Abstract
BACKGROUND: A wide variation of emergency medical system configurations across countries has limited the value of comparison of quality and performance measures in the past. Furthermore, lack of quantitative data on EDs prevents definition of the problems and possibilities for data driven improvement of quality of care. Therefore, the objective is to describe and compare Emergency Department (ED) populations and characteristics, and their outcomes in the Netherlands, Denmark and Australia, using a recently developed template for uniform reporting of standardized measuring and describing of care provided in the ED (structure, staffing and governance, population, process times and outcomes). METHODS: This international multicenter cohort included all consecutive ED visits from National Quality Registries or Databases from participating sites from three countries. Patient and ED characteristics (using the template for uniform reporting) and relevant clinical outcomes were described and compared per country. RESULTS: We included 212,515 ED visits in the Netherlands, 408,673 in Denmark and 556,652 in Australia. Patient characteristics differed markedly, with Australian ED patients being younger, less often triaged as "immediate", and less often triaged with the high-risk chief complaints "feeling unwell" compared to Danish and Dutch patients. ED characteristics mainly differed with respect to the mean annual census per ED (Netherlands 26,738 (SD 2630), Denmark 36,675 (SD 12974), Australia 50,712 (4884)), median (IQR) lengths of stay of patients discharged home (Netherlands 2.1 (1.4-3.1); Denmark 2.8 (1.7-5.0); Australia 3.3 (2.0-5.0) hrs) and proportion of hospitalizations (ranging from 30.6 to 39.8%). In-hospital mortality was 4.0% in Australia, higher compared to the Netherlands and Denmark (both 1.6%). Not all indicators of the framework were available in all registries. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and ED characteristics and outcomes varied largely across countries. Meaningful interpretation of outcome differences across countries could be improved if quality registries would more consistently register the measures of the recently developed template for uniform reporting.
