Patterns and predictors of short-term death after emergency department discharge.

Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, USA.
Annals of emergency medicine (Impact Factor: 4.33). 07/2011; 58(6):551-558.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.07.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The emergency department (ED) is an inherently high-risk setting. Early death after an ED evaluation is a rare and devastating outcome; understanding it can potentially help improve patient care and outcomes. Using administrative data from an integrated health system, we describe characteristics and predictors of patients who experienced 7-day death after ED discharge.
Administrative data from 12 hospitals were used to identify death after discharge in adults aged 18 year or older within 7 days of ED presentation from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2008. Patients who were nonmembers of the health system, in hospice care, or treated at out-of-network EDs were excluded. Predictors of 7-day postdischarge death were identified with multivariable logistic regression.
The study cohort contained a total of 475,829 members, with 728,312 discharges from Kaiser Permanente Southern California EDs in 2007 and 2008. Death within 7 days of discharge occurred in 357 cases (0.05%). Increasing age, male sex, and number of preexisting comorbidities were associated with increased risk of death. The top 3 primary discharge diagnoses predictive of 7-day death after discharge included noninfectious lung disease (odds ratio [OR] 7.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9 to 17.4), renal disease (OR 5.6; 95% CI 2.2 to 14.2), and ischemic heart disease (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.0 to 13.6).
Our study suggests that 50 in 100,000 patients in the United States die within 7 days of discharge from an ED. To our knowledge, our study is the first to identify potentially "high-risk" discharge diagnoses in patients who experience a short-term death after discharge.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Many believe that fear of malpractice lawsuits drives physicians to order otherwise unnecessary care and that legal reforms could reduce such wasteful spending. Emergency physicians practice in an information-poor, resource-rich environment that may lend itself to costly defensive practice. Three states, Texas (in 2003), Georgia (in 2005), and South Carolina (in 2005), enacted legislation that changed the malpractice standard for emergency care to gross negligence. We investigated whether these substantial reforms changed practice. Methods Using a 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we identified all emergency department visits to hospitals in the three reform states and in neighboring (control) states from 1997 through 2011. Using a quasi-experimental design, we compared patient-level outcomes, before and after legislation, in reform states and control states. We controlled for characteristics of the patients, time-invariant hospital characteristics, and temporal trends. Outcomes were policy-attributable changes in the use of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), per-visit emergency department charges, and the rate of hospital admissions. Results For eight of the nine state-outcome combinations tested, no policy-attributable reduction in the intensity of care was detected. We found no reduction in the rates of CT or MRI utilization or hospital admission in any of the three reform states and no reduction in charges in Texas or South Carolina. In Georgia, reform was associated with a 3.6% reduction (95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 6.2) in per-visit emergency department charges. Conclusions Legislation that substantially changed the malpractice standard for emergency physicians in three states had little effect on the intensity of practice, as measured by imaging rates, average charges, or hospital admission rates. (Funded by the Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations and others.).
    New England Journal of Medicine 10/2014; 371(16):1518-1525. · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives Although 72-hour emergency department (ED) revisits are increasingly used as a hospital metric, there is no known empirical basis for this 72-hour threshold. The objective of this study was to determine the timing of ED revisits for adult patients within 30 days of ED discharge.Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of all nonfederal ED discharges in Florida and Nebraska from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011, using data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). ED discharges were followed forward to identify ED revisits occurring at any hospital within the same state within 30 days. The cumulative hazard of an ED revisit was plotted. Parametric and nonparametric modeling was performed to characterize the rate of ED revisits.ResultsThere were 4,782,045 ED discharges, with 7.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.4% to 7.5%) associated with 3-day revisits, and 22.4% (95% CI = 22.3% to 22.4%) associated with 30-day revisits, inclusive of the 3-day revisits. A double-exponential model fit the data best (p < 0.0001), and a single hinge point at 9 days (multivariate adaptive regression splines [MARS] model) yielded the best linear fit to the data, suggesting 9 days as the most reasonable cutoff for identification of acute ED revisits. Multiple stratified and subgroup analyses produced similar results. Future work should focus on identifying primary reasons for potentially avoidable return ED visits instead of on the revisit occurrence itself, thus more directly measuring potential lapses in delivery of high-quality care.Conclusions Almost one-quarter of ED discharges are linked to 30-day ED revisits, and the current 72-hour ED metric misses close to 70% of these patients. Our findings support 9 days as a more inclusive cutoff for studies of ED revisits.ResumenObjetivosAunque las reconsultas a las 72 horas al servicio de urgencias (SU) son cada vez más utilizadas como una medida hospitalaria, no existe base empírica conocida para este umbral de 72 horas. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar el tiempo de las reconsultas al SU para los pacientes adultos durante los primeros 30 días tras el alta del SU.MetodologíaEstudio de cohorte retrospectivo de todas al altas de SU no federales en Florida y Nebrasca del 1 de abril de 2010 al 31 de marzo de 2011 usando los datos de la Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Las altas del SU fueron seguidas para identificar las reconsultas al SU que ocurrieran en cualquier hospital del estado en los primeros 30 días. Se representó gráficamente el riesgo acumulado de una reconsulta al SU. Se realizaron modelos paramétricos y no paramétricos para caracterizar el porcentaje de reconsultas al SU.ResultadosHubo 4.782.045 de altas del SU, un 7,5% (IC 95% = 7,4% a 7,5%) asociado con una reconsulta a los 3 días y un 22,4% (IC 95% = 22,3% a 22,4%) asociado con una reconsulta a los 30 días (incluyendo las reconsultas a los 3 días). Un modelo exponencial doble alcanzó los mejores datos (p < 0.0001), en tanto que un único punto de inflexión a los 9 días (modelo de regresión multivariable) alcanzó el mejor ajuste lineal para los datos. Esto indicaba a los 9 días como el punto de corte más razonable para la identificación de las reconsultas agudas al SU. Los análisis múltiples estratificados y por subgrupos produjeron resultados similares. El trabajo futuro deberá centrarse en la identificación de las razones principales para consultas al SU potencialmente evitables en lugar de la ocurrencia de la reconsulta en sí misma y, más directamente, medir potenciales errores en la atención de alta calidad.ConclusionesCasi una cuarta parte de las altas del SU están unidas a una reconsulta a los 30 días, y la medición actual de las reconsultas a las 72 horas pierde casi un 70% de estos pacientes. Nuestros hallazgos soportan los 9 días como un punto de corte más concluyente para los estudios de reconsultas al SU.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 08/2014; · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding has been identified as a major threat to public health. Objectives: We assessed patient transit times and ED system crowding measures based on their associations with outcomes. Research Design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects: We accessed electronic health record data on 136,740 adults with a visit to any of 13 health system EDs from January 2008 to December 2010. Measures: Patient transit times (waiting, evaluation and treatment, boarding) and ED system crowding [nonindex patient length-of-stay (LOS) and boarding, bed occupancy] were determined. Outcomes included individual inpatient mortality and admission LOS. Covariates included demographic characteristics, past comorbidities, severity of illness, arrival time, and admission diagnoses. Results: No patient transit time or ED system crowding measure predicted increased mortality after control for patient characteristics. Index patient boarding time and lower bed occupancy were associated with admission LOS (based on nonoverlapping 95% CI vs. the median value). As boarding time increased from none to 14 hours, admission LOS increased an additional 6 hours. As mean occupancy decreased below the median (80% occupancy), admission LOS decreased as much as 9 hours. Conclusions: Measures indicating crowded ED conditions were not predictive of mortality after case-mix adjustment. The first half-day of boarding added to admission LOS rather than substituted for it. Our findings support the use of boarding time as a measure of ED crowding based on robust prediction of admission LOS. Interpretation of measures based on other patient ED transit times may be limited to the timeliness of care. Copyright
    Medical Care 07/2014; 52(7):602-11. · 2.94 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 28, 2014