Usual Source of Care and Nonurgent Emergency Department Use

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether dissatisfaction with one's usual source of care (USC) and perceived access difficulties to one's USC were associated with nonurgent emergency department (ED) use. METHODS: Variables that measured USC satisfaction and access were identified in the 1996 cohort of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative sample administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The main outcome measured was nonurgent ED use at least once during 1996. RESULTS: A total of 9,146 adults had a USC other than the ED, had at least one contact with the health care system or were unable to get needed care, and had complete data for all the variables in the final model. Dissatisfaction with the USC, dissatisfaction with the USC staff, lack of confidence in the USC's ability, difficulty scheduling an appointment, difficulty reaching the USC by phone, and long waiting times with an appointment were all associated with having a nonurgent ED visit in 1996 (all at p < 0.05). The positive associations between both dissatisfaction and perceived access barriers and nonurgent ED use persisted even in multiple logistic regression that adjusted for age, sex, race, education, health status, employment status, income, insurance, region of residence, and rural vs. urban residence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are dissatisfied with their USC or perceive access barriers to their USC are more likely to have a nonurgent ED visit.     

Predictors of Nonurgent Emergency Visits at a Midsize Community-Based Hospital System: Secondary Analysis of Administrative Health Care Data

IntroductionNonurgent visits to the emergency department compromise efficiency in treating patients with urgent conditions and inversely influence the satisfaction of patients and staff. There is inconclusive evidence of the factors associated with nonurgent ED visits. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the independent factors associated with nonurgent ED visits in a midsize community-based Canadian hospital system.MethodsThis was a retrospective, secondary analysis of data from 2 community hospitals in southwestern Ontario, Canada. We included ED patients in the analysis if they were local residents from the city or the surrounding county.ResultsNonurgent visits constituted approximately 27% of all ED visits and were more likely to be associated with patients with a primary care provider referral (odds ratio = 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 2.75-2.99) and with patients who had no primary care provider (odds ratio = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.16). Other predictors included younger age, season, time of day, ED arrival mode, geographical proximity of residence to the emergency department, and case presentation.DiscussionThe findings of this study may assist health care providers and stakeholders in developing strategies to minimize nonurgent ED visits.     

Nonurgent Emergency Department Patient Characteristics and Barriers to Primary Care

OBJECTIVE: Nonurgent (NU) emergency department (ED) use is at the forefront of medico-political agendas, and diversion of NU patients has been entertained as a management strategy. Before policy changes are implemented, this population should be better understood with respect to their characteristics and reasons for not presenting to primary care providers (PCPs) instead of EDs. This study compares NU with urgent and semiurgent (USU) patients and describes the NU patients' reasons for not seeking care with a PCP before presenting to the ED. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis from a cross-sectional study with sequential sampling in the EDs of five Quebec tertiary care hospitals (October 19, 1999, to May 26, 2000). Data on medical history, social support, awareness and utilization of health care, ED visits, referrals, activities of daily living, and sociodemographics were obtained. The NU group included patients with triage code 5 and the USU group included patients with triage codes 2, 3, and 4 using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale. Patient characteristics were structured into the Andersen behavioral model for health care utilization. RESULTS: Of 2,348 patients approached, 1,783 patients (77%) were eligible and agreed to participate. NU patients (n = 454) were younger than USU patients (n = 1,329) (mean age, 43 [SD +/- 18.1] vs. 49 [SD +/- 20.1] years). Patients in the NU group had better health (number of prior conditions, 3.1 vs. 3.9), were less likely to arrive by ambulance (5% vs. 22%), and were less often admitted from the ED (4% vs. 24%). While 70% of NU compared with 75% of USU patients were followed up by a PCP, only 22% of NU and 27% of USU patients sought PCP care before presenting to the ED. The reasons given by NU patients for not seeking PCP care were accessibility (32%), perception of need (22%), referral/follow-up to the ED (20%), familiarity with the ED (11%), trust of the ED (7%), and no reason (7%). CONCLUSIONS: NU ED patients are different from USU patients and have multiple reasons for not seeking primary care before going to the ED. This may help explain why various diversion strategies have been unsuccessful and indicate that a multifaceted approach may be better suited to this group of patients. The design of new interventions, however, will benefit from further research that clarifies the impact of NU patients on the health care system.     

Attitudes Toward Influenza Vaccination Administration in the Emergency Department Among Patients: A Cross-Sectional Survey

IntroductionInfluenza is a serious, vaccine-preventable illness. The current vaccination rates in Canada are below target rates, highlighting the potential need for more convenient ways to receive vaccinations. Wait times to be seen in Canadian emergency departments are escalating, and using the time spent waiting to offer and administer an influenza vaccine could potentially improve ease of access to immunization for some Canadians.MethodsThe aim of this cross-sectional study was to gauge public interest and identify perceived barriers and facilitators to influenza vaccine availability in a Canadian emergency and trauma center. Anonymous questionnaires were completed by a convenience sample of adult patients classified as low acuity (n = 151) as 1 arm of a 2-arm study.ResultsOf the unvaccinated patients, 34.6% expressed willingness to be vaccinated in the emergency department. The patients who had received a vaccine in the previous year were significantly more willing to accept the vaccine in the emergency department (χ² [1] = 23.78, P < 0.001). The 3 top factors associated with having received vaccination in the previous year include trust in vaccine information (χ² [2] = 27.34, P < 0.001), immunity preferences (χ² [2] = 32.25, P < 0.001), and beliefs about efficacy (χ² [2] = 44.90, P < 0.001).DiscussionPatients classified as low acuity were supportive of ED influenza vaccination. In addition, some of the unvaccinated participants had unmet education needs (ie, regarding trustworthy sources of vaccine information, immunity, and vaccine efficacy) that would require addressing before they would likely consider receiving influenza vaccination in future during their ED visit.     

Emergency Department Use by Adult Medicaid Patients after Implementation of Managed Care

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the advent of a mandatory Medicaid managed care (MMC) plan had any effect on emergency department (ED) utilization by adult Medicaid patients at an urban teaching hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using four years of ED records encompassing the year prior to initiation of MMC (1994-95), the enrollment year (1995-96), and two years after the program had matured (1996-98). RESULTS: Total ED census declined slightly, then returned to 1995 levels. Emergency department use by MMC patients declined steadily, with the 1998 figure of 5,888 representing a 40% decline over the pre-MMC volume of 9,849. Visits by MMC patients with acute illness or injury declined by 29%; MMC low-acuity visits decreased by 43%. Medicaid managed care low-acuity after-hours/weekend visits declined by 19%, then leveled off. The MMC enrollment was stable throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory managed care can be associated with considerable diminution in ED use by Medicaid patients. This decline is most pronounced in low-acuity triage categories, and least evident after hours and on weekends.     

Distances to Emergency Department and to Primary Care Provider's Office Affect Emergency Department Use in Children

Objectives:  Patients of all ages use emergency departments (EDs) for primary care. Several studies have evaluated patient and system characteristics that influence pediatric ED use. However, the issue of proximity as a predictor of ED use has not been well studied. The authors sought to determine whether ED use by pediatric Medicaid enrollees was associated with the distance to their primary care providers (PCPs), distance to the nearest ED, and distance to the nearest children's hospital.
Methods:  This historical cohort study included 26,038 children age 18 and under, assigned to 332 primary care practices affiliated with a Medicaid health maintenance organization (HMO). Predictor variables were distance from the child's home to his or her PCP site, distance from home to the nearest ED, and distance from home to the nearest children's hospital. The outcome variable was each child's ED use. A negative binomial model was used to determine the association between distance variables and ED use, adjusted for age, sex, and race, plus medical and primary care site characteristics previously found to influence ED use. Distance variables were divided into quartiles to test for nonlinear associations.
Results:  On average, children made 0.31 ED visits/person/year. In the multivariable model, children living greater than 1.19 miles from the nearest ED had 11% lower ED use than those living within 0.5 miles of the nearest ED (risk ratio [RR] = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.99). Children living between 1.54 and 3.13 miles from their PCPs had 13% greater ED use (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.24) than those who lived within 0.7 miles of their PCP.
Conclusions:  Geographical variables play a significant role in ED utilization in children, confirming the importance of system-level determinants of ED use and creating the opportunity for interventions to reduce geographical barriers to primary care.     

Reasons for Using the Emergency Department: Results of the EMPATH Study

Objectives: Emergency Medicine Patients' Access To Healthcare (EMPATH) was a cross-sectional, observational study conducted to identify the principal reasons why patients seek care in hospital emergency departments (EDs) in the United States. Methods: Twenty-eight U.S. hospitals, stratified by geographic region and hospital characteristics, participated in this study. Demographic, clinical, and insurance data were collected for a 24-hour period at each site, using chart reviews and a structured interview administered to all consenting adult patients seeking treatment during that period. Patients' reasons for presenting to the ED were assessed by their level of agreement (on a three-point Likert scale) with 21 carefully worded statements designed to capture a range of possible reasons for seeking care in the ED. Factor analysis was used to consolidate highly correlated responses and to identify the principal factors explaining patients' reasons for coming to the ED. Results: A total of 1,579 patient interviews and 2,004 chart reviews were obtained from a diverse sample that was 55.4% female, 58.3% white, 28.3% African American, 7.0% Hispanic, and 6.0% other ethnic groups. This exploratory analysis yielded five factors characterizing patients' principal reasons for seeking ED care, with medical necessity the most frequent, followed by ED preference, convenience, affordability, and limitations of insurance. Conclusions: Use of the ED is, for most people, an affirmative choice over other providers rather than a last resort; it is often a choice driven by lack of access to or dissatisfaction with other sources of care.     

Code Critical: Improving Care Delivery for Critically Ill Patients in the Emergency Department

ProblemAlthough certain critically ill patients in emergency departments—such as those experiencing trauma, stroke, and myocardial infarction—often receive care through coordinated team responses, resource allocation and care delivery can vary widely for other high-acuity patients. The absence of a well-defined response process for these patients may result in delays in care, suboptimal outcomes, and staff dissatisfaction. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to develop, implement, and evaluate an ED-specific alert team response for critically ill medical adult and pediatric patients not meeting criteria for other medical alerts.MethodsLean (Lean Enterprise Institute, Boston, MA) principles and processes were used to develop, implement, and evaluate an ED-specific response team and process for critically ill medical patients. Approximately 300 emergency nurses, providers, technicians, unit secretaries/nursing assistants, and ancillary team members were trained on the code critical process. Turnaround and throughput data was collected during the first 12 weeks of code critical activations (n = 153) and compared with historical controls (n = 168).ResultsAfter implementing the code critical process, the door-to-provider time decreased by 62%, door to laboratory draw by 76%, door-to-diagnostic imaging by 46%, and door-to-admission by 19%. A year later, data comparison demonstrated sustained improvement in all measures.DiscussionEmergency nurses and providers see the value of coordinated team response in the delivery of patient care. Team responses to critical medical alerts can improve care delivery substantially and sustainably.     

A Systematic Review of Primary Care and Payment Models on Emergency Department Use in Patients Classified as High Need,High Cost

IntroductionReducing costly and harmful ED use by patients classified as high need, high cost is a priority across health care systems. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of various primary care and payment models on ED use and overall costs in patients classified as high need, high cost.MethodsUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a search was performed from January 2000 to March 2020 in 3 databases. Two reviewers independently appraised articles for quality. Studies were eligible if they evaluated models implemented in the primary care setting and in patients classified as high need, high cost in the United States. Outcomes included all-cause and preventable ED use and overall health care costs.ResultsIn the 21 articles included, 4 models were evaluated: care coordination (n = 8), care management (n = 7), intensive primary care (n = 4), and alternative payment models (n = 2). Statistically significant reductions in all-cause ED use were reported in 10 studies through care coordination, alternative payment models, and intensive primary care. Significant reductions in overall costs were reported in 5 studies, and 1 reported a significant increase. Care management and care coordination models had mixed effects on ED use and overall costs.DiscussionStudies that significantly reduced ED use had shared features, including frequent follow-up, multidisciplinary team-based care, enhanced access, and care coordination. Identifying primary care models that effectively enhance access to care and improve ongoing chronic disease management is imperative to reduce costly and harmful ED use in patients classified as high need, high cost.     

Uncompleted Emergency Department Care: Patients Who Leave against Medical Advice

Objectives: To compare the patient characteristics, clinical conditions, and short-term recidivism rates of emergency department (ED) patients who leave against medical advice (AMA) with those who leave without being seen (LWBS) or complete their ED care.
Methods: All eligible patients who visited the ED between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005 ( N = 31,252) were classified into one of four groups: 1) AMA ( n = 857), 2) LWBS ( n = 2,767), 3) admitted ( n = 8,894), or 4) discharged ( n = 18,734). The patient characteristics, primary diagnosis, and 30-day rates of emergent hospitalizations, nonemergent hospitalizations, and ED discharge visits were compared between patients who left AMA and each of the other study groups. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the influence of study group status on the risk of emergent hospitalization, adjusted for patient characteristics.
Results: Patients who left AMA were significantly more likely to be uninsured or covered by Medicaid compared with those admitted or discharged (p < 0.001). The AMA visit rates were highest for nausea and vomiting (9.7%), abdominal pain (7.9%), and nonspecific chest pain (7.6%). During the 30-day follow-up period, patients who left AMA had significantly higher emergent hospitalization and ED discharge visit rates compared with each of the other study groups (p < 0.001). Insurance status, male gender, and higher acuity level were also associated with a significantly higher emergent hospitalization rate.
Conclusions: Patients who leave AMA may do so prematurely, as evidenced by higher emergent hospitalization rates compared with those who LWBS or complete their care.     

Alcohol Use and Medical Care Utilization among Health Maintenance Organization Patients in the Emergency Department

Objective: To determine the association of an alcohol–related ED visit with medical care utilization during a two–year period surrounding the ED visit in an HMO.
Methods: A probability sample of ED patients were interviewed and underwent breath analysis in a large HMO in a Northern California county. Based on recent alcohol intake or documentation of an alcohol–related ED visit, the patients were assigned to an alcohol group ( n = 91) or a non–alcohol group ( n = 897). A 10% random sample of the health plan membership of the same county ( n = 19, 968) served as a comparison group. Utilization data were obtained from computerized files. Multiple linear regression was used to determine differences in subsequent outpatient visit rates between the alcohol and the non–alcohol groups. Logistic regression was used to compare the risks of hospitalization in the two groups.
Results: Annual outpatient visit rates were 7. 8 in the alcohol group and 8. 3 in the non–alcohol group (p = 0. 65), controlling for gender, age, and injury status, and were significantly different from the visit rate of 5. 5 for the random health plan sample (p = 0. 0001). No difference was found between the alcohol and the non–alcohol groups for risk of hospitalization; however, those in the health plan sample were less than half as likely to be hospitalized as were those in the non–alcohol group (odds ratio 0. 44, p = 0. 002).
Conclusions: No difference was found in utilization of medical services between the alcohol and the nonalcohol groups in this predominantly white, well–educated HMO ED population. However, both groups used significantly more inpatient and outpatient services than did the general HMO membership.