Article

Emergency department visits for nonurgent conditions: systematic literature review.

1200 S Hayes St, Arlington, VA 22202. E-mail: .
The American journal of managed care (Impact Factor: 2.17). 01/2013; 19(1):47-59.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background: A large proportion of all emergency department (ED) visits in the United States are for nonurgent conditions. Use of the ED for nonurgent conditions may lead to excessive healthcare spending, unnecessary testing and treatment, and weaker patient-primary care provider relationships. Objectives: To understand the factors influencing an individual's decision to visit an ED for a nonurgent condition. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of the US literature. Multiple databases were searched for US studies published after 1990 that assessed factors associated with nonurgent ED use. Based on those results we developed a conceptual framework. Results: A total of 26 articles met inclusion criteria. No 2 articles used the same exact definition of nonurgent visits. Across the relevant articles, the average fraction of all ED visits that were judged to be nonurgent (whether prospectively at triage or retrospectively following ED evaluation) was 37% (range 8%-62%). Articles were heterogeneous with respect to study design, population, comparison group, and nonurgent definition. The limited evidence suggests that younger age, convenience of the ED compared with alternatives, referral to the ED by a physician, and negative perceptions about alternatives such as primary care providers all play a role in driving nonurgent ED use. Conclusions: Our structured overview of the literature and conceptual framework can help to inform future research and the development of evidence-based interventions to reduce nonurgent ED use.

0 Followers
 · 
113 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of emergency department (ED) services for non-urgent conditions is well-studied in many Western countries but much less so in the Middle East and Gulf region. While the consequences are universal-a drain on ED resources and poor patient outcomes-the causes and solutions are likely to be region and country specific. Unique social and economic circumstances also create gender-specific motivations for patient attendance. Alleviating demand on ED services requires understanding these circumstances, as past studies have shown. We undertook this study to understand why female patients with low-acuity conditions choose the emergency department in Qatar over other healthcare options. Prospective study at Hamad General Hospital's (HGH) emergency department female "see-and-treat" unit that treats low-acuity cases. One hundred female patients were purposively recruited to participate in the study. Three trained physicians conducted semi-structured interviews with patients over a three-month period after they had been treated and given informed consent. The study found that motivations for ED attendance were systematically influenced by employment status as an expatriate worker. Forty percent of the sample had been directed to the ED by their employers, and the vast majority (89%) of this group cited employer preference as the primary reason for choosing the ED. The interviews revealed that a major obstacle to workers using alternative facilities was the lack of a government-issued health card, which is available to all citizens and residents at a nominal rate. Reducing the number of low-acuity cases in the emergency department at HGH will require interventions aimed at encouraging patients with non-urgent conditions to use alternative healthcare facilities. Potential interventions include policy changes that require employers to either provide workers with a health card or compel employees to acquire one for themselves.
    Qatar Medical Journal 12/2014; 2014(2):98-105. DOI:10.5339/qmj.2014.16
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Use of the hospital emergency department (ED) for medical conditions not likely to require immediate treatment is a controversial topic. It has been faulted for ED overcrowding, increased expenditures, and decreased quality of care. On the other hand, such avoidable ED utilization may be a manifestation of barriers to primary care access. Methods A random 10% subsample of all ED visits with unmasked variables, or approximately 7.2% of all ED visits in California between 2006 and 2010 are used in the analysis. Using panel data methods, we employ linear probability and fractional probit models with hospital fixed effects to analyze the associations between avoidable ED utilization in California and observable patient characteristics. We also test whether shorter estimated road distances to the hospital ED are correlated with non-urgent ED utilization, as defined by the New York University ED Algorithm. We then investigate whether proximity of a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) is correlated with reductions in non-urgent ED utilization among Medicaid patients. Results We find that relative to the reference group of adults aged 35–64, younger patients generally have higher scores for non-urgent conditions and lower scores for urgent conditions. However, elderly patients (≥65) use the ED for conditions more likely to be urgent. Relative to male and white patients, respectively, female patients and all identified racial and ethnic minorities use the ED for conditions more likely to be non-urgent. Patients with non-commercial insurance coverage also use the ED for conditions more likely to be non-urgent. Medicare and Medicaid patients who live closer to the hospital ED have higher probability scores for non-emergent visits. However, among Medicaid enrollees, those who live in zip codes with an FQHC within 0.5 mile of the zip code population centroid visit the ED for medical conditions less likely to be non-emergent. Conclusions These patterns of ED utilization point to potential barriers to care among historically vulnerable groups, observable even when using rough estimates of travel distances and avoidable ED utilization. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0158-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    International Journal for Equity in Health 03/2015; 14. DOI:10.1186/s12939-015-0158-y · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Minor ailment attendances in general practices and emergency departments (EDs) place significant burden on health care resources. To estimate the prevalence and type of minor ailment consultations for adults in general practice and ED that could be managed in a community pharmacy. Retrospective review of routine data from general practices (n = 2) and one ED in North East Scotland. Two independent consensus panels assessed each consultation summary to determine whether it represented a minor ailment. Outcomes included prevalence of consultations for minor ailments in general practice and ED and frequency of different minor ailment type that could be managed in community pharmacies. In total, of the 494 general practice and 550 ED consultations assessed, 13.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 18.6-25.9%] and 5.3% (95% CI: 4.0-8.0%), respectively, were categorized as minor ailments suitable for management in community pharmacies. Consensus among panel members was moderate for general practice consultations, but fair to poor for ED consultations. Agreement between uni- and multi-disciplinary panels was good. Applied to national data, these estimates would equate to ~18 million general practice and 6500000 ED consultations that could be redirected to community pharmacy, equating to ~£1.1 billion in resources. Minor ailment consultations still present a major burden on higher cost settings. Effective strategies are needed to raise awareness among patients and health professionals regarding conditions that can be managed effectively in pharmacies and to change patient health-seeking behaviour for such conditions. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.