Transparent comparisons of Emergency-Department prioritization policies: integrating tail risk, target attainment, and utility analysis
Adam DeHollander,
Mark Karwan and
Sabrina Casucci
PLOS ONE, 2025, vol. 20, issue 12, 1-24
Abstract:
Studies comparing emergency department (ED) patient prioritization rules often use single averages, which can hide important clinical trade-offs. This paper presents and demonstrates a three-part evaluation framework designed for clear, multi-faceted comparisons of prioritization policies. The framework includes: (1) statistics that account for extreme outcomes, (2) profiles showing how well time targets are met, and (3) analysis based on stakeholder priorities. We illustrate the framework in a unified discrete-event simulation of a 30-bed mixed-acuity ED to show how conclusions can change across tails, thresholds, and stakeholder preferences; the numerical results are for illustration only and are not recommendations for any specific hospital. Our main contribution is the method itself: a consistent and repeatable way to reveal different but complementary information, helping decision-makers match policies to their local goals, limits, and risk tolerance. Before implementation, future work should apply this framework using data from specific hospitals and gathering input from their stakeholders.
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0326722 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 26722&type=printable (application/pdf)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0326722
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326722
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().