Establishing the value of call-handling metrics in a United Kingdom Poisons Information Centre

Introduction Poisons Information Centres in the United Kingdom have experienced increased enquiry volume over the past five years, accompanied by declining answer rates, together indicating increasing operational pressure on Specialists in Poisons Information. Accurate measurement of enquiry handling time is essential for understanding workload and informing workforce planning; however, the validity of routinely collected operational metrics has not been evaluated.Methods We undertook a service evaluation to compare automated timestamps from the national enquiry-logging system with manually recorded handling times. Handling time was defined as the sum of ‘talk’, ‘hold’ and ‘documentation’ time. Data were self-collected across 48 call handling shifts, involving 821 enquiries. For each enquiry, manually recorded handling time was compared with the system-generated duration to assess alignment and, if applicable, to quantify the magnitude and direction of any discrepancy.Results Automated timestamps did not provide an accurate measure of total handling time, with bidirectional errors observed across Specialists in Poisons Information irrespective of experience. System-generated durations typically underestimated true handling time by approximately 20%, equating to a cumulative discrepancy of 30–80 min per shift. The median manually determined handling time for an incoming enquiry was 538 s, with 78% of time spent talking to the enquirer and 22% on documentation. Handling times were substantially longer for hospital-originated enquiries (828 s). The median case handling time also increased linearly with increasing case severity.Discussion Growing enquiry volume and reduced answer rates motivated assessment of automated timestamp data, which underestimated true handling time. Wide variability indicated routine metrics may lack validity for describing workload or informing operational decisions.Conclusion Automated timestamping substantially underestimates true enquiry handling time and may misrepresent workloads in Poison Information Centres. Accurate measurement of handling time is essential for modelling capacity, determining safe staffing levels and ensuring that national performance targets remain achievable.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Toxicology
Published
2026-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2026.2732064
Primary Topic
Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Establishing the value of call-handling metrics in a United Kingdom Poisons Information Centre

Pardeep S. Jagpal
Clinical Toxicology
Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
article

Establishing the value of call-handling metrics in a United Kingdom Poisons Information Centre

Pardeep S. Jagpal
article en

Abstract

Introduction Poisons Information Centres in the United Kingdom have experienced increased enquiry volume over the past five years, accompanied by declining answer rates, together indicating increasing operational pressure on Specialists in Poisons Information. Accurate measurement of enquiry handling time is essential for understanding workload and informing workforce planning; however, the validity of routinely collected operational metrics has not been evaluated.Methods We undertook a service evaluation to compare automated timestamps from the national enquiry-logging system with manually recorded handling times. Handling time was defined as the sum of ‘talk’, ‘hold’ and ‘documentation’ time. Data were self-collected across 48 call handling shifts, involving 821 enquiries. For each enquiry, manually recorded handling time was compared with the system-generated duration to assess alignment and, if applicable, to quantify the magnitude and direction of any discrepancy.Results Automated timestamps did not provide an accurate measure of total handling time, with bidirectional errors observed across Specialists in Poisons Information irrespective of experience. System-generated durations typically underestimated true handling time by approximately 20%, equating to a cumulative discrepancy of 30–80 min per shift. The median manually determined handling time for an incoming enquiry was 538 s, with 78% of time spent talking to the enquirer and 22% on documentation. Handling times were substantially longer for hospital-originated enquiries (828 s). The median case handling time also increased linearly with increasing case severity.Discussion Growing enquiry volume and reduced answer rates motivated assessment of automated timestamp data, which underestimated true handling time. Wide variability indicated routine metrics may lack validity for describing workload or informing operational decisions.Conclusion Automated timestamping substantially underestimates true enquiry handling time and may misrepresent workloads in Poison Information Centres. Accurate measurement of handling time is essential for modelling capacity, determining safe staffing levels and ensuring that national performance targets remain achievable.

Clinical Toxicology
Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), Washington Poison Center (US), University of Birmingham (GB)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.