS and avoid the need for inter-hospital transfers was trialled in one Dutch hospital [70]. The group reported no change in the EDLOS for patients eligible for admission to the new model, at a time when EDLOS for other patients increased significantly [70]. Providing the ED with extra assistance from hospital leaders and specialists during times of crowding in order to expedite patient disposition from the ED has been reported in two studies (capacity protocols) [41, 73]. The Korean study, which was investigating the long-term effects of the protocol, as it had been in place for six years, reported significant reductions in EDLOS [41]. Conversely, the American study, which reported on the effect of a relatively new intervention, reported a significant 34 minute increase in EDLOS on days when the full capacity protocol was operational [73]. They also reported a 92% significant decrease in hours of ambulance diversion related to the intervention [73].


Consequences of crowding

A key finding of this review is that the consequences of ED crowding are well established. Reported consequences can be categorised as affecting patients, staff and the healthcare system, with some overlap. Some of the negative effects of crowding identified, such as adverse outcomes for patients, including treatment delays and increased mortality, were similar to those identified in Hoot’s review [8]. However, the previous review identified provider losses as a potential negative effect [8], a finding that was not replicated in the current review. Similarly, Hoot et al. reported impaired access to ED care, as measured by rates of LWBS and ambulance bypass, as potential consequences [8], whereas both of these measures were used as indicators of crowding in the current study.

The quality of the studies investigating consequences of crowding were variable, with only one high quality, prospective study included [19]. This was also the only study that did not find a link between crowding and the primary outcome measure, in this case increased inpatient mortality [19]. It did appear that the authors of some of the lower quality studies were determined to prove a negative consequence between ED crowding and their outcome of interest. For example, Kulstad and Kelly [81] concluded that crowding decreased the likelihood of timely treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), when their study showed no relationship between crowding and time to first electrocardiogram or time to arrival in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL), which are the time stamps that ED staff have most influence over. Their study found a relationship between crowding and time to balloon inflation in the CCL, a delay that is presumably outside of the control of the ED [81].

Similarly, Hwang and colleagues [78] concluded that crowding is significantly associated with poorer pain management. Their study identified a negative association between crowding and time to assessment and documentation of pain, but no relationship to time to analgesic administration, that is, the outcome that affects patient care [78]. Rather than identifying negative outcomes for patients who present to crowded EDs, both of these studies could be taken to show the opposite. That is, that even when the ED is under stress, patients identified as having urgent clinical needs, such as those suffering from an AMI or being in severe pain, still receive appropriate, timely care. We acknowledge that the complexity of health services research provides challenges in terms of research design, often influencing investigators decisions’ to measure outcomes for which data is easily accessible. However, care needs to be taken when designing studies and interpreting results to ensure reported outcomes are robust and reflect the most appropriate measure of the phenomena under study.

Solutions to crowding

Trialled and modelled solutions to ED crowding included providing alternative options to the ED for patient care, moving patients through the ED more quickly and expediting patients’ exit from the ED on completion of care. Many of these solutions were identified in the previous review [8], particularly the solutions aimed at resolving access block and providing alternative admission options. However, Hoot’s review identified many demand management strategies, including diverting patients to other forms of care and focussing on frequent visitors, which was the focus of only one, older study included in this review [32]. The demand management and patient diversion papers in the earlier review were all published more than twelve years ago, perhaps indicating the lack of long-term success of these initiatives at reducing ED crowding.

All studies included in this review evaluating solutions, with two exceptions [57, 58] reported significant improvements in measures of crowding related to the intervention, whether trialled or modelled. It should be noted that in Nagree’s study [58], that concluded that AHs GPs would have little impact on LAPs to EDs, the Sprivulis method [118] was used to calculate LAPs. This method consistently estimates a lower proportion of presentations as ‘GP-type’ than other methods [119, 120]. One Australian group reported a range of 15–69% of ED attendees as ‘GP-type’, depending on which of four definitions were used to calculate the proportion [119], with the Sprivulis method [118] producing the lowest percentage. Another Australian group [37] speculated that their finding of reduced LAPs to the ED following the opening of an AHs GP differed from Nagree’s findings because of the relative rural nature and therefore, lack of alternative options in the study locality, compared to the urban area studied by Nagree [58]. This finding is a clear indicator that a ‘one size fits all’ model to alleviate crowding is unlikely to be successful, as the causes of crowding are contextually specific to the environment in which the crowding occurs, and therefore requires solutions explicitly designed for that environment. The above also highlights the difficulties in comparing research outcomes when non-standardised definitions are employed as study outcome measures. This issue has been highlighted before [12, 13], with calls for a consensus on definitions for crowding, ‘GP-type’ presentations and LAPs to enable more accurate measuring and reporting of these issues.

Quality of solutions studies.

The quality of the evidence evaluating solutions to ED crowding was higher than for the other two areas (causes and consequences) with 60% of the studies assessed as providing high or acceptable levels of evidence. Many input, throughput and output solutions, including WICs, providing earlier physician assessment on arrival to the ED, and providing alternative admission options during times of inpatient access block, have been found to have promising results. While POCT was trialled in five included studies, only two of these, both RCTs [26, 27], were assessed as providing high levels of evidence, suggesting more research needs to be undertaken in this area.

While the majority of the included papers, particularly those that looked at throughput initiatives, did not measure unintended ‘upstream’ effects of the interventions to reduce crowding, a number of the more recent ‘target’ papers did [48, 54, 62, 67]. The Australian papers reported increased in-hospital transfers, increased IPLOS [62], and a small clinically insignificant increase in ED representations within 48 hrs [67] as potentially negative clinical outcomes post-NEAT implementation. One NZ study reported a clinically important 1% increase in readmissions within 30 days [48]. The UK study found an unexpected increase in time to be seen by a clinician and reported that when EDLOS was adjusted for clustering by hospital, there was an increase in total time in the ED for admitted patients [54]. Overall, the ‘target’ studies provided acceptable levels of evidence of both improved processes and patient outcomes following their introduction, indicating that more research into the specific interventions undertaken to achieve targets, with an emphasis on understanding what worked, where and why, could go some way towards addressing ED crowding. Similarly, more recent studies have highlighted the positive effects of undertaking a whole-of-system approach, including involvement of system leaders and using available data for more effective communication as important strategies to reduce crowding [24, 67, 69].

Although one of the NZ ‘target’ studies [69] acknowledged some input strategies were implemented in at least one of their test sites, in the main ‘target’ studies focussed their reporting on throughput and output initiatives to address crowding. The two UK studies that reported reduced ED presentations following 7-day opening of GPs [43, 72], as well as the successes achieved after the opening of an AH GP clinic in a large regional centre [37], provide evidence to support further trials of increased access to primary care as a potential solution to crowding in areas where increased input has been identified as a causative factor.

Costs of solutions.

A number of studies identified financial costs associated with the interventions [35, 43, 53, 69, 72], but did not provide any cost benefit analysis. One exception is an Australian study that calculated a $2,121 AUD per day saving to the ED after the introduction of a nurse navigator role [44]. Similarly, although not providing a comprehensive cost benefit analysis, Nagree et al. estimated that LAPs accounted for only 2.5% of total ED costs in the Perth metropolitan area, and therefore AH GPs were not a worthwhile investment if their aim was to reduce LAPs to the ED in a metropolitan setting [58]. Whittaker et al. acknowledged that while extended GP opening hours was seen to reduce patient-initiated ED referrals, extended opening hours may not produce a cost saving to the healthcare system [72].

Causes of crowding

Surprisingly, the least number of studies included in this review investigated the causes of ED crowding. Causes included increases in types of ED presentations, limited access to primary care and access block for patients requiring admission. Access block, inadequate staffing and LAPs were also identified in Hoot’s [8] review as causes of crowding. However, a notable new identified cause in this review is the increase in presentations by patients with complex and chronic conditions, including the elderly, as a driver of ED crowding [29, 108, 114, 115]. This finding may indicate the emergence of a new driver of crowding, namely the elderly with multiple chronic conditions, and merits further investigation. The quality of the evidence investigating causes was mixed, with only seven (50%) studies assessed as being of acceptable quality, while the remainder were scored as low. Three of the higher quality studies identified access block as having a negative impact on ED crowding; however, all of these studies are more than ten years old [110112]. The remaining four studies identified increased presentations by patients with chronic and complex care needs, including the elderly, and limited access to GPs, as causative factors of crowding [108, 109, 114, 117], adding further weight to the suggestion that increasing access to primary care may help to reduce crowding.

Fifteen years ago, Asplin [7] proposed in his conceptual model, that ED crowding could be partitioned into three interdependent components, input, throughput and output. Of the 14 studies that investigated the causes of ED crowding, only four identified a throughput issue, namely experience level of staff [113], shortages of staff within the ED [30, 31], and delays in test results and disposition decisions [20] as potential causative factors. However, of the 52 papers that trialled or modelled potential solutions to crowding, 31 (60%) involved improving patient throughput as a means of resolving the issue, with none of the interventions specifically targeted at improving staffing issues. This suggests a mismatch between the proven or accepted causes of crowding and the solutions developed and implemented to address the problem. There is general agreement that many of the causes and therefore solutions to crowding lie outside of the ED. However, our findings suggest that, as the most immediate effects of crowding are visible in the ED, ED clinicians have perhaps taken it upon themselves to change what they can influence to try to ameliorate the problem.

This review identified many new studies focussed on the ED crowding agenda. However, there is a paucity of research aimed at identifying the specific, contextual factors causing the phenomenon, with only eight new studies aimed at identifying causes published in the last ten years. The imbalance between the vast number of studies investigating the consequences and trialling solutions to ED crowding, versus the scarcity of studies aimed at identifying the causes, warrants attention. As stated by Asplin et al., ‘the development of valid and reliable measures of the factors contributing to ED crowding is the first step in developing a coherent research and policy agenda’ [7]. It appears that 15 years after this recommendation the ED research community is yet to thoroughly address that ‘first step’.


The literature search was limited to research published in English and in peer-reviewed journals. Potentially, a wider search strategy may have located a greater number of relevant studies; however, with the number of studies appraised and included, we feel this review provides a comprehensive analysis of the current research on ED crowding. Only seven of the included studies were assessed as being of high quality. This is an issue that has been highlighted before, with authors also acknowledging that it is difficult to critique complex and multi-faceted health service research using evaluation criteria designed for drug trials [121]. However, we elected to assess the quality of the evidence using traditionally accepted methods to enable the comparability of our results with previously published reviews. When allocating causes and solutions studies as related to either input, throughput or output, every effort was made to follow the original intentions of the study authors; however, this intention was not always clear.


There is an abundance of research illustrating the negative consequences of ED crowding for patients, staff and the healthcare system. While many solutions have been trialled and modelled, with varying levels of success, there is a mismatch between the identified causes of crowding and the initiatives implemented in efforts to resolve the problem. More recent studies investigating the effects of timed disposition targets and extending GP opening hours have provided some promising results and warrant further investigation and evaluation, with a particular focus on which interventions worked in which contexts, relative to identified local causes of crowding. A significant finding of this review is the growing body of evidence suggesting elderly patients with complex, multi-morbid conditions represent an increasingly important driver of ED crowding. This review has highlighted the need for further, high quality research into the specific, contextual issues that lead to ED crowding and the tailoring of evidence-based solutions to address identified causes. There is agreement that the problem and therefore the solutions to ED crowding lie largely outside of the ED. Therefore, it is imperative that the whole of the system, including patients, are involved in identifying both the causes of and acceptable, sustainable solutions to ED crowding.


  1. 1. Pines JM, Griffey RT. What we have learned from a decade of ED crowding research? Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22(8):985–7. pmid:26194441
  2. 2. Plunkett PK. Blocked, bothered and bewildered am I. Eur J Emerg Med. 2006;13(2):65–6. pmid:16525230
  3. 3. Guttmann A, Schull MJ, Vermeulen MJ, Stukel TA. Association between waiting times and short term mortality and hospital admission after departure from emergency department: population based cohort study from Ontario, Canada. BMJ. 2011;342:d2983. pmid:21632665
  4. 4. Dinh MM, Bein KJ, Latt M, Chalkley D, Muscatello D. Age before acuity: the drivers of demand for emergency department services in the greater Sydney area. Emerg Med J. 2015;32(9):708–11. pmid:25532104
  5. 5. Morley C, Stankovich J, Peterson G, Kinsman L. Planning for the future: emergency department presentation patterns in Tasmania, Australia. Int Emerg Nurs. 2018;38:34–40. (Published online Sept 2017). pmid:28958418
  6. 6. Lowthian JA, Curtis AJ, Jolley DJ, Stoelwinder JU, McNeil JJ, Cameron PA. Demand at the emergency department front door: 10-year trends in presentations. Med J Aust. 2012;196(2):128–32.
  7. 7. Asplin BR, Magid DJ, Rhodes KV, Solberg LI, Lurie N, Camargo CA Jr. A conceptual model of emergency department crowding. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;42(2):173–80. pmid:12883504
  8. 8. Hoot NR, Aronsky D. Systematic review of emergency department crowding: causes, effects, and solutions. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(2):126–36. pmid:18433933
  9. 9. LaCalle E, Rabin E. Frequent users of emergency departments: the myths, the data, and the policy implications. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(1):42–8. pmid:20346540
  10. 10. Richardson DB, Mountain D. Myths versus facts in emergency department overcrowding and hospital access block. Med J Aust. 2009;190(7):369–74. pmid:19351311
  11. 11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. pmid:19622551
  12. 12. Jones P, Wells S, Ameratunga S. Towards a best measure of emergency department crowding: lessons from current Australasian practice. Emerg Med Australas. 2017. pmid:28941074
  13. 13. Hwang U, McCarthy ML, Aronsky D, Asplin B, Crane PW, Craven CK, et al. Measures of crowding in the emergency department: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(5):527–38. pmid:21569171
  14. 14. Shenoi RP, Ma L, Jones J, Frost M, Seo M, Begley CE. Ambulance diversion as a proxy for emergency department crowding: the effect on pediatric mortality in a metropolitan area. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(2):116–23. pmid:19076102
  15. 15. Critical Apprasial Tools / Checklists [Internet]. 2012 [cited August 2016]. Available from:
  16. 16. Morley C, Unwin M, Peterson G, Stankovick J, Kinsman L. The consequences and causes of, or solutions to, emergency department crowding: a systematic review protocol. PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017073439 2017 [Available from:
  17. 17. Kulstad EB, Sikka R, Sweis RT, Kelley KM, Rzechula KH. ED overcrowding is associated with an increased frequency of medication errors. Am J Emerg Med. 2010;28(3):304–9. pmid:20223387
  18. 18. Lee CC, Lee NY, Chuang MC, Chen PL, Chang CM, Ko WC. The impact of overcrowding on the bacterial contamination of blood cultures in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(6):839–45. pmid:22169577
  19. 19. Verelst S, Wouters P, Gillet J-B, Van den Berghe G. Emergency department crowding in relation to in-hospital adverse medical events: a large prospective observational cohort study. J Emerg Med. 2015;49(6):949–61. pmid:26279514
  20. 20. van der Linden MC, Khursheed M, Hooda K, Pines JM, Van Der Linden N. Two emergency departments, 6000 km apart: Differences in patient flow and staff perceptions about crowding. Int Emerg Nurs. 2017;35:30–6. pmid:28659247
  21. 21. Jarvis P, Davies T, Mitchell K, Taylor I, Baker M. Does rapid assessment shorten the amount of time patients spend in the emergency department?. British Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2014;15(11):648–51.
  22. 22. Kelen GD, Scheulen JJ, Hill PM. Effect of an emergency department (ED) managed acute care unit on ED overcrowding and emergency medical services diversion. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(11):1095–100. pmid:11691675
  23. 23. Shetty A, Gunja N, Byth K, Vukasovic M. Senior streaming assessment further evaluation after triage zone: a novel model of care encompassing various emergency department throughput measures. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24:374–82. pmid:22862754
  24. 24. Chang AM, Cohen DJ, Lin A, Augustine J, Handel DA, Howell E, et al. Hospital strategies for reducing emergency department crowding: a mixed-methods study. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71(4):497–505. pmid:28844764
  25. 25. Holroyd BR, Bullard MJ, Latoszek K, Gordon D, Allen S, Tam S, et al. Impact of a triage liaison physician on emergency department overcrowding and throughput: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(8):702–8. pmid:17656607
  26. 26. Jang JY, Shin SD, Lee EJ, Park CB, Song KJ, Singer AJ. Use of a comprehensive metabolic panel point-of-care test to reduce length of stay in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(2):145–51. pmid:22901564
  27. 27. Begaz T, Elashoff D, Grogan TR, Talan D, Taira BR. Initiating diagnostic studies on patients with abdominal pain in the waiting room decreases time spent in an emergency department bed: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(3):298–307. pmid:27527398
  28. 28. Douma MJ, Drake CA, O'Dochartaigh D, Smith KE. A pragmatic randomized evaluation of a nurse-initiated protocol to improve timeliness of care in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(5):546–52. pmid:27480203
  29. 29. Bond K, Ospina MB, Blitz S, Afilalo M, Campbell SG, Bullard M, et al. Frequency, determinants and impact of overcrowding in emergency departments in Canada. Healthcare Quarterly. 2007;10(4):32–40. pmid:18019897
  30. 30. Derlet RW, Richards JR. Emergency department crowding in Florida, New York, and Texas. Southern Medical Journal. 2002;95(8):846–9. pmid:12190219
  31. 31. Estey A, Ness K, Saunders DL, Alibhai A, Bear RA. Understanding the causes of overcrowding in emergency departments in the Capital Health Region in Alberta: a focus group study. CJEM. 2003;5(2):87–94. pmid:17475097
  32. 32. Anantharaman V. Impact of health care system interventions on emergency department utilization and overcrowding in Singapore. Int J Emerg Med. 2008;1(1):11–20. pmid:19384496
  33. 33. Arain M, Campbell MJ, Nicholl JP. Impact of a GP-led walk-in centre on NHS emergency departments. Emerg Med J. 2015;32(4):295–300. pmid:24406328
  34. 34. Arya R, Wei G, McCoy JV, Crane J, Ohman-Strickland P, Eisenstein RM. Decreasing length of stay in the emergency department with a split emergency severity index 3 patient flow model. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20(11):1171–9. pmid:24238321
  35. 35. Asha SE, Ajami A. Improvement in emergency department length of stay using a nurse-led 'emergency journey coordinator': a before/after study. Emerg Med Australas. 2014;26(2):158–63. pmid:24708005
  36. 36. Barrett L, Ford S, Ward-Smith P. A bed management strategy for overcrowding in the emergency department. Nursing Economics. 2012;30(2):82–5. pmid:22558725
  37. 37. Buckley DJ, Curtis PW, McGirr JG. The effect of a general practice after-hours clinic on emergency department presentations: a regression time series analysis. Health Care. 2010;192(8):448–51.
  38. 38. Burke JA, Greenslade J, Chabrowska J, Greenslade K, Jones S, Montana J, et al. Two hour evaluation and referral model for shorter turnaround times in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas. 2017;29(3):315–23. pmid:28455884
  39. 39. Burley G, Bendyk H, Whelchel C. Managing the storm: an emergency department capacity strategy. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2007;29(1):19–28. pmid:17518029
  40. 40. Burstrom L, Engstro M-L, Castren M, Wiklund T, Enlund M. Improved quality and efficiency after the introduction of physician-led team triage in an emergency department. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. 2016;121(1):38–44. pmid:26553523
  41. 41. Cha WC, Song KJ, Cho JS, Singer AJ, Shin SD. The long-term effect of an independent capacity protocol on emergency department length of stay: a before and after study. Yonsei Med J. 2015;56(5):1428–36. pmid:26256991
  42. 42. Copeland J, Gray A. A daytime fast track improves throughput in a single physician coverage emergency department. CJEM 2015;17(6):648–55. pmid:26063177
  43. 43. Dolton P, Pathania V. Can increased primary care access reduce demand for emergency care? Evidence from England's 7-day GP opening. J Health Econ. 2016;49:193–208. pmid:27395472
  44. 44. Fulbrook P, Jessup M, Kinnear F. Implementation and evaluation of a 'Navigator' role to improve emergency department throughput. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2017;20(3):114–21. pmid:28624270
  45. 45. Han JH, France DJ, Levin SR, Jones ID, Storrow AB, Aronsky D. The effect of physician triage on emergency department length of stay. J Emerg Med. 2010;39(2):227–33. pmid:19168306
  46. 46. Howell E, Bessman E, Kravet S, Kolodner K, Marshall R, Wright S. Active bed management by hospitalists and emergency department throughput. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(11):804–10. pmid:19047027
  47. 47. Imperato J, Morris DS, Binder D, Fischer C, Patrick J, Dahomey Sanchez L, et al. Physician in triage improves emergency department patient throughput. Int Emerg Med. 2012;7:457–62. pmid:22865230
  48. 48. Jones P, Wells S, Harper A, Le Fevre J, Stewart J, Curtis E, et al. Impact of a national time target for ED length of stay on patient outcomes. NZMJ. 2017;130(1455):15–34.
  49. 49. Kim MJ, Park JM, Je SM, You JS, Park YS, Chung HS, et al. Effects of a short text message reminder system on emergency department length of stay. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(5):296–302. pmid:22300639
  50. 50. Lauks J, Mramor B, Baumgartl K, Maier H, Nickel CH, Bingisser R. Medical team evaluation: effect on emergency department waiting time and length of stay. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(4). pmid:27104911
  51. 51. Lee IH, Chen CT, Lee YT, Hsu YS, Lu CL, Huang HH, et al. A new strategy for emergency department crowding: high-turnover utility bed intervention. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association. 2017;80(5):297–302. pmid:28202338
  52. 52. Lee-Lewandrowski E, Corboy D, Lewandrowski K, Sinclair J, McDermot S, Benzer TI. Implementation of a point-of-care satellite laboratory in the emergency department of an academic medical center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:456–60. pmid:12683874
  53. 53. Lee-Lewandrowski E, Nichols J, Van Cott E, Grisson R, Louissaint A, Benzer T, et al. Implementation of a rapid whole blood D-dimer test in the emergency department of an urban academic medical center: impact on ED length of stay and ancillary test utilization. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132(3):326–31. pmid:19687307
  54. 54. Mason S, Weber EJ, Coster J, Freeman J, Locker T. Time patients spend in the emergency department: England's 4-hour rule-a case of hitting the target but missing the point? Ann Emerg Med. 2012;59(5):341–9. pmid:22088495
  55. 55. McGrath J, LeGare A, Hermanson L, Repplinger MD. The impact of a flexible care area on throughput measures in an academic emergency department. J Emerg Nurs. 2015;41:503–9. pmid:26296717
  56. 56. McHugh M, Van Dyke K, Howell E, Adams F, Moss D, Yonek J. Changes in patient flow among five hospitals participating in a learning collaborative. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(1):21–9. pmid:22092988
  57. 57. Mumma BE, McCue JY, Li CS, Holmes JF. Effects of emergency department expansion on emergency department patient flow. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(5):504–9. pmid:24842500
  58. 58. Nagree Y, Ercleve TNO, Sprivulis PC. After-hours general practice clinics are unlikely to reduce low acuity patient attendances to metropolitan Perth emergency departments. Aust Health Rev. 2004;28(3):285–91. pmid:15595910
  59. 59. Ngo H, Forero R, Mountain D, Fatovich D, Man WN, Sprivulis P, et al. Impact of the four-hour rule in Western Australian hospitals: trend analysis of a large record linkage study 2002–2013. Plos One. 2018;13(3). pmid:29538401
  60. 60. Partovi SN, Nelson BK, Bryan ED, Walsh MJ. Faculty triage shortens emergency department length of stay. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(10):990–5. pmid:11581086
  61. 61. Patel PB, Combs MA, Vinson DR. Reduction of admit wait times: the effect of a leadership-based program. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21:266–73. pmid:24628751
  62. 62. Perera ML, Davies AW, Gnaneswaran N, Giles M, Liew D, Ritchie P, et al. Clearing emergency departments and clogging wards: National Emergency Access Target and the law of unintended consequences. Emerg Med Australas. 2014;26:549–55. pmid:25332129
  63. 63. Quinn JV, Mahadevan SV, Eggers G, Ouyang H, Norris R. Effects of implementing a rapid admission policy in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2007;25(5):559–63. pmid:17543661
  64. 64. Sharma A, Inder B. Impact of co-located general practitioner (GP) clinics and patient choice on duration of wait in the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2011;28:658–61. pmid:20668112
  65. 65. Shin S, Lee SH, Kim DH, Kim SC, Kim TY, Kang C, et al. The impact of the improvement in internal medicine consultation process on ED length of stay. J Emerg Med. 2018;36(4):620–4. pmid:28970026
  66. 66. Singer AJ, Viccellio P, Thode HC Jr., Bock JL, Henry MC. Introduction of a stat laboratory reduces emergency department length of stay. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(4):324–8. pmid:18370985
  67. 67. Sullivan CM, Staib A, Flores J, Aggarwal L, Scanlon A, Martin JH, et al. Aiming to be NEAT: safely improving and sustaining access to emergency care in a tertiary referral hospital. Aust Health Rev. 2014;38(5):564–74. pmid:25297518
  68. 68. Takakuwa K, Shofer F, Abbuhl S. Strategies to deal with emergency department overcrowding: a one-year study on how bedside registration affects patient throughput times. J Emerg Med. 2007;32(4):337–42. pmid:17499684
  69. 69. Tenbensel T, Chalmers L, Jones P, Appleton-Dyer S, Walton L, Ameratunga S. New Zealand's emergency department target—did it reduce ED length of stay, and if so, how and when? BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17. pmid:28950856
  70. 70. van der Linden C, Lucas C, van der Linden N, Lindeboom R. Evaluation of a flexible acute admission unit: effects on transfers to other hospitals and patient throughput times. J Emerg Nurs. 2013;39(4):340–5. pmid:22244548
  71. 71. White BA, Brown DFM, Sinclair J, Chang Y, Carignan S, McIntyre J, et al. Supplemented triage and rapid treatment (START) improves performance measures in the emergency department. J Emerg Med. 2012;42(3):332–28. pmid:20554420
  72. 72. Whittaker W, Anselmi L, Kristensen SR, Lau YS, Bailey S, Bower P, et al. Associations between extending access to primary care and emergency department visits: a difference-in-differences analysis. PLoS Med. 2016;13(9):e1002113. pmid:27598248
  73. 73. Willard E, Carlton EF, Moffat L, Barth BE. A full-capacity protocol allows for increased emergency patient volume and hospital admissions. J Emerg Nurs. 2017;43(5):413–8. pmid:28456336
  74. 74. Chiu IM, Lin YR, Syue YJ, Kung CT, Wu KH, Li CJ. The influence of crowding on clinical practice in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(1):56–60. pmid:28705743
  75. 75. Diercks DB, Roe MT, Chen AY, Peacock WF, Kirk JD, Pollack J, Charles V., et al. Prolonged emergency department stays of non–ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients are associated with worse adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management and increased adverse events. Health Policy and Clinical Practice. 2007;50(5):489–96. pmid:17583379
  76. 76. Fee C, Weber EJ, Maak CA, Bacchetti P. Effect of emergency department crowding on time to antibiotics in patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(5):501–9, 9 e1. pmid:17913300
  77. 77. Gaieski DF, Agarwal AK, Mikkelsen ME, Drumheller B, Cham Sante S, Shofer FS, et al. The impact of ED crowding on early interventions and mortality in patients with severe sepsis. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(7):953–60. pmid:28233644
  78. 78. Hwang U, Richardson LD, Sonuyi TO, Morrison RS. The effect of emergency department crowding on the management of pain in older adults with hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(2):270–5. pmid:16460378
  79. 79. Hwang U, Richardson L, Livote E, Harris B, Spencer N, Sean Morrison R. Emergency department crowding and decreased quality of pain care. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(12):1248–55. pmid:18945239
  80. 80. Jo S, Jeong T, Jin YH, Lee JB, Yoon J, Park B. ED crowding is associated with inpatient mortality among critically ill patients admitted via the ED: post hoc analysis from a retrospective study. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33:1725–31. pmid:26336833
  81. 81. Kulstad EB, Kelley KM. Overcrowding is associated with delays in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Int J Emerg Med. 2009;2(3):149–54. pmid:20157464
  82. 82. Liew D, Liew D, Kennedy MP. Emergency department length of stay independently predicts excess inpatient length of stay. Med J Aust. 2003;179:524–6. pmid:14609414
  83. 83. Liu SW, Chang Y, Weissman JS, Griffey RT, Thomas J, Nergui S, et al. An empirical assessment of boarding and quality of care: delays in care among chest pain, pneumonia, and cellulitis patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18:1339–48. pmid:21692902
  84. 84. McCarthy ML, Zeger SL, Ding R, Levin SR, Desmond JS, Lee J, et al. Crowding delays treatment and lengthens emergency department length of stay, even among high-acuity patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54(4):492–503 e4. pmid:19423188
  85. 85. McCusker J, Vadeboncoeur A, Levesque J-F, Ciampi A, Belzile E. Increases in emergency department occupancy are associated with adverse 30-day outcomes. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21:1092–100. pmid:25308131
  86. 86. Medley DB, Morris JE, Stone CK, Song J, Delmas T, Thakrar K. An association between occupancy rates in the emergency department and rates of violence toward staff. J Emerg Med. 2012;43(4):736–44. pmid:22325552
  87. 87. Mills AM, Shofer FS, Chen EH, Hollander JE, Pines JM. The association between emergency department crowding and analgesia administration in acute abdominal pain patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16:603–8. pmid:19549018
  88. 88. Nippak PMD, Winston IW, Ikeda-Douglas CJ, Marion AM, VandenBorek M. Is there a relation between emergency department and inpatient lengths of stay? Can J Rural Med. 2014;19(1):12–20. pmid:24398353
  89. 89. Pines JM, Hollander JE, Localio AR, Metlay JP. The association between emergency department crowding and hospital performance on antibiotic timing for pneumonia and percutaneous intervention for myocardial infarction. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13(8):873–8. pmid:16766743
  90. 90. Pines JM, Localio AR, Hollander JE, Baxt WG, Lee H, Phillips C, et al. The impact of emergency department crowding measures on time to antibiotics for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(5):510–6. pmid:17913298
  91. 91. Pines JM, Hollander JE. Emergency department crowding is associated with poor care for patients with severe pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;51(1):1–5. pmid:17913299
  92. 92. Pines JM, Pollack CV Jr., Diercks DB, Chang AM, Shofer FS, Hollander JE. The association between emergency department crowding and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chest pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(7):617–25. pmid:19549010
  93. 93. Pines JM, Shofer FS, Isserman JA, Abbuhl SB, Mills AM. The effect of emergency department crowding on analgesia in patients with back pain in two hospitals. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17:276–83. pmid:20370760
  94. 94. Reznek MA, Murray E, Youngren MN, Durham NT, Michael SS. Door-to-imaging time for acute stroke patients is adversely affected by emergency department crowding. Stroke. 2017;48(1):49–54. pmid:27856953
  95. 95. Richardson DB. The access-block effect: relationship between delay to reaching an inpatient bed and inpatient length of stay. Med J Aust. 2002;177:492–5. pmid:12405891
  96. 96. Richardson DB. Increase in patient mortality at 10 days associated with emergency department overcrowding. Med J Aust. 2006;184(5):213–6. pmid:16515430
  97. 97. Richardson D, McMahon KL. Emergency department access block occupancy predicts delay to surgery in patients with fractured neck of femur. Emerg Med Australas. 2009;21(4):304–8. pmid:19682016
  98. 98. Sikka R, Mehta S, Kaucky C, Kulstad EB. ED crowding is associated with an increased time to pneumonia treatment. Am J Emerg Med. 2010;28:809–12. pmid:20837259
  99. 99. Singer AJ, Thode HC Jr., Viccellio P, Pines JM. The association between length of emergency department boarding and mortality. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(12):1324–9. pmid:22168198
  100. 100. Spirvulis PC, Da Silva J-A, Jacobs IG, Frazer AR, Jelinek GA. The association between hospital overcrowding and mortality among patients admitted via Western Australian emergency departments. Med J Aust. 2006;184(5):208–12. pmid:16515429
  101. 101. Sun BC, Hsia RY, Weiss RE, Zingmond D, Liang LJ, Han W, et al. Effect of emergency department crowding on outcomes of admitted patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(6):605–11 e6. pmid:23218508
  102. 102. Tekwani KL, Kerem Y, Mistry CD, Sayger BM, Kulstad EB. Emergency department crowding is associated with reduced satisfaction scores in patients discharged from the emergency department. West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(1):11–5. pmid:23447751
  103. 103. Tsai MT, Yen YL, Su CM, Hung CW, Kung CT, Wu KH, et al. The influence of emergency department crowding on the efficiency of care for acute stroke patients. Int J Qual Saf Healthcare. 2016;28(6):774–8. pmid:27678127
  104. 104. van der Linden MC, Meester B, van der Linden N. Emergency department crowding affects triage processes. Int Emerg Nurs. 2016;29:27–31. pmid:26970907
  105. 105. White BA, Biddinger PD, Chang Y, Grabowski B, Carignan S, Brown DFM. Boarding inpatients in the emergency department increases discharged patient length of stay. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(1):230–5. pmid:22766404
  106. 106. Wickman L, Svensson P, Djarv T. Effect of crowding on length of stay for common chief complaints in the emergency department: A STROBE cohort study. Medicine. 2017;96(44). pmid:29095294
  107. 107. Zhou J-C, Pan K-H, Zhou D-Y, Zheng S-W, Zhu J-Q, Xu Q-P, et al. High hospital occupancy is associated with increased risk for patients boarding in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;125:416.e1–.e7. pmid:22306273
  108. 108. Aboagye-Sarfo P, Mai Q, Sanfilippo FM, Preen DB, Stewart LM, Fatovich DM. Growth in Western Australian emergency department demand during 2007–2013 is due to people with urgent and complex care needs. Emerg Med Australas. 2015;27(3):202–9. pmid:25940805
  109. 109. Cowling TE, Cecil EV, Soljak MA, Lee JT, Millett C, Majeed A, et al. Access to primary care and visits to emergency departments in England: a cross-sectional, population-based study. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66699. pmid:23776694
  110. 110. Dunn R. Reduced access block causes shorter emergency department waiting times: An historical control observational study. Emergency Medicine. 2003;15:232–8. pmid:12786644
  111. 111. Fatovich DM, Nagree Y, Sprivulis P. Access block causes emergency department overcrowding and ambulance diversion in Perth, Western Australia. Emerg Med J. 2005;22(5):351–4. pmid:15843704
  112. 112. Forster AJ, Stiell I, Wells G, Lee AJ, van Walraven C. The effect of hospital occupancy on emergency department length of stay and patient disposition. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(2):127–33. pmid:12574009
  113. 113. Kawano T, Nishiyama K, Hayashi H. Adding more junior residents may worsen emergency department crowding. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e110801. pmid:25369063
  114. 114. Kawano T, Nishiyama K, Anan H, Tujimura Y. Direct relationship between aging and overcrowding in the ED, and a calculation formula for demand projection: a cross-sectional study. Emerg Med J. 2014;31(1):19–23. pmid:23302506
  115. 115. Knapman M, Bonner A. Overcrowding in medium-volume emergency departments: effects of aged patients in emergency departments on wait times for non-emergent triage-level patients. Int J Nurs Pract. 2010;16(3):310–7. pmid:20618543
  116. 116. Lucas R, Farley H, Twanmoh J, Urumov A, Olsen N, Evans B, et al. Emergency department patient flow: the influence of hospital census variables on emergency department length of stay. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16:597–602. pmid:19438415
  117. 117. Moineddin R, Meaney C, Agha M, Zagorski B, Glazier RH. Modeling factors influencing the demand for emergency department services in Ontario: a comparison of methods. BMC Emerg Med. 2011;11:13. pmid:21854606
  118. 118. Sprivulis P. Estimation of the general practice workload of a metropolitan teaching hospital emergency department. Emergency Medicine. 2003;15:32–7. pmid:12656784
  119. 119. Allen P, Cheek C, Foster S, Ruigrok M, Wilson D, Shires L. Low acuity and general practice-type presentations to emergency departments: a rural perspective. Emerg Med Australas. 2015;27(2):113–8. pmid:25720647
  120. 120. Nagree Y, Camarda VJ, Fatovich DM, Cameron PA, Dey I, Gosbell AD, et al. Quantifying the proportion of general practice and low-acuity patients in the emergency department. Med J Aust. 2013;198(11):612–5. pmid:23919709
  121. 121. Morris ZS, Boyle A, Beniuk K, Robinson S. Emergency department crowding: towards an agenda for evidence-based intervention. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(6):460–6. pmid:21653203