Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 4;53(2):787–802. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12695

Table 4.

Sensitivity Analysis: Association between EHR (+) and ED Length of Stay (LOS)

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Ambulance pts. (n = 9,933) (n = 9,933) (n = 1,513) (n = 9,015)
EHR (+) 13.0* 9.7 2.2 10.9
(6.3) (6.6) (16.9) (6.8)
[0.5, 25.4] [−3.2, 22.6] [−29.8, 36.7] [−2.5, 24.2]
R 2 .2385 .2833 .4789 .2953
Full sample (n = 43,914) (n = 43,914) (n = 5,650) (n = 42,106)
EHR (+) 13.3*** 13.2*** 5.6 12.6***
(2.3) (2.3) (5.8) (2.3)
[8.7, 17.9] [8.6, 17.8] [−5.8, 16.9] [8.2, 17]
R 2 .3682 .3997 .4999 .4099
NYU ED algorithm Yes No No No
Secondary ICD9 codes No Yes No No
Injuries only No No Yes No
Psych/substance abuse pts. Yes Yes No No

Subsample used for each model is indicated above. All models are adjusted for time of visit, location, age, sex, caseload, ICD9 codes, case complexity, insurance codes, zip codes of primary care physicians, attending physician, acuity, procedures, and admission status. The units of the estimated effects are in minutes. Standard errors, clustered at the day‐site level, are in parentheses. *< .05, **< .01, ***< .001. 95% CIs are in brackets.