## 4 Results
### Analysis of the Interactive Process Indicators of the Emergency Department
We found that the median time from the arrival of the patient at the hospital to triage was higher (14.27 min vs. 11.24 min). The same happened for the time intra-triage, which was almost double for the LOS > 4 h group (2.17 min vs. 1.25 min). Figure 11: Reasons for consultation in patients with LOS greater than 4 h.  
Figure 10: Reasons for consultation in patients with LOS less than 4 h. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Total Sample** \\ **N = 94,489 (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Group A > 4 h** \\ **N = 29,621 (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **RR (>4 h)** \\ **N = 64,868 (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Group B \(\leq\) 4 h** \\ **RR (\(\leq\)4 h)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Walking & 56,808 (60.12\%) & 14,339 (48,41\%) & **0.62 (0.61–0.63)** & 42,469 (65.47\%) & **1.26 (1.25–1.27)** \\ \hline Stretcher & 7068 (7.48\%) & 4310 (14.55\%) & **2.11 (2.06.2–15)** & 2758 (4.25\%) & **0.55 (0.53–0.57)** \\ \hline Disabled & 46 (0.05\%) & 22 (0.07\%) & **1.53 (1.13–2.06)** & 24 (0.04\%) & 0.76 (0.58–1.00) \\ \hline Wheelchair & 18,475 (19.55\%) & 7913 (26.71\%) & **1.50 (1.47–1.53)** & 10,562 (16.38\%) & **0.80 (0.79–0.81)** \\ \hline Unknown & 12,092 (12.8\%) & 3037 (10.25\%) & **0.78 (0.75–0.80)** & 9055 (13.96\%) & **1.11 (1.09–1.12)** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Means of arrival values analysed with PMApp. Figure 12: Mean of arrival of patients with LOS less than 4 h.  
Figure 13: Mean of arrival of patients with LOS greater than 4 h. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Total Sample** & **Group A \textgreater{} 4 h** & **RR (\textgreater{}4 h)** & **Group B \textless{}4 h** & **RR (\textless{}4 h)** & **RR (\textless{}4 h)** \\  & **N = 94,489 (\%)** & **N = 29,621 (\%)** & **RR (\textgreater{}4 h)** & **N = 64,868 (\%)** & **RR (\textless{}4 h)** \\ \hline Nonfrequent visitors (1 visit per year) & 47,078 (49.82\%) & 13,295 (44.88\%) & **0.82 (0.80–0.84)** & 33,783 (52.08\%) & **1.09 (1.09–1.10)** \\ \hline Lowfrequency visitors (2–4 visits per year) & 39,378 (41.67\%) & 13,311 (44.94\%) & **1.14 (1.12–1.16)** & 26,067 (40.18\%) & **0.94 (0.93–0.95)** \\ \hline Hyperfrequenters (5–10 visits per year) & 7204 (7.62\%) & 2776 (9.37\%) & **1.25 (1.21–1.29)** & 4428 (6.83\%) & **0.89 (0.87–0.90)** \\ \hline Superfrequenters (>10 visits per year) & 829 (0.88\%) & 239 (0.81\%) & 0.92 (0.83–1.02) & 590 (0.91\%) & 1.04 (0.99–1.08) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Frequency of visit values analysed with PMApp. Regarding the time to first attention, there were also differences in the percentage of patients whose time to first contact exceeded the recommended time for each triage level: Level II (56-50%), Level III (49-35%), Level IV (45-9%), and Level V (19-4%). Finally, we found that the highest number of episodes (11,552) with LOS > 4 h occurred in triage level III, representing 39.16% of the total patients with LOS > 4. Once we finalised the phase of characterisation of the patients, we performed a relative risk (RR) analysis to detect the relationship between variables and LOS. The variables with the highest RR for a LOS > 4 h were as follows: age; the older the age, the greater the risk of a LOS > 4 h (over 90 years, 1.95 (1.89-2.01)) (Table 1); urgent triage level (I, II, and III); (Level II 2.03 (1.99-2.08) ) (Table 5); patients referred by other healthcare professionals; (residence 2.04 (1.96-2.13)) (Table 6); having a condition upon arrival that required a wheelchair and/or stretcher; (stretcher 2.11 (2.06-2.15)) (Table 3).