Table 2.

Presentation of included literature (* Focus indicates whether the suggested indicators are more generally applicable or refers to clinical conditions (e.g. indicators related to specific ailments))

Corresponding author	Year	Objective	Focus*	Setting	Method	Gross indicatorportfolio	Recommended indicators
McClelland et al. [33]	2012	Examination of practical aspects in collecting time-based ED measures	Time-relatedmeasures only (7)	American, EDs	Structured interviews and few data comparisons	7	7
Beniuk, Boyle & Clarkson [29]	2012	To prioritise quantified crowding measures to assess current ED status	Overall (8)	International EDs (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Netherlands and Hong Kong)	Standard three round Delphi study	27	8
Alessandrini et al. [15]	2011	Proposition of a measurement framework specific for PEC practitioners and administrators	Overall (13) and condition specific (1)	American, PEDs	Point of departure in IOM recommendations. Alteration into Donabedian’s structure, process, outcome categorisation	120	14
Ekelund et al. [34]	2011	1) To assess feasibility in gathering benchmark data in Swedish EDs and 2) to evaluate patient throughput times and inflow patterns	Overall (4)	Sweden, EDs	Comparison of variables reflecting quality measures	4	4
Heyworth [35]	2011	1) Benefits and drawbacks associated with a single time-related measure and 2) proposed quality indicators to assess timeliness, quality, and safety	Overall (8)	United Kingdom, EDs	Description of current state in the UK; reflection on the quality indicators proposed by the Department of Health	8	8
Schull et al. [21]	2011	Seeks consensus on a set of parsimonious quality-of-care indicators for an ED	Overall (11) and condition specific (2)	Canada, EDs	Modified Delphi panel technique, three rounds	170	13
Welch et al. [32]	2011	Consensus of a standard set of performance measures in EDs related to patient flow	Overall (44)	American, North American Benchmark Summit (367 EDs)	Survey and audit	44	44
Coleman & Nicholl [16]	2010	Identification of a indicators usable for PCT commissioners and NHS decision makers to monitor performance	Overall (16)	United Kingdom, EDs and Urgent Care Units	Standard three round Delphi study	70	16
Hung & Chalut [30]	2008	1) Presents which indicators are deemed most useful to assess PEC and 2) which measures are currently being recorded	Overall (15)	Canada, PEDs	2-part questionnaire including a novel ranking formula to prioritize indicators	67	15
Guttmann et al. [31]	2006	Development of measures relevant for paediatric emergency care (children < 19)	Overall (6) and condition specific (8)	American, PEDs	Structured panel process with underlying literature review	109	14
Sibbritt, Isbister & Walker [36]	2006	Provision of a recommended list of performance indicators from routinely collected data in EDs	Overall (9)	Australia, EDs	Data collection and following SPC analysis	9	9
Solberg et al. [3]	2003	Identification of measures in EDs relevant for managing crowding	Overall (38)	American, EDs	Expert consensus on 113 measures; 10 investigators refined the measures to a total of 38	113	38
Graff et al. [8]	2002	How to critically evaluate quality in an ED	Overall (9) and condition specific (29)	American, EDs	Summary. Point of departure in IOM recommendations. Afterwards alteration into Donabedian’s structure, process, outcome categorisation	38	38
Lindsay et al. [20]	2002	A systematic approach to identify valid and relevant measures in an ED	Overall (8) and condition specific (13)	Canada, EDs	Modified Delphi panel technique, two rounds	104	21

ED Emergency Department, IOM Institute of Medicine, NHS National Health Services, PCT Primary Care Trust, PEC Paediatric Emergency Care, PED Paediatric Emergency Department, SPC Statistical Process Control.