Authors’ contributions MP, RS and AP designed the study; SP, DG, MM, RS, MP and AP reviewed the literature; SP; DG and MM collected data; SP and DG performed analysis; SP, DG, MP, GZ and AP wrote draft. All Authors revised and approved the manuscript. Pre-publication history The pre-publication

history for this paper Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-227X/13/3/prepub Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge all the police forces that have provided the data and the Fondazione Prato Ricerche which provided part of the instrumentation necessary to the study.
Emergency Departments (ED) not only provide care to patients with critical and life threatening emergencies, but also look after Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical round the clock to those who have acute yet stable medical illnesses [1-3]. The resultant ED overcrowding which was first Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical described twenty years ago, has now become a well-established barrier in access to health care [4-6]. The problem is exacerbated in low income countries by utilization of ED as a primary access point to the healthcare especially on weekends and after hours for less urgent conditions [1]. However, the balance

is now tilting towards high acuity patients, ED boarding of admitted patients, and hospital occupancy as a cause of ED overcrowding

rather than influx of non-urgent patients [4,5,7]. ED overcrowding not only reduces patient satisfaction Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical but it also increases the PCI-32765 order number of patients that leave without being seen by a physician (LWBS) [3,7]. Large number of these patients may not find appropriate care elsewhere and therefore a critical treatment Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical opportunity is missed by the health system. The percentage of LWBS patients has been recognized as a proxy indicator of ED performance and overcrowding [8,9]. A number of studies from high income countries with well-established primary health care system have reported a variable number of LWBS which ranges between <1% to 20% of all ED visits [10-14]. It has been suggested that patients Capmatinib who LWBS are at an increased risk of morbidity and mortality; however, a more recent administrative follow-up demonstrated these patients are at a lower risk of hospitalization and death than triage-matched controls [15-19]. Several factors have been found as being associated with LWBS, such as low acuity illness, young age, and male sex and prolonged waiting time [20-24].