Feasibility of an Interactive Voice Response Tool for Adolescent Assault Victims

Background: Assault‐injured adolescents who are seen in the emergency department (ED) are difficult to follow prospectively using standard research techniques such as telephone calls or mailed questionnaires. Interactive voice response (IVR) is a novel technology that promotes active participation of subjects and allows automated data collection for prospective studies. Objectives: The objective was to determine the feasibility of IVR technology for collecting prospective information from adolescents who were enrolled in an ED‐based study of interpersonal violence. Methods: A convenience sample of assault‐injured 12‐ to 19‐year‐olds presenting to an urban, tertiary care ED was enrolled prospectively. Each subject completed a brief questionnaire in the ED and then was randomly assigned to use the IVR system in differently timed schedules over a period of 8 weeks: weekly, biweekly, or monthly calls. Upon discharge, each subject received a gift card incentive and a magnetic calendar with his or her prospective call‐in dates circled on it. Each time a subject contacted the toll‐free number, he or she used the telephone’s keypad to respond to computer‐voice questions about retaliation and violence subsequent to the ED visit. Using Internet access, we added $5 to the gift card for each call and $10 if all scheduled calls were completed. The primary outcome was the rate of the first utilization of the IVR system. The numbers of completed calls made for each of the three call‐in schedules were also compared. Results: Of the 95 subjects who consented to the follow‐up portion of the study, 44.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 34.0% to 54.8%) completed at least one IVR call, and 13.7% (95% CI = 7.5% to 22.3%) made all of their scheduled calls. There were no significant differences among groups in the percentage of subjects calling at least once into the system or in the percentage of requested calls made. The enrolled subjects had a high level of exposure to violence. At baseline, 85.3% (95% CI = 76.5% to 91.7%) had heard gunshots fired, and 84.2% (95% CI = 75.3% to 90.9%) had seen someone being assaulted. Twenty‐eight adolescents (29.5%, 95% CI = 20.6% to 39.7%) were reached for satisfaction interviews. All of those contacted found the IVR system easy to use and all but one would use it again. Conclusions: Interactive voice response technology is a feasible means of follow‐up among high‐risk violently injured adolescents, and this relatively anonymous process allows for the collection of sensitive information. Further research is needed to determine the optimal timing of calls and cost‐effectiveness in this population.     

Do gastroenterologists notify polyp patients that family members should have screening?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether patients found to have adenomatous polyps or cancer were notified that their relatives should have screening, due to an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. METHODS: Consecutive (n = 121) colonoscopy patients from December of 1999 to October of 2001 found to have adenomatous colon polyps or colon cancer formed the study group. Charts were reviewed for documentation of relative notification, and when documentation was not present, study subjects were contacted by telephone. RESULTS: Overall, 71% had data that were able to be evaluated; the remaining 29% were unable to be contacted because of changes of address or phone numbers. Adenomatous polyps were seen in 95%, and cancer seen in 5%. Overall, 30% of the patients were notified: 23 of 82 (28%) in the polyp group and 3 of 4 (75%) in the cancer group. Advanced adenomas or multiple adenomas were noted in 28 of the 82 (34%). Of those, 8 of 28 (29%) were notified. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists should be aware of the need for increased attention to family notification, especially in those with advanced adenomas or multiple adenomas. Template notification letters may complement the polyp surveillance programs that many colonoscopists use.     

Prehospital 12-lead Electrocardiography Impact on Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment Times and Mortality: A Systematic Review

Objectives: Prehospital 12‐lead electrocardiogram (PHECG) interpretation and advance emergency department (ED) notification may improve time‐to‐treatment intervals for a variety of treatment strategies to improve outcome in acute myocardial infarction. Despite consensus guidelines recommending this intervention, few emergency medical services (EMS) employ this. The authors systematically reviewed the literature to report whether mortality or treatment time intervals improved when compared with standard care. Methods: The authors used the Cochrane strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Dissertation Abstracts, Cochrane Library, and Index of Scientific and Technical Proceedings. Bibliographies and grant‐agency Websites were reviewed, and primary investigators and industry were contacted for published and unpublished studies. Inclusion criteria included PHECG and advance ED notification versus standard EMS care; controlled trials; English only; and evaluation of treatment time intervals, all‐cause mortality, or both. Study selection was hierarchical, blinded, and independent. Agreement at each level of review was evaluated by using a kappa statistic. Study quality was measured with a validated scale and was interpreted by two independent reviewers. Results: A total of 1,283 citations were identified, and five studies met the inclusion criteria. The weighted kappa for selection was 0.61 (standard error [SE], 0.045) for titles, 0.63 (SE, 0.051) for abstracts, and 0.79 (SE, 0.146) for full articles. Mean study quality measures by two independent reviewers were 6.0/15 and 5.5/15 (correlation coefficient, 0.85; p = 0.06). PHECG and advance ED notification increased the weighted mean on‐scene time by 1.2 minutes (95% confidence interval [95% CI] =?0.84 to 3.2). The weighted mean door‐to‐needle interval was shortened by 36.1 minutes (95% CI = 9.3 to 63.0: range of means, 22–48 minutes vs. 50–97 minutes). One study reported all‐cause mortality, with a statistically nonsignificant reduction from 15.6% to 8.4%. Conclusions: For patients with AMI, the literature would suggest that PHECG and advanced ED notification reduces in hospital time to fibrinolysis. One controlled trial found no difference in mortality with this out‐of‐hospital intervention.     

Impact of Interventions for Patients Refusing Emergency Medical Services Transport

Objective: To evaluate the effect of a documentation checklist and on–line medical control contact on ambulance transport of out–of–hospital patients refusing medical assistance. Methods: Consecutive patients served by four suburban ambulance services who initially refused emergency medical services (EMS) transport to the hospital were prospectively enrolled. In phase 1 (control phase), all patients who initially refused medical attention or transport had an identifying data card completed. In phase 2 (documentation phase), out–of–hospital providers completed a similar data card that contained a checklist of high–risk criteria for a poor outcome if not transported. In phase 3 (intervention phase), a data card similar to that used in phase 2 was completed, and on–line medical control was contacted for all patients with high–risk criteria who refused transport. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients transported to the hospital. Results: A total of 361 patients were enrolled. Transport rate varied by phase: control, 17 of 144 (12%); documentation, 11 of 150 (7%); and intervention, 12 of 67 (18%) (chi–square, p = 0. 023). Transport of high–risk patients improved with each intervention: control, two of 60 (3%); documentation, seven of 70 (10%); and intervention, 12 of 34 (35%) (chi–square, p = 0. 00003). Transport of patients without high–risk criteria decreased with each intervention: control, 15 of 84 (18%); documentation, four of 80 (5%); and intervention, 0 of 33 (0%) (p = 0. 0025). Of the 28 patients for whom medical control was contacted, 12 (43%) were transported to the hospital, and only three of these 12 patients (25%) were released from the ED. Conclusion: Contact with on–line medical control increased the likelihood of transport of high–risk patients who initially refused medical assistance. The appropriateness of the decreased transport rate of patients not meeting high–risk criteria needs further evaluation.     

Emergency Department Chlamydia Screening Through Partnership with the Public Health Department

Background: The emergency department (ED) serves a population that may benefit from numerous screening initiatives but screening in the ED is challenging due to crowding as well as resource and time constraints. One option may be to collect specimens in the ED and then partner with the public health department (PHD) to analyze the specimens off‐site and arrange follow‐up treatment. Objectives: The objective was to explore the feasibility of chlamydia screening in females using a partnership model in which the ED is responsible for urine collection and the PHD is responsible for chlamydia testing, notification, and treatment. Methods: A collaborative partnership‐based chlamydia screening project was initiated at a large (90,000 visits/yr), urban, teaching ED from April 2007 to April 2008. Study information sheets were handed out to a convenience sample of eligible female patients and visitors (15–24 yr of age). Those wishing to participate provided a urine sample and follow‐up contact information. The information sheet also asked if they had either lower abdominal pain or vaginal discharge (affirmative answer for either was considered symptomatic). Specimens collected in the ED were retrieved by PHD staff for off‐site testing. The PHD contacted those participants testing positive using the patient provided contact information and arranged for treatment. Results: Of the 633 women offered screening, 296 (47%) agreed to testing and provided samples. Of the 296 tested, 38 (12.8%) were positive for chlamydia infection, and 25 (66%) received follow‐up and treatment; 13 could not be contacted through information they provided. A higher percentage of symptomatic subjects (23 of 115, or 20%) tested positive for chlamydia than asymptomatic subjects (15 of 181, or 8.3%; p < 0.01). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of an ED–PHD partnership for chlamydia screening in young women. This model can potentially be applied to other initiatives and may improve public health screening without creating significant additional burdens for crowded EDs.     

Continuity of care in the transition from emergency department to general practitioner: Is it adequate?

Objective : To assess the adequacy of continuity of care for patients who are discharged to home or admitted to hospital from the emergency department. Methods : Questionnaire survey of emergency department communication practices. Results : Seventy-five of 86 emergency departments (87.2%) participated. Emergency departments failed to communicate with general practitioners upon disposition of many patients. For patients discharged to home, significantly more private emergency departments contacted general practitioners directly by telephone (P < 0.01) or by letter (P < 0.001). Significantly more public emergency departments gave patients a letter to take to their general practitioners (P < 0.01). Overall, emergency departments gave the patient a general practitioner letter some (33.3% of emergency department) or most (40.0%) of the time. Few letters were posted or faxed and little use of Email was made. Pre-formatted letters were used less than was expected. On patient admission, the telephone was used most frequently to advise general practitioners. Conclusions : Continuity of patient care may be inadequate in many emergency departments. Emergency departments should establish a check system to ensure that a communication is made with the general practitioners of all patients. Telephone or facsimile communication is recommended on patient admission. Other modes may be more appropriate on patient discharge to home. Structured, pre-formatted letters/facsimiles are recommended. Emergency department–general practitioner communications should be used as a performance indicator of emergency department practice.     

The impact of routine cognitive screening by using the clock drawing task in the evaluation of elderly patients in the emergency department

The prevalence of cognitive impairment, as reflected by failure to correctly perform a clock drawing task, in elderly Emergency Department (ED) patients was assessed. Additionally, we evaluated whether primary care provider notification of cognitive impairment spurred further cognitive evaluation. The clock drawing task was administered to a convenience sample of 100 elderly, English-speaking subjects presenting for reasons other than altered mentation at a community hospital ED. Primary care providers were contacted regarding abnormal clock drawing task results immediately and again after 2 months to determine if there was further evaluation of cognition. Of the 100 subjects enrolled, 30% were unable to correctly complete the clock drawing task, but only 8 had further evaluation of their cognitive abilities, resulting in four new diagnoses of dementia. Subjects who drew incorrect clocks (54%; 16/30) were more likely to be reevaluated in the ED within 2 months than those who drew correct clocks (29%; 20/70; p < 0.02). Cognitive screening of elderly ED patients with the clock drawing task identified a substantial number with unsuspected abnormal cognition. Further evaluation by their primary care physicians in follow-up was disappointing.     

Description and Evaluation of a Pilot Physician-directed Emergency Medical Services Diversion Control Program

Objectives: To describe the characteristics and feasibility of a physician‐directed ambulance destination‐control program to reduce emergency department (ED) overcrowding, as measured by hospital ambulance diversion hours. Methods: This controlled trial took place in Rochester, New York and included a university hospital and a university‐affiliated community hospital. During July 2003, emergency medical services (EMS) providers were asked to call an EMS destination‐control physician for patients requesting transport to either hospital. The destination‐control physician determined the optimal patient destination by using patient and system variables as well as EMS providers' and patients' input. Program process measures were evaluated to characterize the program. Administrative data were reviewed to compare system characteristics between the intervention program month and a control month. Results: During the intervention month, 2,708 patients were transported to the participating hospitals. EMS providers contacted the destination‐control physician for 1,866 (69%) patients. The original destination was changed for 253 (14%) patients. Reasons for redirecting patients included system needs, patient needs, physician affiliation, recent ED or hospital care, patient wishes, and primary care physician wishes. During the intervention month, EMS diversion decreased 190 (41%) hours at the university hospital and 62 (61%) hours at the community hospital, as compared with the control month. Conclusions: A voluntary, physician‐directed destination‐control program that directs EMS units to the ED most able to provide appropriate and timely care is feasible. Patients were redirected to maximize continuity of care and optimally use available emergency health care resources. This type of program may be effective in reducing overcrowding.     

From emergency department to general practitioner: evaluating emergency department communication and service to general practitioners

Objective: To survey general practitioners' (GPs) opinions of communication and service received from the ED of a tertiary metropolitan hospital. Methods: Analysis of a postal survey form sent to 380 GPs in the hospital catchment area. Results: One hundred and forty‐seven completed questionnaires (39%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 34–44%) were returned. Seventy‐eight GPs (53%, 95% CI 45–61%) endorsed the current method of discharge letter delivery by patient; however, 43 (29%, 95% CI 22–37%) stated that letters were often not received. The most commonly proposed alternative to patient delivery was facsimile transmission. One hundred and thirty respondents (88%, 95% CI 83–94%) rated the overall standard of communication from ED as average or better; however, 64 (44%, 95% CI 36–52%) felt that important information was omitted from the discharge letter. One hundred and seventeen (79%, 95% CI 73–86%) GPs found the ED admitting officer role useful when referring patients. Fifty‐nine (40%, 95% CI 32–48%) respondents cited difficulties accessing investigation results. The predominant source of patient dissatisfaction reported by GPs was excess waiting times. Conclusions: Half of GPs surveyed supported the current system of patient delivered discharge letters and of those who did not the majority preferred faxed discharges. There was little support for email communication. GPs reported problems with the current communication system including discharge letters not reaching GPs and deficiencies in the discharge information. GP reported substantial difficulties in accessing outstanding investigation results. Most GPs felt that assessment and treatment of their patients in the ED was of above average quality, as was the overall service they received from the ED. There was GP support for the ED admitting officer role.     

The Emergency Department as a Potential Site for Smoking Cessation Intervention: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of physician counseling and referral on smoking cessation rates and attendance at a smoking cessation program. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial set in a suburban, community teaching hospital emergency department (ED). During study hours, dedicated research associates enrolled consecutive, stable, oriented patients who were smokers. Eligible, consenting patients were randomized to one of two intervention groups. The control group received a two-page "Stop Smoking" pamphlet from the American Heart Association (AHA). Patients in the intervention group were given the AHA pamphlet along with pharmacologic information and standardized counseling by the attending emergency physician, including written and oral referral to a smoking cessation program. The primary outcome measures were telephone contact/attendance at the smoking cessation program by the intervention group and the rate of smoking cessation in both study groups at three months post-ED visit. Categorical data were analyzed by chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Rank data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney tests and continuous data by t-tests. All tests were two-tailed with alpha set at 0.05. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled; 78 were randomized to the intervention group. Nearly 70% of patients (103) were available for telephone follow-up. The study groups were statistically similar with regard to baseline demographic characteristics and the prevalence of moderate or severe nicotine addiction. None of the patients (0%) in the intervention group contacted or attended the smoking cessation program during the study period (95% CI = 0-4%). The percentages of patients who stopped smoking after three months were similar in the two groups [10.4% (5/48) control vs 10.9% (6/55) intervention; p = 1]. CONCLUSION: The authors found no difference in the smoking cessation rates between ED patients who received written material and those who were counseled by emergency physicians. Referral of patients who smoked to a cessation program was unsuccessful.     

Clinical trials in very elderly people: the point of view of geriatricians

BACKGROUND: Very elderly subjects (aged > or =80 years) and polypathological elderly subjects experience frequent and serious adverse drug effects. They are nevertheless still excluded from clinical research. METHODS: We questioned geriatricians through a questionnaire about the usefulness and feasibility of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this population. RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of geriatricians questioned did participate in RCTs, but 96.8% considered that RCTs including very elderly subjects were scientifically necessary. Among geriatricians who never participated in RCTs, 36% were never contacted regarding participation in such clinical research. The most important difficulties in developing RCTs in very elderly subjects were methodological difficulties (narrow eligibility criteria incompatible with patient heterogeneity) and those associated with patient consent. For 38.2% of the geriatricians, the fact that pharmaceutical companies are under no obligation to promote RCTs in very elderly subjects represents a major obstacle in the development of such RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The development of RCTs involving very elderly subjects depends first on a political choice, together with an adapted regulatory framework.     

Handover from paramedics: Observations and emergency department clinician perceptions

Objectives: 1. To evaluate emergency clinician attitudes towards handover from prehospital paramedics. 2. To determine the content and methods of paramedic handover delivery to emergency clinicians. Methods: Exploratory study comprising questionnaire of emergency clinicians and observation of paramedic‐to‐emergency clinician handover with associated survey at an adult tertiary referral hospital with approximately 12 000 ambulance arrivals of 37 000 annual attendances. Results: Emergency staff found handover from paramedics on patient conditions relevant, especially for altered consciousness (94%, 95% CI 83.5–98.6), trauma (90%, 95% CI 82.0–98.4) and chest pain (88%, 95% CI 79.0–97.0), but less so for behavioural disturbance (67%, 95% CI 53.7–79.5). A total of 621 handovers from 311 ambulance arrivals were observed. Most arrivals (81%, 95% CI 76.4–85.4) were not preceded by prehospital communication. Paramedics handed over twice 91% of the time (95% CI 88.2–94.4). Doctors received direct paramedic handover for 12% (95% CI 8.0–15.1) of ambulance arrivals, including 19 team handovers, whereas triage nurses took 97% (95% CI 95.6–99.2) and attending nurses, 91% (95% CI 87.5–93.9). Fifty per cent (95% CI 42.7–57.3) of emergency clinicians referred to ambulance sheets. Handover information was perceived to be useful and accurate in more than 80% of instances. Verbal handover occurred before ambulance sheet completion for 78% (95% CI 73.5–82.7). Conclusion: Although there is satisfaction in paramedic handover, prehospital notification and emergency physician contact with paramedics is uncommon for low acuity patients, who constitute the majority of ambulance attendances and hospital admissions. Scope for improved direct doctor–paramedic communication exists.     

Attitudes of Emergency Department Patients and Visitors Regarding Emergency Exception from Informed Consent in Resuscitation Research, Community Consultation, and Public Notification

OBJECTIVE: To assess public views on emergency exception to informed consent in resuscitation research, public awareness of such studies, and effective methods of community consultation and public notification. METHODS: A face-to-face survey was conducted in two academic Level I trauma center emergency departments (EDs) in Oregon and Minnesota from June through August 2001. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty people completed the survey, with an 82% response rate. The mean age of the respondents was 41 years (range 18-95) with a standard deviation of 14.5; 46% were female and 64% white. Most (88%) believed that research subjects should be informed prior to being enrolled, while 49% believed enrolling patients without prior consent in an emergency situation would be acceptable and 70% (369) would not object to be entered into such a study without providing prospective informed consent. Informing and consulting the community as a substitute for patient consent in emergency research was thought to be reasonable by 45% of the respondents. Most respondents would prefer to be informed about a study using emergency exception from informed consent by radio and television media (42%). Two hundred fifty-eight respondents (49%) stated they would attend a community meeting; the less educated were more likely to attend than those with college degrees (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.85, p = 0.008). However, only 5% knew of ongoing studies in their community using emergency exception from informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents disagreed with foregoing prospective informed consent for research participation even in emergency situations; however, many would be willing to participate in studies using emergency exception from informed consent. Most respondents would not attend community meetings, and would prefer to rely upon the media for information. Very few were aware of emergency exception from informed consent studies in their community. This suggests that current methods of community notification may not be effective.     

Timed Up and Go test is not useful as a discharge risk screening tool

Objective: To determine whether the ‘Timed Up and Go’ (TUG) test is a useful test for predicting re‐attendance at an ED, emergency hospital admission or death within 90 days in elderly patients discharged from the ED. Methods: This was a prospective blinded cohort study at a tertiary referral ED. Patients completed a TUG test during their Allied Health assessment prior to discharge from the department. After 90 days, patient ED attendances, emergency admissions to hospital or deaths were recorded and confirmed by phone. Data were analysed using logistic regression and reported as odds ratios (OR) or log‐transformation and Pearson analysis. Results: One hundred patients were enrolled: 78 (78%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 70–86%) patients remained event free, 22 (22%, 95% CI 14–30%) patients re‐attended an ED and 15 (15%, 95% CI 8–22%) were admitted to hospital as an emergency admission. There was no significant difference between TUG test times and whether patients re‐attended an ED (OR 1.0 [0.93–1.06]P = 0.9) or were admitted to hospital (OR 0.99 [0.91–1.07]P = 0.74). There was no significant correlation between a patient's TUG test time and the number of days to ED re‐attendance (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.38 [?0.04 to 0.69]P = 0.08) or admission (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.32 [?0.23 to 0.71]P = 0.25). Conclusion: This study did not detect any predictive value of the TUG test for ED re‐attendance or hospital admission within 90 days of discharge among aged ED patients.     

Pilot Study: Concordance of Disposition for Hypothetical Medical Patients in the Emergency Department

Objectives: Emergency physicians (EPs) make dispositions for every patient in the emergency department (ED) and often require agreement from inpatient services to admit medical patients to the hospital. Sometimes disagreements arise. The authors sought to determine in their institution disposition concordance between EPs and admitting medical services of hypothetical ED patients. A second objective was to describe additional information requested by each service. Methods: Within a two‐week period, physicians from emergency medicine (EM), family practice (FP), and internal medicine (IM) voluntarily completed anonymous questionnaires asking them to disposition hypothetical ED patients. Eleven case scenarios were followed by three disposition choices (admit, discharge, or cannot tell) from given information (followed by a free‐text area). Results: A total of 105 questionnaires were returned: 42 from EM (12 attending physicians/30 residents), 33 from FP (14 attending physicians/19 residents), and 30 from IM (4 attending physicians/26 residents). Admission rates were statistically different for EM (68% attending physicians/65% residents/66% total) when compared with FP (42% attending physicians/54% residents/49% total) (p < 0.01) and IM (36% attending physicians/53% residents/51% total) (p < 0.01). Discharge rates were also statistically different for EM (8% attending physicians/19% residents/16% total) versus FP (29% attending physicians/29% residents/28% total) (p < 0.01) and IM (27% attending physicians/28% residents/28% total) (p < 0.01). “Cannot tell” rates were not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05) for EM (23% attending physicians/16% residents/18% total) versus FP (25% attending physicians/14% residents/19% total) and IM (36% attending physicians/16% residents/18% total). The proportion of additional tests requested in the “cannot tell” disposition by attending EPs was about half that of the other groups. Dispositions between FP and IM were not different at any level (p > 0.05). Conclusions: In the authors' institution, when presented with identical hypothetical ED patients, EPs would admit more, discharge less, and ask for fewer additional tests than FP or IM physicians. The FP and IM physicians surveyed disposition patients in a similar manner.     

Effectiveness of an Organized Follow-up System for Elder Patients Released from the Emergency Department

Objectives : To determine whether an effective telephone callback system can be successfully implemented in a busy ED and to quantify the benefits that can be obtained related to the follow-up care of elder patients.
Methods : This was a prospective, cohort study conducted at a community teaching hospital during a 6-month period. Consecutive patients ≥60 years old and released from the ED were selected for telephone follow-up. Calls were made by a research nurse within 72 hours after the patient's ED visit. Follow-up information included current medical status, problems encountered during the ED visit, compliance, and impact of the illness on self-care capabilities.
Results : Seventy-nine percent (831/1,048) of the patients selected for telephone follow-up were successfully contacted. The calls lasted an average of 4 ± 2.5 minutes. Although 94% (778/831) of these patients had a regular physician, 14% failed to make their recommended follow-up arrangements. Compliance was significantly improved when a follow-up physician was contacted during the patient's ED visit. Approximately 96% of the patients were either satisfied or very satisfied with their ED care. However, 13% (109/831) had moderate deterioration in their ability to care for themselves. Of the patients contacted, 333 (40%) required further clarification of their home care instructions, 31 were advised to return to the ED for reevaluation, and 26 were referred to a medical social worker for psychosocial concerns.
Conclusion : A telephone callback system is a feasible and effective method to improve follow-up care of elder patients released from the ED.     

Intensive Intervention Improves Primary Care Follow-up for Uninsured Emergency Department Patients

Objectives: To test an intervention designed to improve primary care use and decrease emergency department (ED) utilization for uninsured patients using the ED. Methods: Using a randomized design, an intensive case‐management intervention was tested with patients identified at a Level 1 urban trauma center from April 2002 through July 2002. Following assessment in the ED, six‐month follow‐up data were gathered from four primary care sites (two Federally Qualified Health Centers, two hospital outpatient clinics) and two area hospitals. Eligible participants were uninsured, were at least 18 years of age, and did not have a regular primary care provider. Of 281 patients approached, 273 (97.2%) agreed to participate. After 42 patients were eliminated following enrollment due to ineligibility, there were 121 intervention and 109 comparison subjects. Health Promotion Advocates (HPAs) in the ED gathered information from all study participants. On intervention shifts, HPAs assisted patients in choosing a primary care provider and faxed all information to a case worker at the selected site. Case managers attempted to contact patients and schedule appointments. On comparison shifts, patients received care as usual. Primary care contact in 60 days and subsequent ED visits in six months post‐ED assessment were the main outcome measures. Results: Intervention subjects were more likely to have a primary care contact (51.2% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in either number of inpatient admissions or postintervention ED visits, although postintervention ED visits for the intervention group were less expensive. Conclusions: This project has demonstrated that it is possible to improve primary care follow‐up for uninsured ED patients.     

Socioeconomic Disparities Are Negatively Associated with Pediatric Emergency Department Aftercare Compliance

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to identify demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical predictors of aftercare noncompliance by pediatric emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective, observational study of pediatric patients presenting to a university teaching hospital ED from July 1, 2002, through August 31, 2002. Demographic and clinical information was obtained from guardians during the ED visit. Guardians were contacted after discharge to determine compliance with ED aftercare instructions. Subjects were excluded if they were admitted or if guardians were unavailable or unwilling to consent. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of noncompliance from a list of predetermined variables. RESULTS: Of the 409 patients enrolled in the study, 111 were prescribed medications and 364 were given specific follow-up instructions. Subtypes of the variable "insurance status" were significantly associated with medication noncompliance in multivariable regression analysis. "Insurance status" and "low-acuity discharge diagnoses" were significantly associated with follow-up noncompliance. CONCLUSIONS: Disparity in health insurance has been shown to be a predictor of poor aftercare compliance for pediatric ED patients within the patient population.