Article

2004 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Health Care Statistics, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA.
Advance data 07/2006; 372(372):1-29.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This report describes ambulatory care visits to hospital emergency departments (EDs) in the United States in 2004. Statistics are presented on selected hospital, patient, and visit characteristics. Selected trends in ED utilization from 1994 through 2004 are also presented.
The data presented in this report were collected in the 2004 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), a national probability sample survey of visits to emergency and outpatient departments of non-Federal, short-stay, and general hospitals in the United States. Sample data are weighted to produce annual national estimates.
During 2004, an estimated 110.2 million visits were made to hospital EDs, about 38.2 visits per 100 persons. Visit rates have shown an increasing trend since 1994 for persons aged 22-49 years, 50-64 years, and 65 years and over. In 2004, more than 16 million patients arrived by ambulance (15.1 percent). At approximately 3 percent of visits, the patient had been seen in the ED within the last 72 hours. Abdominal pain, chest pain, fever, and back symptoms were the leading patient complaints, accounting for nearly one-fifth of all visits. Abdominal pain was the leading illness-related diagnosis at ED visits. There were an estimated 41.4 million injury-related visits or 14.4 visits per 100 persons. Diagnostic and screening services were provided at 89.9 percent of ED visits. Procedures were performed at 47.7 percent, and medications were prescribed at 78.4 percent of ED visits. Approximately 13 percent of ED visits resulted in hospital admission. On average, patients spent 3.3 hours in the ED, of which 47.4 minutes were spent waiting to see a physician.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Linda F Mccaig, Aug 25, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
165 Views
  • Source
    • "In addition, over the past decade, visit rates have increased steadily, whereas the total number of EDs has declined [1]. Problems related to ED crowding have led many to question the appropriateness of ED use [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For many patients, it is difficult to define the benefit derived from a visit to the emergency department (ED). No criterion standard exists that defines benefit from emergency treatment compared to routine outpatient care, and our limited ability to estimate benefit from emergency treatment has significant implications for emergency care-related health services research. The objectives of this study were to develop a decision algorithm to be used in estimating benefit of emergency treatment (EBET) and to assess its reliability when applied to patients making unscheduled ED visits. The EBET instrument defines benefit as a 3-level outcome, namely, significant, possible, or unlikely, and its content validity was assessed through expert review. The instrument was independently applied by multiple investigators to 3 different ED patient cohorts. A consensus-based process was used to determine the final EBET for each patient visit. Weighted kappas and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the reliability of the EBET Instrument applied individually, and the Spearman-Brown formula was used to assess the overall reliability of the EBET instrument when applied using multiple raters and a standardized consensus process. A total of 875 visits (300 from a general ED population, 300 from a homeless ED population, and 275 from an HIV-infected ED population) were scored using the EBET instrument. The consensus process included independently scoring groups ranging from approximately 50 to 100 patient visits, determining the level of agreement, discussing the discordant results among the investigators, and assigning a final EBET category to each visit. This process was repeated sequentially until all visits within each cohort were scored. The overall weighted kappas ranged from 0.66 to 0.76, and the Spearman-Brown correlation ranged from 0.83 to 0.87. The EBET instrument demonstrated good to excellent reliability when applied independently by raters to both unselected and selected ED patients. Its reliability, however, was excellent to outstanding when multiple raters applied it using a consensus process. The EBET instrument may serve as a useful tool for defining benefit from emergency treatment.
    The American journal of emergency medicine 05/2010; 28(4):404-11. DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2008.12.034 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Reason for Visit Classification (RVC) [26] provides such an example in an emergency department care setting. The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey uses RVC to classify chief complaints into one of the more than 770 standardized entries [27]. The Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) workgroup proposed a coding scheme of 161 entries [28]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Emergency department free-text chief complaints (CCs) are a major data source for syndromic surveillance. CCs need to be classified into syndromic categories for subsequent automatic analysis. However, the lack of a standard vocabulary and high-quality encodings of CCs hinder effective classification. This paper presents a new ontology-enhanced automatic CC classification approach. Exploiting semantic relations in a medical ontology, this approach is motivated to address the CC vocabulary variation problem in general and to meet the specific need for a classification approach capable of handling multiple sets of syndromic categories. We report an experimental study comparing our approach with two popular CC classification methods using a real-world dataset. This study indicates that our ontology-enhanced approach performs significantly better than the benchmark methods in terms of sensitivity, F measure, and F2 measure.
    Journal of Biomedical Informatics 05/2008; 41(2):340-56. DOI:10.1016/j.jbi.2007.08.009 · 2.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The quality indicator selected was number of patients that left without treatment (LWOT). The national average for LWOT was 1.9% in 2004 (McCaig & Nawar, 2006 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Standardization to a five-level triage system in the United States has yet to be achieved. The benefits and reliability of a five-level system in accurate acuity assignment have been reported, and accurate triage has obvious benefits for patient care and patient safety. Predictive resource allocation based on acuity level is another advantage of five-level triage. This article will describe the impact of five-level triage on operational indicators such as length of stay in the emergency department, patient satisfaction, left without treatment numbers, and level of service charges in two pilot facilities.
    Advanced emergency nursing journal 12/2006; 29(1):58-67.
Show more