Identifying Frequent Users of Emergency Department Resources

Background

There is growing focus on frequent users of acute care resources. If these patients can be identified, interventions can be established to offer more consistent management plans to decrease inappropriate utilization.

Objective

To compare a hospital-specific approach with a region-wide approach to identify frequent Emergency Department (ED) users.

Methods

A retrospective multi-center cohort study of hospital ED visits from all 18 nonmilitary, acute care hospitals serving the San Diego region (population 3.2 million) between 2008 and 2010 using data submitted to the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Frequent users and super users were defined as having 6 to 20 and 21 or more visits, respectively, during any consecutive 12 months in the study period. Comparisons between community-wide and hospital-specific methods were made.

Results

There were 925,719 individual patients seen in an ED, resulting in 2,016,537 total visits. There were 28,569 patients identified as frequent users and 1661 identified as super users, using a community-wide approach. Individual hospitals could identify 15.6% to 62.4% of all frequent users, and from 0.3% to 15.2% of all the super users who visited their facility. Overall, the hospital-specific approach identified 20,314 frequent users and 571 super users, failing to identify 28.9% of frequent users and 65.6% of super users visiting San Diego County EDs that would otherwise have been identified using a community-wide approach.

Conclusions

A community-wide identification method resulted in greater numbers of individuals being identified as frequent and super ED users than when utilizing individual hospital data.     

Epidemiologic Analysis of an Urban, Public Emergency Department''s Frequent Users

OBJECTIVES: To determine how the demographic, clinical, and utilization characteristics of emergency department (ED) frequent users differ from those of other ED patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional and retrospective cohort study was performed using a database of all 348,858 visits to the San Francisco General Hospital ED during a five-year period (July 1, 1993, to June 30, 1998). A "frequent user" visited the ED five or more times in a 12-month period. RESULTS: Frequent users constituted 3.9% of ED patients but accounted for 20.5% of ED visits. The relative risk (RR) of frequent use was high among patients who were homeless (RR = 4.5), African American (RR = 1.8), and Medi-Cal sponsored (RR = 2.1). Frequent users were more likely to be seen for alcohol withdrawal (RR = 4.4), alcohol dependence (RR = 3.4), and alcohol intoxication (RR = 2.4). Frequent users were also more likely to visit for exacerbations of chronic conditions, including sickle cell anemia (RR = 8.0), renal failure (RR = 3.6), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR = 3.3). They were less likely to visit for all forms of trauma (RR = 0.43). Survival analysis showed that only 38% of frequent users for one year remained frequent users the next year. However, 56% of frequent users for two consecutive years remained frequent users in the third year. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent use of the ED reflects the urban social problems of homelessness, poverty, alcohol abuse, and chronic illness. Frequent use of the ED shows a high rate of decline from one year to the next. This rate of decline slows after the first year and suggests the existence of a smaller group of chronic frequent users.     

Patient Navigation to Reduce Emergency Department (ED) Utilization Among Medicaid Insured,Frequent ED Users: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundSome Medicaid enrollees frequently utilize the emergency department (ED) due to barriers accessing health care services in other settings.ObjectivesTo determine whether an ED-initiated Patient Navigation program (ED-PN) designed to improve health care access for Medicaid-insured frequent ED users could decrease ED visits, hospitalizations, and costs.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing ED-PN with usual care (UC) among 100 Medicaid-enrolled frequent ED users (defined as 4–18 ED visits in the prior year), assessing ED utilization during the 12 months pre- and post-enrollment. Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations, outpatient utilization, hospital costs, and Medicaid costs. We also compared characteristics between ED-PN patients with and without reduced ED utilization.ResultsOf 214 eligible patients approached, 100 (47%) consented to participate. Forty-nine were randomized to ED-PN and 51 to UC. Sociodemographic characteristics and prior utilization were similar between groups. ED-PN participants had a significant reduction in ED visits and hospitalizations during the 12-month evaluation period compared with UC, averaging 1.4 fewer ED visits per patient (p = 0.01) and 1.0 fewer hospitalizations per patient (p = 0.001). Both groups increased outpatient utilization. ED-PN patients showed a trend toward reduced per-patient hospital costs (−$10,201, p = 0.10); Medicaid costs were unchanged (−$5,765, p = 0.26). Patients who demonstrated a reduction in ED usage were older (mean age 42 vs. 33 years, p = 0.03) and had lower health literacy (78% low health literacy vs. 40%, p = 0.02).ConclusionAn ED-PN program targeting Medicaid-insured high ED utilizers demonstrated significant reductions in ED visits and hospitalizations in the 12 months after enrollment.     

Frequent Users of the Emergency Department: Can We Intervene?

Objective: To determine whether the use of individualized patient care plans and multidisciplinary case management would decrease ED utilization by frequent ED users.
Methods: The authors performed a prospective, randomized clinical trial of the impact of a care plan on ED use by adults with frequent ED visits. Patients with >10 ED visits to a university hospital in 1993 were identified. Patients were matched for age, sex, and number of visits and then randomized into 2 groups. The control group received standard emergency care. The treatment group was managed by a multidisciplinary team and treated in the ED according to individualized care plans. ED use was tracked at the university hospital and at the other 5 community hospitals in the city.
Results: Of the 70 enrolled patients, 25 of 37 control patients and 27 of 33 treatment patients made visits to the university hospital during the 1-year study period. Only those patients with follow-up visits were included in the data analysis. Patients remaining in the control group made 247 total visits (range 1–65) to the university hospital and 179 total visits (range 0–38) to the community hospitals during the study period. Patients in the treatment group made 320 total visits (range 1–72) to the university hospital and 254 total visits (range 0–135) to the community hospitals during the study period. There was no significant difference in the median number of visits made to either the university hospital or the community hospitals by the patients in the control group and those in the treatment group.
Conclusions: The use of individualized care plans and case management did not significantly decrease ED utilization by frequent ED users. However, the impact of individualized care plans and case management on other quality-of-care measures (e.g., patient satisfaction, ED length of stay, hospitalizations, primary care visits, and health care costs) remains to be determined.     

Return to the Emergency Department among Elders: Patterns And Predictors

OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe the pattern of return visits to the emergency department (ED) among elders over the six months following an index visit; 2) to identify the predictors of early return (within 30 days) and frequent return (three or more return visits in six months); and 3) to evaluate a newly developed screening tool for functional decline, Identification of Seniors At Risk (ISAR), with regard to its ability to predict return visits. METHODS: Subjects were patients aged 65 years or more who visited the EDs of four Canadian hospitals during the weekday shift over a three-month recruitment period. Excluded were patients who: could not be interviewed, due either to their medical conditions or to cognitive impairment, and no other informant was available; refused linkage of study data; or were admitted to hospital at the initial (index) visit. Measures made at the index ED visit included: 27 self-report screening questions on social, physical, and mental risk factors, medical history, use of hospital services, medications, and alcohol. Six of these questions comprised the ISAR scale. Return visits and diagnoses during the six months after the index visit were abstracted from the utilization database. RESULTS: Among 1,122 patients released from the ED, 492 (43.9%) made one or more return visits; 216 (19.3%) returned early and 84 (7.5%) returned frequently. Earlier returns were more likely than later returns to be for the same diagnosis (p = 0.003). Using logistic regression, hospitalization during the previous six months, feeling depressed, and certain diagnoses predicted both early and frequent returns. Also, a history of heart disease, having ever been married, and not drinking alcohol daily predicted early return; a history of diabetes, a recent ED visit, and lack of support predicted frequent use. CONCLUSIONS: In the first month after an ED visit, return rates are highest and are more likely to be for the same diagnosis. Both medical and social factors predict early and frequent returns to the ED; patients at increased risk of return can be quickly identified with a short, self-report questionnaire. The ISAR screening tool, developed to identify patients at increased risk of functional decline, can also identify patients who are more likely to return to the ED.     

Resource utilization and health care charges associated with the most frequent ED users

Study objective

Emergency department (ED) visits have continued to rise, and frequent ED users account for up to 8% of all ED visits. Reducing visits by frequent ED users may be one way to help reduce health care costs. We hypothesize that frequent users have unique ED utilization patterns resulting in differences in health care charges.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical records from an urban community teaching hospital for the year 2012 comparing the top 108 frequent ED users (> 12 visits/year) to a randomly selected group of 108 nonfrequent users (< 4 visits/year). We compared demographic characteristics, distance lived from the hospital, medical and psychiatric history, substance abuse history, diagnostic testing, disposition, and amount charged to the patient for each visit. We compared data using χ² for proportions and t test or Wilcoxon rank sum based on normality of the data.

Results

The top 108 frequent ED users accounted for 1922 visits (2.9%), whereas the 108 nonfrequent users accounted for 150 visits (0.2%), in 2012 (all ED visits n = 65,398). Frequent users were more often unemployed, have public insurance, have mental health conditions, use tobacco, have a greater number of allergies to medications, and live closer to the hospital (P < .01). Disposition and median charge per visit did not differ between frequent and nonfrequent users ($1220 vs $1280). The total charges of the frequent ED users’ visits were $10,465,216.07 versus $1,012,610.21 for nonfrequent users.

Conclusions

Frequent users have unique medical and social characteristics; however, disposition and visit charges did not differ from nonfrequent users.     

Impact of a Negative Evaluation for Underlying Coronary Artery Disease on One-year Resource Utilization for Patients Admitted with Potential Acute Coronary Syndromes

Reduction in emergency department (ED) overcrowding is a major Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) initiative. One major source of ED overcrowding is patients waiting for telemetry beds. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether, in patients admitted with a potential acute coronary syndrome, a negative evaluation for underlying coronary artery disease would reduce ED and hospital revisits over the subsequent year compared with patients who did not receive an evaluation for underlying coronary artery disease. METHODS: Nine hundred ninety-nine consecutive patients admitted for potential acute coronary syndromes through the ED during a one-year period were screened for inclusion. Patients who had a negative evaluation for underlying coronary disease were compared with patients who were not evaluated for underlying coronary artery disease for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, and cardiac resource utilization over the year following the index visit via a health system-wide computerized record review. Patients with positive tests or biomarkers at the index visit were excluded. Each repeat visit was rated as "potentially cardiac" or "noncardiac." Results of echocardiograms, stress tests, and catheterizations and information about in-hospital deaths were obtained. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-two patients met the inclusion criteria: 556 patients received no evaluation for underlying coronary artery disease, 116 had a negative stress test, and 20 had a negative cardiac catheterization during the index visit. Patients with no evaluation for underlying coronary artery disease and patients with a negative evaluation had similar likelihoods of a repeat ED visit (negative test 39.0% vs. no test 40.3%; p = 0.85) and repeat hospital admission (28.7% vs. 31.5%; p = 0.61). The rates of a potentially cardiac-related ED visit (21.3 vs. 23.4%; p = 0.65) and hospital admission (17.7% vs. 20.7%; p = 0.48) were not significantly different. The two populations had similar utilization rates of echocardiograms, stress tests, and catheterizations (p > 0.70 for all). CONCLUSIONS: For patients admitted to the authors' institution with a potential acute coronary syndrome, there was no association between a negative evaluation for underlying coronary artery disease and overall or potentially cardiac ED visits, admissions, or cardiac resource test utilization over the year following the index visit.     

The identification of high risk asthmatic children using the emergency department asthma visit count

A subset of asthma patients accounts for a disproportionate amount of health care resources through repeat visits. A retrospective analysis of emergency department (ED) billing and admission databases was performed to assess the value of the asthma visit count as an indicator of future health care utilization. The asthma visit count was found to have a direct and linear relationship with both future ED visits and future inpatient admission for asthma. Children with 2 visits in 1997 had a substantial (26.9%) risk of returning in the 1998 study period, and a 6.6% risk of admission. Children who visited the ED 3 or more times in 1997 for asthma had a risk of repeat visit of more than 52%, and more than 12% of this highest risk group were admitted to the hospital at least once during the 1998 study period. Once an annual asthma visit count of 3 or more is achieved, there can be little controversy with the “high utilizer” label. The substantial increase in the visit and admission risk warrants consideration of the asthma visit count as an easily obtainable, objective marker to identify high-risk children for both study and clinical purposes. Further research is needed.     

Predictors and Outcomes of Frequent Emergency Department Users

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors and outcomes associated with frequent emergency department (ED) users. METHODS: Cross-sectional intake surveys, medical chart reviews, and telephone follow-up interviews of patients presenting with selected chief complaints were performed at five urban EDs during a one-month study period in 1995. Frequent use was defined by four or more self-reported, prior ED visits. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictors of frequent ED visitors from five domains (demographics, health status, health access, health care preference, and severity of acute illness). Associations between high use and selected outcomes were assessed with logistic regression models. RESULTS: All study components were completed by 2,333 of 3,455 eligible patients (67.5%). Demographics predicting frequent use included being a single parent, single or divorced marital status, high school education or less, and income of less than $10,000 (1995). Health status predictors included hospitalization in the preceding three months, high ratings of psychological distress, and asthma. Health access predictors included identifying an ED or a hospital clinic as the primary care site, having a primary care physician (PCP), and visiting a PCP in the past month. Choosing the ED for free care was the only health preference predictive of heavy use. Illness severity measures were higher in frequent visitors, although these were not independently predictive in the multivariate model. Outcomes correlated with heavy use include increased hospital admissions, higher rates of ED return visits, and lower patient satisfaction, but not willingness to return to the ED or follow-up with a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent ED visits are associated with socioeconomic distress, chronic illness, and high use of other health resources. Efforts to reduce ED visits require addressing the unique needs of these patients in the emergency and primary care settings.     

Referral of Medically Uninsured Emergency Department Patients to Primary Care

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact primary care referral has on subsequent emergency department (ED) utilization. METHODS: Uninsured ED patients who reported not having a primary care (PC) provider were referred to PC services at a community health center (CHC). The number of CHC visits completed was documented and the utilization rates of hospital-based services (i.e., ED visits, outpatient clinic visits, and admissions) were compared for patients who completed a CHC visit and those who did not before and after referral. RESULTS: Of the 655 referred patients, 22% completed at least one CHC visit. Patients who completed a visit were more likely to be older, to be female, and to have a chronic medical problem (p = 0.001). The number of visits to the CHC was significantly related to the payment method. Only 19% of those who were self-pay completed three or more CHC visits, compared with 63% of those who qualified for a sliding fee or insurance (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pre- or post-ED utilization between those who completed a CHC visit and those who did not. The only significant difference in utilization between the two study groups was for subsequent outpatient visits. Patients who completed a CHC visit were more likely to receive outpatient specialty care (23%) compared with patients who did not (12%) (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For uninsured patients with no regular health care provider, improving access to primary care services is not enough to reduce their visits to the ED.     

Frequent ED users: Patterns of use over time

The objective of this study was to examine the pattern of emergency department (ED) use by frequent ED users over time. This study was a retrospective study of adults with more than 10 visits to a university hospital ED from through . ED visits of this cohort to all hospitals in the metropolitan area were followed for 3 years. Records were reviewed for the etiology of each patient's ED visits. This cohort was comprised of 76 patients making 1,119 (1.9%) of the total 59,051 ED visits. Thirty-five of the 76 (46%) were frequent ED users in only the initial year. Thirteen of the 76 (17%) made more than 10 visits in all 4 years. The remainder had sporadic episodes of ED use. Thirty-five (46%) were evaluated at three or more EDs in years in which they were frequent users. Forty-two (55%) had a medical problem for the cause of the majority of their ED visits. Fifty-eight percent of patients making more than 10 visits in more than 1 year had psychiatric or substance abuse problems. The pattern of ED use in this cohort changed over time and was influenced by substance abuse and psychiatric problems. These data suggest that most patients do not remain frequent ED users over time.     

Trends in Charges and Payments for Nonhospitalized Emergency Department Pediatric Visits, 1996–2003

Objectives:  To compare charges and payments for outpatient pediatric emergency visits across payer groups to provide information on reimbursement trends.
Methods:  Total charges and payments for emergency department (ED) visits Medicaid/State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), privately insured, and uninsured pediatric patients from 1996 to 2003 using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Average charges per visit and average payments per visit were also tracked, using regression analysis to adjust for changes in patient characteristics.
Results:  While charges for pediatric ED visits rose over time, payments did not keep pace. This led to a decrease in reimbursement rates from 63% in 1996 to 48% in 2003. For all years, Medicaid/SCHIP visits had the lowest reimbursement rates, reaching 35% in 2003. The proportion of visits from children insured by Medicaid/SCHIP also increased over the period examined. In 2003, after adjustment, charges were $792 per visit from children covered by Medicaid/SCHIP, $913 for visits from uninsured children, and $952 for visits from privately insured children.
Conclusions:  Reimbursements for outpatient ED visits in the pediatric population have decreased from the period of 1996 to 2003 in all payer groups: public (Medicaid/SCHIP), private, and the uninsured. Medicaid/SCHIP has consistently paid less per visit than the privately insured and the uninsured. Further research on the effects of these declining reimbursements on the financial viability of ED services for children is warranted.     

Characterizing pediatric high frequency users of California emergency departments

ObjectiveEmergency department (ED) utilization has increased for the last several decades. Despite a focus on adult frequent ED users, little research has examined pediatric frequent ED users. The purpose of this study was to assess pediatric ED utilization in California and to describe those identified as frequent ED users.MethodsThis was a retrospective multi-facility study of ED visits by children 1–17 years of age using statewide data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Patients were classified into utilization groups by the number of ED visits in a one-year period prior to their last visit in 2016: occasional (1–5 visits) vs. frequent (>5 visits). Differences in patient characteristics were compared between occasional and frequent users.ResultsThere were 690,130 patients between 1 and 17 years of age with 1,238,262 visits during the study period. Children with ≥6 visits (2.3%) accounted for 9.3% of all visits. 67% of frequent users had no visits to a pediatric ED. Over 40% (41.4%) of frequent users visited 2 or more hospitals, compared to 7.7% of occasional users. In multivariate analysis, the characteristics with the largest associations with frequent ED use were age, payer, and being admitted/transferred.ConclusionsThe majority of pediatric frequent users do not seek care in pediatric EDs. Age, prior admission, and Medicare/Medicaid appear to have the largest associations with pediatric patient frequent ED utilization.     

Examining the utility of in-clinic "rescue" therapy for acute migraine

Background.— Management options currently are limited for patients with acute migraine whose symptoms prove refractory to self‐administered therapy. Objective.— To evaluate the clinical utility and cost‐effectiveness of a management program offering in‐clinic “rescue” treatment for patients with acute migraine. Methods.— Two hundred consecutive migraine patients presenting to a university‐based headache clinic were randomized to receive either optimal self‐administered medical therapy for acute migraine (“standard therapy”) or similar therapy plus the option of in‐clinic parenteral drug administration should self‐administered therapy prove ineffective (“rescue therapy”). Patients randomized to the latter group were restricted to a maximum of 2 “rescue visits” per month, and all patients were followed for one year. Patients “rescued” in clinic were contacted by telephone 24 hours following treatment to evaluate their treatment response. The primary analysis involved a comparison of the number of emergency department (ED) visits for headache recorded within each group over the one‐year period of study. For all ED visits in the rescue group and for a randomly selected and equal number of ED visits within the standard group, the direct costs associated with those visits were assessed, and the direct costs of all in‐clinic rescue visits also were recorded and analyzed. Results.— The 2 groups studied were similar in terms of age, gender ratio, migraine subtype, migraine‐related disability status at baseline and type/extent of medical insurance coverage. Over the one‐year study period, the rescue group recorded 423 in‐clinic rescue visits and reported 27 ED visits for headache treatment. The standard therapy group reported 73 ED visits (27 vs 73 visits; P < .01). The total direct costs associated with ED visits were $45,330 for the rescue group (mean $1690 per ED visit) and (by extrapolation from the sample selected) $147,971 for the standard therapy group (mean $2027 per ED visit). The total direct cost of the 423 “rescue visits” was $33,647 (mean $80 per visit). In 79% of the 423 rescue encounters, the patients involved reported no residual functional disability 24 hours following treatment. Of those in the rescue group who sought in‐clinic rescue, 89% reported themselves “very satisfied” with such management. Conclusion.— Providing the alternative of in‐clinic “rescue” for acute migraine refractory to self‐administered therapy offers an attractive alternative for patients and appears to substantially lower use of an ED for headache treatment and the cost associated with that use.     

Trends in Emergency Department Utilization, 1988-1997

OBJECTIVES: To study changes in ED utilization over a ten-year period; and to try to identify factors that affect utilization. METHODS: This study was conducted in a university-affiliated rural tertiary referral center in a stage 1 managed care market, providing primary emergency services to a county of 120,000 and tertiary services to a 29-county area with 1.2 million people. The year of visit, time of visit, level of care required, length of stay (LOS), and admission status were entered into a computer database for each ED visit. RESULTS: Over the period from 1988 to 1997, the population grew by 18.7%. Over the same time period, the number of ED visits grew 27%. By regression analysis, the number of ED visits was directly related to the size of the service population (correlation coefficient 0.97). During the study period, patient acuity increased, with urgent visits increasing from 45% to 52% while nonurgent visits declined from 55% to 48%. Percentage of patients admitted increased from 14% in 1989 to 20% in 1997. Percentage of patients with LOS exceeding six hours also increased, from 8% in 1989 to 16% in 1997. CONCLUSIONS: For the study hospital there was a direct relationship between the ED utilization and population size as well as a historical trend toward increased patient acuity. These trends quantified at one hospital may reflect trends occurring throughout the United States that would affect ED staffing, space, and resource needs.     

Variation in outpatient emergency department utilization in Texas Medicaid: a state-level framework for finding “superutilizers”

Background

Very frequent outpatient emergency department (ED) use—so called “superutilization”—at the state level is not well-studied. To address this gap, we examined frequent ED utilization in the largest state Medicaid population to date.

Methods

Using Texas Medicaid (the third largest in the USA) claims data, we examined the variability in expenditures, sociodemographics, comorbidities, and persistence across seven levels of ED utilization/year (i.e., 1, 2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–9, 10–14, and ≥?15 visits). We classified visits into emergent and non-emergent categories using the most recent New York University algorithm.

Results

Thirty-one percent (n?=?346,651) of Texas Medicaid adult enrollees visited the ED at least once in 2014. Enrollees with ≥?3 ED visits accounted for 8.5% of all adult patients, 60.4% of the total ED visits, and 62.1% of the total ED expenditures. Extremely frequent ED users (≥?10 ED visits) represented <?1% of all users but accounted for 15.5% of all ED visits and 17.4% of the total ED costs. The proportions of ED visits classified as non-emergent or emergent, but primary care treatable varied little as ED visits increased. Overall, approximately 13% of ED visits were considered not preventable or avoidable.

Conclusions

The Texas Medicaid population has a substantial burden of chronic disease with only modest increases in substance use and mental health diagnoses as annual visits increase. Understanding the characteristics that lead to frequent ED use is vital to developing strategies and Medicaid policy to reduce high utilization.

     

Cost-Effective: Emergency Department Care Coordination with A Regional Hospital Information System

Background

Frequent and unnecessary utilization of the emergency department (ED) is often a sign of serious latent patient issues, and the associated costs are shared by many. Helping these patients get the care they need in the appropriate setting is difficult given their complexity, and their tendency to visit multiple EDs.

Study Objective

We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary ED-care-coordination program with a regional hospital information system capable of sharing patients’ individualized care plans with cooperating EDs.

Methods

ED visits, treatment costs, cost per visit, and net income were assessed pre- and postenrollment in the program using nonparametric bootstrapping techniques. Individuals were categorized as frequent (3–11 ED visits in the 365 days preceding enrollment) or extreme (≥ 12 ED visits) users. Regression to the mean was tested using an adjusted measure of change.

Results

Both frequent and extreme users experienced significant decreases in ED visits (5 and 15, respectively; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 2–5 and 13–17, respectively) and direct-treatment costs ($1285; 95% CI $492–$2364 and $6091; 95% CI $4298–$8998, respectively), leading to significant hospital cost savings and increased net income ($431; 95% CI $112–$878 and $1925; 95% CI $1093–$3159, respectively). The results further indicate that fewer resources were utilized per visit. Regression to the mean did not seem to be an issue.

Conclusions

When examined as a whole, research on the program suggests that expanding it would be an efficient allocation of hospital, and possibly societal, resources.     

Use of the Emergency Department for Severe Headache. A Population-Based Study

Background.— Although headache is a common emergency department (ED) chief complaint, the role of the ED in the management of primary headache disorders has rarely been assessed from a population perspective. We determined frequency of ED use and risk factors for use among patients suffering severe headache. Methods.— As part of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study, a validated self‐administered questionnaire was mailed to 24,000 severe headache sufferers, who were randomly drawn from a larger sample constructed to be sociodemographically representative of the US population. Participants were asked a series of questions on headache management, healthcare system use, sociodemographic features, and number of ED visits for management of headache in the previous 12 months. In keeping with the work of others, “frequent” ED use was defined as a particpant's report of 4 or more visits to the ED for treatment of a headache in the previous 12 months. Headaches were categorized into specific diagnoses using a validated methodology. Results.— Of 24,000 surveys, 18,514 were returned, and 13,451 (56%) provided complete data on ED use. Sociodemographic characteristics did not differ substantially between responders and nonresponders. Among the 13,451 responders, over the course of the previous year, 12,592 (94%) did not visit the ED at all, 415 (3%) visited the ED once, and 444 (3%) visited the ED more than once. Patients with severe episodic tension‐type headache were less likely to use the ED than patients with severe episodic migraine (OR 0.4 [95% CI: 0.3, 0.6]). Frequent ED use was reported by 1% of the total sample or 19% (95% CI: 17%, 22%) of subjects who used the ED in the previous year, although frequent users accounted for 51% (95% CI: 49%, 53%) of all ED visits. Predictors of ED use included markers of disease severity, elevated depression scores, low socioeconomic status, and a predilection for ED use for conditions other than headache. Conclusions.— Most individuals suffering severe headaches do not use the ED over the course of a single year. The majority of ED visits for severe headache are accounted for by a small subset of all ED users. Increasing disease severity and depression are the most readily addressable factors associated with ED use.