CJEM Articles: emergency departments

Displaying 1-2 of 2 results

  • March 2008 10 2
    Bronwen L. Edgar, Donald McGuinness, Kieran M. Moore

     In September 2004, Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (KFL&A) Public Health, in collaboration with the Public Health Division of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Queen's University, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Kingston General Hospital and Hotel Dieu Hospital, began a 2-year pilot project to implement and evaluate an emergency department (ED) chief complaint syndromic surveillance system. Our objective was to evaluate a comprehensive and readily deployable real-time regional syndromic surveillance program and to determine its ability to detect gastrointestinal or respiratory outbreaks well in advance of traditional reporting systems. In order to implement the system, modifications were made to the University of Pittsburgh's Real-time Outbreak and Disease Surveillance (RODS) system, which has been successfully integrated into public health systems, and has enhanced communication and collaboration between them and EDs. This paper provides an overview of a RODS-based syndromic surveillance system as adapted for use at a public health unit in Kingston, Ontario. We summarize the technical specifications, privacy and security considerations, data capture, classification and management of the data streams, alerting and public health response. We hope that the modifications described here, including the addition of unique data streams, will provide a benchmark for future Canadian syndromic surveillance systems.

  • November 2006 8 6
    Brian H. Rowe, Douglas Sinclair, Kenneth Bond, Maria B. Ospina, Michael Bullard, Michael Schull, Sandra Blitz

    Objective: Relatively little is known about the ability of Canadian emergency departments (EDs) and the federal, provincial and territorial governments to quantify ED activity. The objectives of this study were to determine the use of electronic patient data in Canadian EDs, the accessibility of provincial data on ED visits, and to identify the data elements and current methods of ED information system (EDIS) data collection nationally.

    Methods: Surveys were conducted of the following 3 groups: 1) all ED directors of Canadian hospitals located in communities of >10 000 people, 2) all electronic EDIS vendors, and 3) representatives from the ministries of health from 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions who had knowledge of ED data collection.

    Results: Of the 243 ED directors contacted, 158 completed the survey (65% response rate) and 39% of those reported using an electronic EDIS. All 11 EDIS vendor representatives responded. Most of the vendors provide a similar package of basic EDIS options, with add-on features. All 13 provincial or territorial government representatives completed the survey. Nine (69%) provinces and territories collect ED data, however the source of this information varies. Five provinces and territories collect triage data, and 3 have a comprehensive, jurisdiction-wide, population-based ED database. Thirty-nine percent of EDs in larger Canadian communities track patients using electronic methods. A variety of EDIS vendor options are available and used in Canada.

    Conclusion: The wide variation in methods and in data collected presents serious barriers to meaningful comparison of ED services across the country. It is little wonder that the majority of information regarding ED overcrowding in Canada is anecdotal, when the collection of this critical health information is so variable. There is an urgent need to place the collection of ED information on the provincial and national agenda and to ensure that the collection of this information consistent, comprehensive and mandatory.