Review article: Leaving the emergency department without being seen

Patients who leave the ED without being seen (LWBS) are unlikely to be satisfied with the quality of the service provided and might be at risk from conditions that have not been assessed or treated. We therefore examined the available research literature to inform the following questions: (i) In patients who attend for ED care, what factors are associated with the decision to LWBS? (ii) In patients who attend for ED care, are there adverse health outcomes associated with the decision to LWBS? (iii) Which interventions have been used to try to reduce the number of patients who attend for ED care and LWBS? From the available literature, there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions; however, the literature does suggest that patients who LWBS have conditions of lower urgency and lower acuity, are more likely to be male and younger, and are likely to identify prolonged waiting times as a central concern. LWBS patients generally have very low rates of subsequent admission, and reports of serious adverse events are rare. Many LWBS patients go on to seek alternative medical attention, and they might have higher rates of ongoing symptoms at follow‐up. Further research is recommended to include comprehensive cohort or well‐designed case–control studies. These studies should assess a wide range of related factors, including patient, hospital and other relevant factors. They should compare outcomes for groups of LWBS patients with those who wait and should include cross‐sectoral data mapping to truly detect re‐attendance and admission rates.     

Estimation of unregistered patients who left without being seen: At an urban mid-sized Canadian community emergency department

ObjectiveTo determine whether changes to the appearance of an emergency department (ED) waiting room influenced the number of patients who left without being seen (LWBS).DesignRetrospective analysis using National Ambulatory Care Reporting System data collected at the time of patient registration.SettingThe ED of Belleville General Hospital, a mid-sized secondary care community hospital in Ontario with a catchment population of 125 000.ParticipantsAll unscheduled patients registering at the hospital to be seen in the ED from July 1 to December 31, 2016 (control period), and from July 1 to December 31, 2017 (study period).Main outcome measuresThe volume of patients registering by Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) level to be seen in the ED during the study period compared with the volume of patients registering during the control period, and the number of LWBS during the 2 time periods.ResultsThe average number of patients registered per month was significantly greater in the study period than in the control period (t₁₀ = -5.53, P < .01). A total increase of 1881 registrations was recorded in the study period, or 10.47% (increase per month ranged from 9.59% to 11.66%). The proportion of patients with less acute triage scores decreased in the study period; however, the differences in CTAS levels between the 2 years was not statistically significant (χ² = 1.05, P = .90). The number of LWBS according to CTAS level was lower in all categories in the study period, including those in the less acute levels, decreasing from 60 in CTAS 5 in 2016 to 45 in 2017, and 585 in CTAS 4 in 2016 to 330 in 2017. Overall, the distribution of LWBS by CTAS level was significantly different between the control and study periods (P < .01).ConclusionThe number of patients registering is influenced by the apparent high or low occupancy of the waiting area at the time of registration.     

Emergency department patients who leave the department without being seen by a doctor.

When waiting times in accident and emergency (A&E) departments become too long, some patients leave the department before seeing a doctor. This study was designed to investigate the characteristics and outcome of this group of patients in one A&E department. We identified all patients who left the department without seeing a doctor on 12 randomly selected days in October and November 1997. These patients were contacted by post and non-responders followed up by telephone. During the study period 3097 patients registered for treatment, and of these 102 (3.26%) left before being seen. Of these 102 patients, 77 were contacted. The duration of their symptoms was less than 24 hours in 56 patients (73%). Their mean waiting time was 2.44 hours. Of the patients reviewed, 45 (58%) sought medical attention afterwards and one required hospital admission. The majority of patients were satisfied by the explanation given for the delay in seeing a doctor. This limited study suggests that patients are able themselves to gauge the severity of their symptoms and safely defer medical consultation.     

Hospital factors associated with emergency center patients leaving without being seen

We developed a statistical model that would identify and quantify the relative contributions of different factors hypothesized to impact the frequency of emergency center (EC) patients who leave without being seen (LWBS). We performed an analysis of the daily counts of patients that registered in our EC during a 21-month period who then LWBS. Candidate predictor variables included the number of patients seen, and the number admitted to the hospital, for each area of our EC, as well as the hours of faculty double coverage, and the day of the week. Univariate analyses were performed using standard methods. Multivariate analysis was performed using the general linear model. A backward selection procedure was used to eliminate statistically insignificant variables until all remaining independent variables had P-values < or = .05. External validation and analysis of the stability of the estimated regression coefficients of the model were evaluated using bootstrap methods. Two-tailed tests and a type I error of 0.05 were used. During the period studied, 133,666 patients were registered in the EC and 9,894 (7.4%) left. Multivariate analysis identified six variables that were significantly associated with LWBS. The fitted model containing all six variables explained 52.8% of the variability observed in LWBS frequency. The most powerful predictor of LWBS was total number of patients cared for in the main ED. This accounted for 46.4% of the observed variation in LWBS. The total number of trauma and resuscitation patients, and the total number of observation unit admissions to the hospital were also associated with increased LWBS. More pediatric cases seen in the main ED, weekends, and additional faculty coverage were associated with fewer patients leaving. Efforts to decrease the LWBS rate will be most successful if they address the issue of main ED volume.     

Return visit characteristics among patients who leave without being seen from a pediatric ED

Objectives

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate for differences in acuity level and rate of admission on return visit between patients who leave without being seen (LWBS) and those who are initially evaluated by a physician. Our secondary aim was as well as to identify predictors of which LWBS patients will return to the ED with high acuity or require admission.

Methods

A cross-sectional study using an administrative database at an academic tertiary-care pediatric hospital in the United States from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2008 was done.

Results

There were 3525 patients who LWBS during the study period (1.2% of total ED visits). Of these, 87% were triaged as nonurgent, and 13% as urgent at their initial visit. Two hundred eighty-nine (8%) of LWBS patients returned to the ED within 48 hours. Compared with the population who returned to the ED after previous evaluation, patients who LWBS from their initial visit and returned had significantly lower odds of urgent acuity at time of return visit (odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.32) and of being admitted (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84). Urgent acuity at initial visit (OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.35-6.04) and number of ED visits in last 6 months (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52) were significant predictors of admission at return visit among the LWBS population.

Conclusions

Generally, patients who LWBS from a pediatric ED were unlikely to return for ED care, and those who did were unlikely to either be triaged as urgent or require hospital admission. This study showed that urgent acuity during the initial visit and number of previous ED visits were significant predictors of admission on return. Identification of these predictors may allow a targeted intervention to ensure follow-up of patients who meet these criteria after they LWBS from the pediatric ED.     

Refusal of emergency medical care: An analysis of patients who left without being seen,eloped, and left against medical advice

ObjectiveEmergency department (ED) patients may elect to refuse any aspect of medical care. They may leave prior to physician evaluation, elope during treatment, or leave against medical advice during treatment. This study was undertaken to identify patient perspectives and reasons for refusal of care.MethodsThis prospective study was conducted at an urban Level 1 Trauma Center. This study examined ED patients who left without being seen (LWBS), eloped during treatment, or left against medical advice during September to December 2018. This project included both chart review and a prospective patient survey.ResultsAmong 298 participants, the majority were female (54%). Most participants were White (61%) or African American (36%). Thirty-eight percent of participants left against medical advice, 23% eloped, and 39% left without being seen by a provider. When compared to the general ED population, patients who refused care were significantly younger (p < 0.001). When comparing by groups, patients who left AMA were significantly older than those who eloped or left without being seen (p < 0.001). Among 68 patients interviewed by telephone, the most common stated reasons for refusal of care included wait time (23%), unmet expectations (23%), and negative interactions with ED staff (15%).ConclusionED patients who refused care were significantly younger than the general ED population. Common reasons cited by patients for refusal of care included wait time, unmet expectations, and negative interactions with ED staff.     

急诊危重度指数在儿科急诊中的应用

目的 例证急诊危重度指数(ESI)在儿科急诊室的应用.方法 通过收集2006年7月至2010年8月,北京儿童医院国际部急诊21 904人次患儿的ESI分级资料,应用x2检验方法,回顾性对比分析医生和护士的分诊结果.结果 ESI容易掌握,护士分诊结果与医生矫正分诊结果有较好一致性.结论 ESI分诊系统适合儿科急诊分诊,能够迅速分检危重病例,有效利用临床资源.     

急诊危重度指数在儿科急诊中的应用

目的 例证急诊危重度指数(ESI)在儿科急诊室的应用.方法 通过收集2006年7月至2010年8月,北京儿童医院国际部急诊21 904人次患儿的ESI分级资料,应用x2检验方法,回顾性对比分析医生和护士的分诊结果.结果 ESI容易掌握,护士分诊结果与医生矫正分诊结果有较好一致性.结论 ESI分诊系统适合儿科急诊分诊,能够迅速分检危重病例,有效利用临床资源.

Abstract：

Objective Demonstrate the implication of Emergency Severity Index (ESI) in pediatric emergency room (ER). Method ESI categories of 21 904 visitors to ER of Beijing Children's Hospital's international department were reviewed. SPSS statistic software was employed to compare the results of ESI categories by doctors and nurses separately using x2 analysis. Results There are highly consistency in ESI categories by doctors and nurses. ESI is an easy-learned and effective triage method. Conclusions ESI is capable in pediatric emergency room regarding recognizing serious cases and saving clinical resources.     

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a prognostic predictor in emergency department patients with cutaneous adverse drug reaction

ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in emergency department (ED) patients with cutaneous adverse drug reactions to identify the severe patients at an early stage.MethodsIn this retrospective study, patients aged 18 and over who admitted to the ED of a university hospital with the diagnosis of cutaneous adverse drug reaction were included. For included patients, clinical findings and ED admission complete blood count results were recorded. The primary outcome was hospitalization and the secondary outcome was the type of drug reaction.ResultsA total of 135 patients were included in the study. The median age of patients was 50 (36–64) years. There was no significant difference between the patients hospitalized and discharged from the ED in terms of age and gender (p = 0.340 and p = 0.762, respectively). There was no significant difference between hospitalized and discharged patients in terms of complete blood count parameters (p > 0.05, for all). The median NLR of hospitalized patients was significantly higher than that of patients discharged from the ED (6.13 vs. 3.69, p = 0.006). The median NLR of the patients with erythema multiform/Steven Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrosis was significantly higher than the NLR of the patients with maculopapular and fixed drug eruptions (p = 0.022 and p = 0.015, respectively). The area under the curve value of NLR in predicting hospitalization was 0.640 (0.546–0.734). For 8.4 of NLR cutoff value, specificity was 83.9%.ConclusionNLR is a useful and simple prognostic parameter as an indicator of systemic inflammatory involvement in ED patients with cutaneous adverse drug reactions. NLR is a useful parameter for deciding which patient will be admitted to the hospital in that patient group.     

Treatment of suspected sepsis and septic shock in children with chronic disease seen in the pediatric emergency department

BackgroundResearch demonstrates that timely recognition and treatment of sepsis can significantly improve pediatric patient outcomes, especially regarding time to intravenous fluid (IVF) and antibiotic administration. Further research suggests that underlying chronic disease in a septic pediatric patient puts them at higher risk for poor outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare treatment time for suspected sepsis and septic shock in pediatric patients with chronic disease versus those without chronic disease seen in the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED).MethodsWe reviewed patient data from a pediatric sepsis outcomes dataset collected at two tertiary care pediatric hospital sites from January 2017–December 2018. Patients were stratified into two groups: those with and without chronic disease, defined as any patient with at least one of eight chronic health conditions. Inclusion criteria: patients seen in the PED ultimately diagnosed with sepsis or septic shock, patient age 0 to 20 years and time zero for identification of sepsis in the PED. Exclusion criteria: time zero unavailable, inability to determine time of first IVF or antibiotic administration or patient death within the PED. Primary analysis included comparison of time zero to first IVF and antibiotic administration between each group.Results312 patients met inclusion criteria. 169 individuals had chronic disease and 143 did not. Median time to antibiotics in those with chronic disease was 41.9 min versus 43.0 min in patients without chronic disease (p = 0.181). Time to first IVF in those with chronic disease was 22.0 min versus 12.0 min in those without (p = 0.010). Those with an indwelling line/catheter (n = 40) received IVF slower than those without (n = 272), with no significant difference in time to antibiotic administration by indwelling catheter status (p = 0.063). There were no significant differences in the mode of identification of suspected sepsis or septic shock between those with versus without chronic disease (p = 0.27).ConclusionsStudy findings suggest pediatric patients with chronic disease with suspected sepsis or septic shock in the PED have a slower time to IVF administration but equivocal use of sepsis recognition tools compared to patients without chronic disease.