In the ER waiting room people are not always taken in order they came in why?

@Hatley (164229)
Garden Grove, California
June 12, 2008 6:55pm CST
Do you ever wonder why if you go to the ER you sometimes have to wait while others who came after you did are taken right away? i saw another discussion on something similar that made me think about this. as a former hospital worker I know that 'they practice a sort of triage. the most critical ones are taken first, then the less, then those with run of the mill complaints. It might look unfair but actually it is quite fair. a year ago I had an attack of bleeding diverticulitis' and was sent to er . The room was full but I was taken at once. why because I was losing a lot of blood, and was dizzy and I was nearly eighty. Had I had to wait too much longer I could conceiveably have passed out. Your uptake on this situation please?
9 people like this
26 responses
@jczvrse (169)
• United States
13 Jun 08
To everyone your own illness seems worse then anothers, but in reality that is why they have the triage to check you out and see just how serious your condition is at that time. Some people may not look as sick as you feel but indeed can be on the verge of dying so naturally they are seen first it is only fair.
2 people like this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
Yes I know several people frowned at me that morning but they did not know that I was bleeding heavily.
• Philippines
13 Jun 08
good day. Triage works that way. most serious first like vehicular accident, GI emergency that needs immediate OR, poisoning and respiratory distress comes first while fever, diarrhea, non bleeding peptic ulcer, cough and colds tend to get in second.
2 people like this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
I have great respect for triage and if I have to wait I know i am not in a life threatening condition.
@howard96h (11643)
• New York, New York
13 Jun 08
Yes all patients that go to the ER must go through triage first, this is the way it should be. If patients were seen in the order they came in this would cause problems because there are patients who are life threatening and some that are not.
2 people like this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
yes its the only logical way to do it, otherwise really ill people could die waiting
@scapula (760)
• Jordan
13 Jun 08
yeah that's true, doctor classify patients from mild, moderate, sever, and the more the symptoms and the bad signs they will took the case immediatly. Don't get angry if you have to wait becuase , time is volunable for some patient it is life saving issue.
2 people like this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
hi scapula its a good system and one should not be upset if you have to wait.
• Canada
12 Jun 08
They must have had a very busy night. They usually take the more serious cases first and then start filling up the beds on a first come first serve basis.
2 people like this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
13 Jun 08
oh they really did I was taken in first then was treated and waswaiting for a bed, and it took from eleven that morning till eleven that night before I was actually put into a room. then' the fun began with umpteen blood tests and all the rest.lol
@MsTickle (25050)
• Australia
20 Jun 08
They practice triage in Aussie hospitals...at least they do in the ones I've been in. I think it's fair. If someone comes in with a heart attack or bleeding profusely or not able to breath easily, are you going to expect them to wait?
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
20 Jun 08
I agree it really is fair and if you have to wait awhile it should releive you to know its not life threatening.
1 person likes this
@MsTickle (25050)
• Australia
25 Jun 08
There's that aspect of it, yes. It can be hard though if one is suffering severe or acute pain.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
4 Jul 08
its always so hardd to wait when you are in pain, if only they would not understaff the hospitals so then more people could be seen at the same time.
• United States
13 Jun 08
I understand why they take the more serious ill people first but when i had to take my daughter to the er we go in right away but had to wait four hours to have her admited and we waited in one of the rooms for that four hours and no one check on us. she had a fever of 103.0 rectally so you would think that they would check more often. Thank goodness she is fine now but if they are that backed up they need to bring in more help.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
sashashimp its hard for a layman to understand but they usually'do not have any morehelp, all they have are what is there . even tho I was bleeding heavily I was not admitted until elevn that night a nd I came in at eleven that morning as they simply did not have an open bed until then. I worked years as a nurses aid so I do know a bit abouthow hospitals' run.they are always shortof help as people as a whole do not' tend to take medical jobs.
• United States
19 Jun 08
I worked in a hospital for 5 years and they are always short with help, which is not fair for the patients. It is kind of sad for a big hospital to be short staffed and the care of the patients are not taken care of in the right manner.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
20 Jun 08
yes I also worked as a nurses aid and felt so sorry for patients when we were so understaffed and could notget to them when they really needed us.
@ersmommy1 (12596)
• United States
26 Jun 08
I guess it depends how serious each case is. It would be easier if the people waiting didn't take it personally. Anger gets out of control with people. That can make it worse. In your case I think the staff did the right thing.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
4 Jul 08
ersmommy1 yes it would help a lot, and anger just adds to the problems.
@Modestah (11192)
• United States
26 Jun 08
I think a triage of this sort is necessary in order to run an efficient emergency room and experience less loss of life and other serious complications. Though I absolutely do not approve of a triage which determines one person's life is more important than another's
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
4 Jul 08
modesthah I dont think most triages and the people working in them necessarily feel that one persons life is more important than anothers, they just take those that are the most critical, its not an emotional thing, its a practical thing, and I am sure that two cases that are almost identical in seriousness will be taken if they possibly can. Doctors and nurses and nurses aides are only human, they are not Gods and yes ocassionally a mistake is made but they are trying their best, I know that as I have worked behind the scenes so to speak.
@stacyv81 (5904)
• United States
20 Jun 08
I agree that the critical should come first, but it is natural when you are in pain of any kind to only focus on yourself. Most do not consider the ambulances coming in possibly helicopters, they only focus on the ones in the waiting room, while it is hard, and seems unfair, I am sure they are doing the best they can.
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
4 Jul 08
yes I think we all pretty much focuss on ourselves, and' thats just human nature.
@Thoroughrob (11748)
• United States
19 Jun 08
Around here, they take in the ones that they consider more life threatening. Sometimes that makes things a pain, but others, it is great.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
20 Jun 08
so many people come into er when they would have been better served to go to their physicans instead for cold and flu and stuff like that.
• United States
13 Jun 08
A lot of emergency rooms are seriously understaffed, don't have the space and are overwhelmed at times. Like triage in a war, they have to treat the people who are in the most danger. It may not seem fair to some people but if you are in there with a bad flu or a broken toe vs someone whose heart has stopped or is bleeding out,or can't get a breath, which would be the most logical one to help first? Obviously the one in more danger. They aren't trying to ignore the less serious cases, they just have to prioritize. Until they can get better funding, which isn't likely to happen, it will stay this way. You have to make sure they understand precisley what is going on with you, so they can decide if you need to go in immediately or not.
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
thats why they ask so many questions and i realized that the time I was bleeding so they took me in right away.
@saundyl (9686)
• Canada
13 Jun 08
I think its a fair way to do it...Triage. I'm sure people would be furious if someone with a severed artery went in and had to wait til someone with a minor cough was seen and ended up dying while waiting to be seen. Sure it makes for a longer wait if its not serious BUT for those its serious for its very good. If its not serious and can wait the best is to go see your regular doctor or a walkin clinic.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
yes triage does handle things pretty well.
@mialei23 (2386)
• Philippines
13 Jun 08
Your right, Emergency room use TRIAGE to be able to save lives, most critical will come entertain first than the minor situation. I understand this situation because health care professionals are tend to minimize life threatening situations like blood loss or shock, trauma etc.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
yes triage is really fair even though it may not seem like it to people who have to wait very long.
@ellie333 (21018)
13 Jun 08
Wow Hatley nearly eighty you sound so much younger in your discussions and responses, young at heart eh! Yes there is a system and it is only right that the critical are dealt with first. At my old local hospital they would do an initial assessment and then you would be graded red, blue, yellow and on the board it would explain that there would be minimul wait for reds, up to so many hours for blues etc. these times would be adjusted as to how busy they were so you knoew roughly how long the wait would be instead of keep hassling reception. Ellie :D
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
that is a really fair way of doing and would help people more tounderstand what is going on.
@sacmom (14250)
• United States
13 Jun 08
I have to agree with it. It may not seem fair to those that have to wait longer, but if someone comes in that is in critical need, then they should by all means be seen first.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
yes its fair but I do wish sometimes the attendents would explain to those waiting a bit about their practice.
@lilybug (21145)
• United States
13 Jun 08
I think that it is fair way of doing things. The more urgent cases should go first. A lot of times you will see people in the ER for a cold or something that to them is urgent, but compared to other people in the ER their situation can wait a little bit longer.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
yes the most urgent should be cared for at once. some go with really minor emergencies so they can stand to wait.
@maia0129 (91)
• Philippines
13 Jun 08
I think what the ER people are practicing is fair enough. They should take in first those with critical cases because it only takes seconds and they could be gone right away. People with minor complaints though they came in first can wait and probably would understand the situation. I think those who cannot understand the situation, needs psychiatric help. Hatley, Im glad you were taken at once when you had that bad situation and I'm glad I got to be part of one of your discussions these days.
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
thanks maia I am so glad I go to the hospital I do.
@RebeccaLynn (2256)
• United States
13 Jun 08
I think the worst cases should be seen first. I just don't like the four hour wait that you have to go through when you really need a doctor. I have no problem with someone going ahead of me if their situation is worse than mine but I do think that hospitals could do a whole lot more in the area of customer service. After all, we are customers and we pay dearly for the service.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
rebecca you are so right we are customers and we do pay for it. I have been lucky in myparticular hospital that my hmo says I must go to. the county hospital is a' whole different ball game and you wait and then wait some more but thank goodness myinsurance does not ask me to use them.
@nupats (3564)
• India
13 Jun 08
I think it is perfectly all right bcoz if a critical case does come up it should be attended first no point in stalling or waiting turn the person can actually die...If a person who in a critical condition and is not attended immediately then it is negligience on thepart of hospital authorities..it had happened with me only once my son had got hurt in the park and his knee was swollen i took him to the ER and the ppl were very sweet to let me go ahead bcoz my son was crying....we all are human beings and we need to b compassionate abt one another...have a nice day..
1 person likes this
@Hatley (164229)
• Garden Grove, California
18 Jun 08
that was the same way with me as I was having a hard time breathing then we found out I had the shingles. lol