CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT02754245EDOVSUpdated Feb 18, 2026

ED Overcrowding Validation Study

An observational study in Emergency Department Overcrowding, sponsored by Baylor Research Institute. Terminated. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 100 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-02-18.

Sponsored by Baylor Research Institute · Observational

Why this study was terminated
Failure to submit the required continuing review report prior to expiration.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
7,000
Ages
18 Years to 100 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The aim of this study is to externally validate a new emergency department overcrowding estimation tool (SONET) developed at John Peter Smith Health Network (JPS).

Read the detailed description

In recent years, emergency department (ED) overcrowding has become more and more common in regional and tertiary referral hospitals. ED overcrowding status significantly affects ED operational efficiency, resulting in ambulance diversion, increased ED 72h return visits, patient satisfaction, and left without being seen (LWBS) rates.

Several estimation tools were derived to determine ED overcrowding status using various operational parameters such as, but not limited to, total number of ED patients, total ED admission holds, nursing staff, and patient injury severity. However, these tools cannot precisely evaluate ED overcrowding status, nor show strong correlations with ED operational inefficiency. The National Emergency Department Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS) is a widely used estimation tool to determine ED overcrowding status with relatively high consistency rates. However, the study was not able to evaluate interrater reliability since no standard definition of overcrowding existed.

An ED overcrowding estimation tool, SONET, was developed and internally validated at JPS and showed more consistency and accuracy when compared to estimation rates utilizing NEDOCS. All things considered, it is worthwhile to perform a survey study to determine the interrater variability between different evaluators for an ED overcrowding evaluation tool, one utilizing all possible collectible operational variables. In order to minimize the bias and further determine the accuracy of evaluating ED overcrowding status, a multi-center external validation study is warranted. This study will extend to six sites for the purpose of externally validating JPS' novel ED overcrowding estimation tool, SONET, by comparing its overcrowding estimation rates with those derived utilizing NEDOCS.

02

Conditions studied

  • Emergency Department Overcrowding

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • multicenter study
  • emergency department
  • overcrowding status
  • estimation tool
  • validation
03

In context

Emergencies

1,692 studies on the registry are indexed under Emergencies; 333 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 7,000 is above the median of 353 across 714 observational studies indexed under Emergencies.

Browse Emergencies studies →

Lead sponsor

Baylor Research Institute is the lead sponsor of 219 studies on the registry; 49 are open to participants now.

Of its 23 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 9 (39%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 100 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

all adult patients visiting any one of the six participating sites (one JPS ED or urgent care clinic or one of five Baylor emergency departments or urgent care clinics) during the allocated one month time period

Inclusion criteria

  • all adult patients visiting the emergency department or urgent care clinic at any one of the six participating sites during the allocated one month time period

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • those who do not meet inclusion criteria
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
7,000 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • JPS

    study sample at JPS included for analysis

  • BUMC Dallas

    study sample at Baylor University Medical Center Dallas included for analysis

  • BUMC at Gardin

    study sample at Baylor University Medical Center Gardin included for analysis

  • BUMC Waxahachie

    study sample at Baylor University Medical Center Waxahachie included for analysis

  • BUMC Carrolton

    study sample at Baylor University Medical Center Carrolton included for analysis

  • BUMC McKinney

    study sample at Baylor University Medical Center McKinney included for analysis

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. left without being seen disposition chart review

    LWBS refers to patients who have been called at least three times, using 20 minute intervals, to occupy an ED exam bed, however, do not respond. If after the third attempt the patient responds, the investigators will consider this a new patient registration/encounter. These data will be collected for each patient during the study period during initial ED registration and upon ED disposition.

    Time frame: 30 days

  2. emergency department 72 hour return chart review

    ED 72h return will be defined to patients who re-register to the same ED as a new patient (unplanned) within 72h of a previous departure, regardless of the complaint. Planned ED revisits within 72h will be excluded. These data will be collected during initial ED registration during study period and will follow up each patient at least 72h post-discharge.

    Time frame: 30 days

  3. emergency department mortality

    Time frame: 30 days

  4. hospital mortality

    Time frame: 30 days

  5. emergency department length of stay

    Time frame: 30 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. patient satisfaction survey

    Patient satisfaction will be measured using Qualitick (Clearwater, FL), a real-time patient satisfaction program reporting tool using a Likert scale format. Patient will complete their Qualitick survey upon departure from ED regardless of their ED dispositions (e.g. transfer to inpatient service, discharge to home, transfer to another facility, etc.). Patients, or patient designees, will use a tablet to answer a series of questions. Patients, or their designees, have the option of omitting their name to ensure their information is kept anonymous.

    Time frame: 30 days

  2. physician empathy scale

    Jefferson Physician Empathy Scale, available online, will be conducted by ED staff and compared with 1) staff working different shifts with different levels of crowding; 2) the norms; 3) staff working a more balanced schedule (roughly equal numbers of day, evening, and night shifts); and 4) attending physicians versus nursing staff versus residents. Average scores will be used to determine any differences among groups. The measurement tool will be repeated 6-9 months later to determine whether dynamic changes have occurred and whether an association exists with respect to changes in operation efficiency as a function of relative ED crowding at the individual physician level during the study period. The investigators recognize that the inclusion of the psychometric tests will be, to some extent, exploratory and the most important assessment will be the simple descriptive display of the mean scores (and standard deviations).

    Time frame: 30 days

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • Bernstein SL, Verghese V, Leung W, Lunney AT, Perez I. Development and validation of a new index to measure emergency department crowding. Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Sep;10(9):938-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00647.x. PubMed 12957975 ↗
  • Weiss SJ, Derlet R, Arndahl J, Ernst AA, Richards J, Fernandez-Frackelton M, Schwab R, Stair TO, Vicellio P, Levy D, Brautigan M, Johnson A, Nick TG. Estimating the degree of emergency department overcrowding in academic medical centers: results of the National ED Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS). Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;11(1):38-50. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2003.07.017. PubMed 14709427 ↗
  • Epstein SK, Tian L. Development of an emergency department work score to predict ambulance diversion. Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Apr;13(4):421-6. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.11.081. PubMed 16581932 ↗
  • McCarthy ML, Aronsky D, Jones ID, Miner JR, Band RA, Baren JM, Desmond JS, Baumlin KM, Ding R, Shesser R. The emergency department occupancy rate: a simple measure of emergency department crowding? Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Jan;51(1):15-24, 24.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.09.003. Epub 2007 Nov 5. PubMed 17980458 ↗
  • Jones SS, Allen TL, Flottemesch TJ, Welch SJ. An independent evaluation of four quantitative emergency department crowding scales. Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Nov;13(11):1204-11. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2006.05.021. Epub 2006 Aug 10. PubMed 16902050 ↗
  • Wang H, Robinson RD, Garrett JS, Bunch K, Huggins CA, Watson K, Daniels J, Banks B, D'Etienne JP, Zenarosa NR. Use of the SONET Score to Evaluate High Volume Emergency Department Overcrowding: A Prospective Derivation and Validation Study. Emerg Med Int. 2015;2015:401757. doi: 10.1155/2015/401757. Epub 2015 Jun 8. PubMed 26167302 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 18, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02754245
Lead sponsor
Baylor Research Institute
Collaborators
JPS Health Network, Baylor University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Apr 28, 2016
Start date
Nov 14, 2016
Primary completion
Jan 31, 2017
Completion
Mar 2019
Last update
Feb 18, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Nov 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion