Name
University of Phoenix
NUR 598 Research Utilization Project (capstone-style project)
Prof. Name
Date
Emergency department (ED) crowding can be reduced by improving patient flow, accelerating clinical assessment, and beginning appropriate treatment earlier in the care process. Evidence from systematic reviews, clinical studies, and quality improvement projects indicates that provider-assisted triage, including Nurse Practitioner–Registered Nurse (NP–RN) models, can improve emergency department throughput, shorten delays, and reduce the number of patients who leave without being seen. By combining nursing triage with early advanced-practice assessment, emergency departments can address lower-acuity conditions without unnecessarily occupying treatment beds.
Emergency department overcrowding is a persistent healthcare systems problem. High patient volumes, limited inpatient capacity, staffing constraints, prolonged diagnostic processes, and increasingly complex patient needs can all contribute to delays in emergency care.
Emergency departments cannot always control how many patients arrive. Consequently, improving processes within the department is an important strategy for managing congestion. Patient throughput is particularly important because delays at the beginning of the patient journey can affect every subsequent stage of care.
Triage represents one of the earliest opportunities to improve patient flow. Traditional nurse-led triage primarily focuses on determining acuity and directing patients to the appropriate level of care. A provider-assisted approach can extend this process by allowing clinical assessment, diagnostic ordering, and selected treatments to begin before an emergency department treatment bed becomes available.
The proposed NP–RN triage solution is based on evidence-based practice (EBP) principles. A structured literature search helps identify research examining how changes to emergency department triage and front-end processes influence patient flow and clinical outcomes.
The literature commonly evaluates outcomes such as:
Time from arrival to provider assessment
Emergency department length of stay
Patient waiting time
Left Without Being Seen (LWBS) rates
Time to diagnostic testing or treatment
Patient satisfaction
Overall emergency department throughput
Systematic reviews have found that several triage-related interventions can improve patient flow, although the effectiveness of individual approaches varies according to staffing, patient population, organizational structure, and implementation methods.
Research on provider-in-triage models has also reported improvements in selected operational outcomes. These findings provide a rationale for evaluating an NP–RN model within an emergency department experiencing persistent crowding.
The available evidence provides support for provider-assisted triage, but the research should be interpreted within the limitations of individual study designs and emergency department environments.
Several studies and systematic reviews have reported improvements associated with adding clinicians or providers to the front end of emergency department care. Reported benefits include faster clinical assessment, earlier initiation of diagnostic testing, improved patient flow, and reductions in emergency department delays.
The consistency of these findings across different healthcare environments provides useful support for testing provider-assisted triage as a quality improvement intervention.
However, outcomes are not necessarily identical across all emergency departments. Staffing models, patient acuity, physical layout, availability of diagnostic services, and hospital capacity can influence results.
The evidence base also contains several limitations.
Large randomized controlled trials involving emergency department workflow interventions can be difficult to conduct. Emergency departments operate in complex and rapidly changing environments, making it challenging to standardize staffing, patient volume, and operational conditions.
Studies may use different definitions and methods for measuring outcomes such as waiting time, length of stay, and throughput. Some projects also rely on manually collected operational data, which may introduce measurement limitations.
Emergency department performance is influenced by multiple variables, including patient acuity, staffing levels, inpatient bed availability, seasonal demand, diagnostic turnaround times, and changes in hospital operations. These factors can make it difficult to attribute an observed improvement entirely to the triage intervention.
Despite these limitations, the broader literature supports continued evaluation of provider-assisted triage as a strategy for improving emergency department patient flow.
A collaborative Nurse Practitioner–Registered Nurse triage model can provide an organized approach to improving the front end of emergency department care.
In this model, the Registered Nurse performs the initial triage assessment and determines the patient’s acuity using the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), while the Nurse Practitioner provides timely clinical evaluation and initiates appropriate diagnostic or treatment interventions within the organization’s scope of practice.
The workflow can be adapted according to patient acuity and local emergency department policies.
For example, patients with the highest acuity, such as ESI levels 1 and 2, should receive immediate care in an appropriate treatment area. Patients classified as ESI level 3 may benefit from rapid NP evaluation, with diagnostic testing and selected treatment initiated while they await definitive placement.
Appropriate lower-acuity patients, including selected ESI level 4 or 5 cases, may be evaluated and discharged directly from a designated triage or fast-track area when clinically appropriate.
This approach can help prevent patients who require relatively limited resources from occupying treatment beds needed by patients with more complex conditions.
The feasibility of an NP–RN triage model depends on the emergency department’s staffing, physical space, patient volume, scope-of-practice requirements, organizational policies, and available diagnostic resources.
Emergency departments that already employ Nurse Practitioners may be able to implement the model by reallocating existing resources rather than creating an entirely new staffing structure.
A feasibility assessment should examine:
Current NP and RN staffing patterns
Triage area capacity
State and organizational scope-of-practice requirements
Physician and nursing support
Diagnostic and laboratory availability
Patient volume and acuity patterns
Existing fast-track or rapid-assessment processes
Documentation and electronic health record workflows
Using existing resources may reduce implementation costs, but organizations should evaluate staffing needs carefully to ensure that moving an NP to triage does not create unsafe staffing gaps elsewhere.
The central benefit of provider-assisted triage is the ability to begin appropriate clinical care earlier.
In a conventional workflow, a patient may complete registration and nursing triage, wait for an available treatment space, and then wait again for a provider evaluation. A provider-in-triage model can reduce some of these sequential delays by allowing clinical evaluation and selected interventions to begin earlier.
For example, a patient presenting with uncomplicated symptoms suggestive of a urinary tract infection may be evaluated by the NP in a designated triage area. When clinically appropriate and consistent with local protocols, diagnostic testing and treatment can begin without waiting for a traditional treatment bed.
The approach may:
Initiate appropriate care earlier
Reduce unnecessary duplicate assessments
Improve movement through the emergency department
Preserve treatment beds for patients requiring higher-acuity care
Improve use of available clinical resources
The model does not eliminate the need for comprehensive emergency evaluation when indicated. Instead, it reorganizes the initial care process so that appropriate patients can receive timely assessment and treatment.
The primary goal of the project is to improve emergency department patient flow while supporting timely, safe, and patient-centered care.
By reducing avoidable delays at the front end of the emergency department, the intervention aims to improve throughput and the patient experience while making more efficient use of available clinical resources.
Successful implementation of an NP–RN triage model should include clearly defined operational and clinical objectives.
Key objectives include:
Establish a multidisciplinary implementation team.
Develop policies, procedures, and clinical protocols for NP–RN triage.
Educate emergency nurses, Nurse Practitioners, physicians, and other relevant staff.
Assess and modify the triage environment to support collaborative assessment.
Pilot the intervention over a defined implementation period.
Collect baseline and post-implementation performance data.
Evaluate patient safety, efficiency, patient experience, and staffing outcomes.
A pilot period can help the organization identify workflow problems before expanding the model across the entire emergency department.
The success of the intervention should be evaluated using measurable performance indicators rather than relying only on perceptions of improved efficiency.
Potential outcomes include:
Reduced arrival-to-provider time
Reduced emergency department length of stay
Reduced LWBS rates
Faster initiation of diagnostic testing
Improved patient throughput
Improved patient satisfaction
Better utilization of treatment beds
Improved use of available clinical staff
Organizations should compare baseline performance with post-implementation data and account for factors such as patient volume, acuity, staffing changes, and inpatient capacity.
Provider-assisted triage represents one potential strategy for addressing emergency department crowding. The literature suggests that changes to front-end processes can influence patient flow, but implementation should be tailored to the characteristics of each organization.
Evidence-based practice requires more than adopting an intervention because it has produced positive results elsewhere. Healthcare organizations should combine research evidence with clinical expertise, organizational resources, patient needs, and local performance data.
Ongoing measurement is therefore essential. Monitoring outcomes after implementation can determine whether the NP–RN model is producing the intended improvements and whether modifications are necessary.
Additional high-quality research, particularly studies using consistent outcome definitions and stronger comparative designs, can further clarify which provider-assisted triage models are most effective in different emergency department settings.
Emergency department crowding requires practical strategies that improve patient flow without compromising safety or quality of care. Evidence from the literature indicates that provider-assisted triage can reduce delays by bringing clinical assessment and selected interventions closer to the point of arrival.
An NP–RN triage model combines the initial assessment capabilities of the Registered Nurse with the advanced clinical assessment and treatment capabilities of the Nurse Practitioner. When appropriately designed and supported by organizational policies, this model may reduce arrival-to-provider time, improve throughput, decrease LWBS rates, and improve the use of emergency department resources.
Because emergency departments differ in patient volume, staffing, physical layout, and available resources, implementation should be accompanied by continuous evaluation. Baseline and post-intervention measures can help determine whether the model improves local emergency department performance and patient outcomes.
An NP–RN triage model is a collaborative emergency department workflow in which a Registered Nurse performs the initial triage assessment while a Nurse Practitioner provides timely clinical evaluation and initiates appropriate diagnostic or treatment interventions for eligible patients.
Emergency department crowding can increase waiting times, delay treatment, contribute to prolonged length of stay, and increase the likelihood that patients leave before receiving care. It can also place pressure on healthcare professionals and available treatment resources.
Provider-in-triage allows selected clinical activities to begin earlier in the patient’s emergency department journey. Depending on the patient’s condition and local protocols, this may include medical assessment, diagnostic ordering, treatment initiation, and discharge planning.
Systematic reviews and individual studies have examined provider-assisted and other triage-related interventions. Findings have reported improvements in outcomes such as patient flow, time to assessment, and emergency department length of stay, although results vary between settings and intervention designs.
The financial impact depends on staffing requirements, patient volume, workflow design, and local organizational conditions. Using existing Nurse Practitioner and Registered Nurse resources may reduce the need for additional staffing, but organizations should conduct a local cost and staffing analysis before implementation.
Hospitals implementing an NP–RN triage model should establish measurable baseline and follow-up indicators. Common measures include arrival-to-provider time, emergency department length of stay, LWBS rate, patient satisfaction, diagnostic turnaround time, and overall patient throughput.
Harding, K. E., Taylor, N. F., & Leggat, S. G. (2011). Do triage systems in healthcare improve patient flow? A systematic review of the literature. Australian Health Review, 35(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH10927
Hayden, C., Burlingame, P., Thompson, H., & Sabol, V. K. (2014). Improving patient flow in the emergency department by placing a family nurse practitioner in triage: A quality improvement project. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 40(4), 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2013.09.011
Holroyd, B. R., Bullard, M. J., Latoszek, K., Gordon, D., Allen, S., Tam, S., Blitz, S., Yoon, P., & Rowe, B. H. (2007). Impact of a triage liaison physician on emergency department overcrowding and throughput: A randomized controlled trial. Academic Emergency Medicine, 14(8), 702–708. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2007.04.018
Love, R. A., Murphy, J. A., Lietz, T. E., & Jordan, K. S. (2012). The effectiveness of a provider in triage in the emergency department. Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal, 34(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/TME.0b013e3182435543
Martin, A., Davidson, C. L., Panik, A., Buckenmyer, C., Delpais, P., & Ortiz, M. (2014). An examination of ESI triage scoring accuracy in relationship to ED nursing attitudes and experience. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 40(5), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2013.09.009
Oredsson, S., Jonsson, H., Rognes, J., Lind, L., Göransson, K. E., Ehrenberg, A., & Farrohknia, N. (2011). A systematic review of triage-related interventions to improve patient flow in emergency departments. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 19, 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-19-43
Rowe, B. H., Guo, X., Villa-Roel, C., Schull, M., Holroyd, B., Bullard, M., Vandermeer, B., & Innes, G. (2011). The role of triage liaison physicians on mitigating overcrowding in emergency departments: A systematic review. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18(2), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00984.x
Stover-Baker, B., Stahlman, B., & Pollack, M. (2012). Triage nurse prediction of hospital admission. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 38(3), 306–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2010.12.017
Titler, M. G., Kleiber, C., Steelman, V. J., Rakel, B. A., Budreau, G., Everett, L. Q., Buckwalter, K. C., Tripp-Reimer, T., & Goode, C. J. (2001). The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 13(4), 497–509. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11866368/
Welch, S. J. (2012). Using data to drive emergency department design: A metasynthesis. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 5(3), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671200500305
Wiler, J. L., Gentle, C., Halfpenny, J. M., Heins, A., Mehrotra, A., & Fite, D. (2010). Optimizing emergency department front-end operations. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 55(2), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.05.021
