Health policy and clinical practice/original researchA Profile of US Emergency Departments in 2001
Introduction
The emergency department (ED) provides round-the-clock emergency care and also serves a “safety net” function for many individuals in the United States.1 Given this dual role, the ED has become the focus of a growing number of public health initiatives. Despite this attention, a great deal of basic information about EDs remains unknown. The number, distribution, and basic usage patterns of US EDs have not been well characterized. Previous studies have focused on emergency services within a localized area2, 3 or have had national scope but lacked geographic specificity.4, 5, 6 Despite the importance of answering essential questions about the current status of US EDs, the task has largely been overlooked.
The need for a more rigorous study of emergency care in the United States was formally stated in a 1995 Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation report titled “The Role of Emergency Medicine in the Future of American Medical Care.”7 In particular, the report suggested the adoption of a classification system with which to categorize, and thus assess, emergency care in the United States. Since 1995, several recommendations from the Macy report have been addressed, but the recommendations about ED classification have received less attention.8 In 1999, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Emergency Center Categorization Task Force developed a classification system directed toward academic medical centers.9 Even among academic centers, however, few accepted the “challenge” to get certified because certification provided no tangible benefit.10 Thus, classification of US EDs has not been achieved, and consequently, the capabilities of US EDs remain unknown.
To address this information gap, the Emergency Medicine Network (EMNet) at Massachusetts General Hospital created a comprehensive database of US EDs. The database, called the National Emergency Department Inventory, accounts for every hospital in the nation, as of 2001. Similar inventories have been created for trauma centers but, to our knowledge, never for EDs.11 We created the National Emergency Department Inventory to determine the number, distribution, and other basic characteristics of US EDs, with a long-term goal of determining the general capabilities of all US EDs and improving access to emergency care.
Section snippets
Data Collection and Processing
The National Emergency Department Inventory was developed by integrating data from 3 sources: the SMG Marketing Group’s Hospital Market Profiling Solution Database Fourth Quarter 2001 Release (referred to hereafter as the SMG Database), the 2001 American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals (referred to as the AHA Annual Survey), and information collected independently by EMNet staff.
The SMG Database is a commercially available data set widely used for health care research in both
Results
Of the 4,917 hospitals studied, 4,862 (99%) reported having an ED. Among these EDs, there were a reported 101.6 million total visits in 2001 and a median annual visit volume of 15,711 (IQR 6,787 to 29,458). Annual visit volume varied greatly among EDs (Figure 1). EDs in the lowest quartile received less than 6,789 visits per year, whereas EDs in the second quartile received between 6,789 and 15,711 visits. EDs in the third quartile received between 15,712 and 29,457 visits, and those in the
Limitations
The National Emergency Department Inventory has several potential limitations. At this point, we have only limited data available about each ED. Our long-term goal is to perform simple, short surveys to enhance the database and to monitor ED changes over time. Furthermore, the National Emergency Department Inventory alone cannot answer causal questions about observed differences in ED use. We do not know, for example, if there is high per-capita ED use in southern states because there are many
Discussion
The 2001 National Emergency Department Inventory provides a profile of 4,862 EDs in the United States and reveals substantial diversity in ED distribution and usage. An overview of the National Emergency Department Inventory data, including state-specific ED statistics (total number of EDs, median number of ED visits, IQR, and total number of ED visits), is available at http://www.emnet-usa.org/nedi/nedi_usa.htm. These EDs collectively received 101.6 million total visits in 2001. This total
References (34)
- et al.
Does lack of a usual source of care or health insurance increase the likelihood of an emergency department visit?results of a national population-based study
Ann Emerg Med
(2005) - et al.
Status report: development of emergency medicine research since the Macy report
Ann Emerg Med
(2003) - et al.
Emergency department use by the rural elderly
J Emerg Med
(2000) Emergency medicine: a Canadian perspective
Ann Emerg Med
(1995)- et al.
Characteristics of emergency departments serving high volumes of safety-net patients: United States, 2000
Vital Health Stat
(2004) - et al.
Trends in the use and capacity of California’s emergency departments, 1990-1999
Ann Emerg Med
(2002) - et al.
Emergency department use in New York City: a substitute for primary care?
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund)
(2000) - et al.
Trends in hospital emergency department utilization: United States, 1992-1999
Vital Health Stat
(2001) - et al.
National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2001 emergency department summary
Adv Data
(2003)
Emergency center categorization standards
Acad Emerg Med
Emergency department categorization by SAEM is a bad idea
Acad Emerg Med
National inventory of hospital trauma centers
Jama
Fourth Quarter, 2001 SMG Hospital Market Profiling Solution [database]
Annual Survey Database Documentation Manual
Cited by (106)
Changes in the Number of United States Emergency Departments and Their Annual Visit Volumes Since 2001
2023, Annals of Emergency MedicineDevelopment of a unified national database of primary percutaneous coronary intervention centers with co-located emergency departments, 2020
2022, American Heart JournalCitation Excerpt :We saved PDF and Excel copies of each state and national list of pPCI centers to our hospital's password-protected shared file areas. We identified identify all non-federal, non-specialty EDs open 24/7/365 as defined by the 2019 National ED Inventory (NEDI).16 The locations of all U.S. EDs currently open can be found in the free smart phone app, findERnow.17
Availability of Pediatric Emergency Care Coordinators in United States Emergency Departments
2021, Journal of PediatricsDistance From Freestanding Emergency Departments to Nearby Emergency Care
2021, Annals of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :We also aimed to examine how distance from freestanding EDs to nearby hospital-based EDs, and visits to freestanding EDs in close proximity to hospital-based EDs, differed in terms of population size, rural location, median household income, and geographic regions. The current study was based on data from an annual institutional-level survey (Appendix E1, available online at http://www.annemergmed.com) of all US EDs, referred to as the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI)–USA.13 The NEDI-USA database has existed and collected information on all nonfederal US EDs since 2001, and its underlying methods have been previously reported.13
Change in opioid policies in New England emergency departments, 2014 vs 2018
2020, Drug and Alcohol DependenceCitation Excerpt :Our second objective was to determine change in prevalence of these policies between 2014 and 2018. We conducted two cross-sectional, regional surveys as part of the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI)-NE, using methods previously reported (Sullivan et al., 2006; Weiner et al., 2016). The NEDI-USA was used to identify all New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont) EDs at acute care facilities open 24/7/365.
Supervising editor: Brent R. Asplin, MD, MPH
Author contributions: CAC conceived the study and obtained research funding. BSA, DJP, RWS and CAC designed the study. AFS, SC, and CAC supervised study implementation, including data collection. IBR and CJA conducted data collection. SC analyzed the data. AFS drafted the article, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. CAC takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and support: Supported by a grant from EMF Center of Excellence Award, Dallas, TX; and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality R01 HS13099, Rockville, MD.
Publication dates: Available online October 27, 2006.
Reprints not available from the authors.