
For hospital leaders
Better waits start with seeing where the time goes
EDFlow gives emergency department leaders a live picture of flow and a way to explain it to the people waiting. Patients and families stop asking the desk how much longer; your teams see where time goes, step by step and hour by hour, on Ontario's own definitions.
At a glance
Flow by segment
Arrival to triage, triage to physician, orders to results, results to reassessment and decision to departure, as medians and 90th percentiles.
Bottlenecks by hour
Heatmaps by hour and day of the week show when each step slows down, with a bottleneck flag against your own history.
Request response times
Time to acknowledge and to resolve patient requests, by type, zone and shift, including urgent escalations.
Adoption and equity
Cards issued, visits followed, family shares and feedback, split by language and age band so no group is left behind.
| Location | Visit stage | In stage |
|---|---|---|
| Tests in progress | 30 min | |
| Waiting to be seen | 95 min | |
| Results back | 41 min | |
| Preparing to go home | 12 min |
For hospitals
The details make the difference.
Why hospitals choose to explain the wait
Emergency departments in Ontario are under sustained pressure. The average time from triage to a physician was 118 minutes in 2022/23, up from 87 minutes a decade earlier, and the share of patients who left without being seen rose to 5.3%.[1] Much of the pressure comes from access block: admitted patients waiting in the department for a bed upstairs.[2][3]
Information does not create beds. But the research is consistent that how a wait is explained shapes how it is experienced: patients who were told about delays were 1.42 to 5.48 times less likely to give poor ratings.[4] And people who feel informed are less likely to leave before being seen, or to return to the desk to ask again.
What the analytics show
The overview shows today's census, the number of people waiting to see a physician, the median and 90th percentile time to physician against the provincial target, left-without-being-seen counts, boarding, open requests and active codes.
- Flow segments: arrival to triage, triage to physician, physician to first order, orders to results, results to reassessment and decision to departure, each as p50 and p90 against your benchmarks.
- Heatmaps of arrivals, time to physician, length of stay and left-without-being-seen by hour and day of the week.
- Test turnaround by test, day of the week and hour, with sample sizes and a flag when an estimate falls back to the catalogue default.
- Code events with their duration and the delay they caused to assessments and reassessments.
- Period comparisons and annotations, for example an HIS downtime or the start of the pilot.
- A table view for every chart, and a data definitions page with each metric's formula and source.
Built on the definitions Ontario already uses
Ontario's Pay-for-Results priorities and hospital Quality Improvement Plans put the 90th percentile time to physician initial assessment at the centre: it was the most selected indicator in 2025/26 QIPs, chosen by about half of hospitals.[5][6] The analytics use the QIP technical specifications, so the numbers mean the same thing in your board report and in the provincial data.[7]
| Measure | Median | 90th percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Time to physician initial assessment (CAEP)[2] | 1 h | 3 h |
| Time to physician, Ontario Pay-for-Results target[5] | 3.4 h or less | |
| Length of stay, discharged CTAS IV and V (CAEP)[2] | 2 h | 4 h |
| Length of stay, discharged CTAS I to III (CAEP)[2] | 4 h | 8 h |
Numbers your clinicians can trust
Time estimates shown to patients are computed from your department's own history for the same step, day of the week and hour: a usual range plus the time 9 in 10 people are done within. When there is not enough history for a step, the estimate falls back to a reviewed catalogue default and says so. A calibration report shows how often real visits finished within the stated range, so you can see that the numbers deserve trust.
Clinician-level metrics are private by default. Each clinician sees their own numbers; leaders see blinded ranges and case-mix context, never a league table.
A pilot that starts on day one
- Sandbox. A simulator and synthetic fixtures exercise every event; your privacy office receives the draft privacy impact and threat risk assessment inputs.
- Manual-first (optional). The staff console drives stage-level updates in one department, with no EHR feed, so staff can run a shift with it.
- Read-only EHR feed. Your integration engine sends admission, order and result-status events. A shadow run of at least two weeks must agree with the EHR on at least 98% of milestones, with updates arriving within 60 seconds at the 95th percentile.
- Patient go-live. Patient and family access is switched on after the privacy and security sign-offs, a signed clinical safety case, simulations with real staff and training.
The pilot is measured on the instruments the department already uses: the Ontario ED patient experience survey items ("If you had a long wait, were you told why?"), left-without-being-seen and 72-hour return rates as balancing measures, and the 90th percentile time to physician.[8][7]
Frequently asked questions
Which definition of time to physician do you use?
Physician initial assessment (PIA) is measured from triage or registration, whichever comes first, to the first assessment by a physician or nurse practitioner, as in Ontario's Quality Improvement Plan specifications. Every metric has a definitions page with its formula and source.[7]
How long does a pilot take to start?
A pilot can start on the staff console on day one, with no interface. The EHR feed follows through the hospital's integration engine and runs in shadow for at least two weeks, with patients not yet seeing it, until it agrees with the EHR on at least 98% of milestones. The pace is set by your privacy, security and interface reviews, not by the software.
Does it rank physicians?
No. Clinicians see their own numbers privately. Leaders see blinded peer ranges with case-mix context, never a ranking. Research on audit and feedback in the emergency department favours private, clinician-designed feedback over public rankings, which cause distress and distrust.[9]
How do we know whether it worked?
The pilot measures what Ontario already measures: the "were you told why?" item of the ED patient experience survey, left-without-being-seen rates, 72-hour returns, the 90th percentile time to physician and request response times. EDFlow supplies the adoption and equity numbers by language and age band.
A connected visit for everyone.
Bring the whole visit into view.
Explore the patient and staff experience, then plan a pilot around your department’s workflows.
Sources
- [1]Value-for-Money Audit: Emergency Departments (opens in a new tab) · Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, 2023
- [2]Emergency department overcrowding and access block (opens in a new tab) · Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CAEP), 2013
- [3]Emergency Department Overcrowding in Canada (opens in a new tab) · Canada's Drug Agency
- [4]Managing patient expectations at emergency department triage (opens in a new tab) · Patient Experience Journal, 2015
- [5]Operational Direction: Priorities for Spring/Summer 2025 (opens in a new tab) · Ontario Health, 2025
- [6]Highlighting the 2025/26 QIP Indicator Matrix and Selection Trends (opens in a new tab) · Health Quality Ontario (Quorum), 2025
- [7]QIP Indicator Technical Specifications (opens in a new tab) · Ontario Health
- [8]Ontario Emergency Department Patient Experience of Care Survey (opens in a new tab) · Ontario Hospital Association
- [9]Involving end-users in the design of an audit and feedback intervention in the emergency department (opens in a new tab) · BMC Health Services Research, 2019


