Emergency physicians do not use more resources to evaluate obese patients with acute abdominal pain

A Comparison of Nonobese Versus Obese Emergency Department Patient Satisfaction Scores Utilizing Standard U.S. Hospital Survey Query Methodology

BACKGROUND

Prior research reveals that overweight patients have higher emergency department (ED) utilization rates, longer length of stay, and face increased misdiagnosis risk.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between obesity and ED patient satisfaction.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional study. A convenience sample of inner-city ED patients completed a written survey, then rated overall satisfaction with ED care (10-point scale), and rated components of satisfaction (4-point scale; never to always). Body mass index (BMI) was calculated using triage records (obesity = BMI >30).

RESULTS

Five hundred and sixty-four patients were included in the study group (50.5%: obese, 55.4%: female, mean age: 43.2 ± 25.4 years). With respect to overall visit satisfaction (rating 8 or greater on 10-point scale), bivariate analysis revealed no differences between nonobese versus obese patients (74.6% vs. 73.9%; P = 0.85). There were no significant differences for score of 4 (always) for components of ED satisfaction: physician courtesy (87.9% vs. 90.4%; P = 0.34), nurse courtesy/respect (89.2% vs. 88.7%; P = 0.87), doctor listened (85.4% vs. 87.1%; P = 0.5), doctor explained (80.2% vs. 85.0%; P = 0.14), and recommend to friend (72.5% vs. 81.1%; P = 0.02). Within our multivariate model, obesity was not associated with overall satisfaction (scores of 8 or greater) (P = 0.97; odds ratio = 0.99 [95% confidence interval = 0.65-1.5]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite research that suggests that overweight patients have characteristics of their ED visit that might increase dissatisfaction risk, we found no difference in satisfaction scores between nonobese and obese patients.

Obesity and the Emergency Short Stay Unit

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the health service requirements of obese patients admitted to an Emergency Short Stay Unit (ESSU) and specifically compare length of stay (LOS), failure of ESSU management, and rates of investigations and allied health interventions among obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study, using convenience sampling was conducted. The body mass index (BMI) of participants was calculated and those with a BMI of ⩾30 were allocated to the obese group, and those that had a BMI of <30 to the non-obese group. Data collected included demographics, admission diagnosis, time and date of ESSU admission and discharge, discharge disposition, radiological investigations, and referrals made to allied health personnel during ESSU admission.

RESULTS

There were 262 patients that were recruited sub-grouped into 127 (48.5%) obese participants and 135 (51.5%) non-obese participants with similar sex and diagnostic category distributions. The mean LOS in ESSU was similar - 11.5h (95% CI: 9.9-13.1) for obese patients and, 10.2h (95% CI: 8.8-11.6) for non-obese patients (p=0.21). Failure rates of ESSU management, defined as inpatient admission to hospital, were also similar with 29 (22.8%) obese patients admitted to hospital compared to 25 (18.5%) non-obese patients (p=0.39). Plain X-ray requests were significantly higher among obese patients (71.6 vs 53.3%; p=0.002), as was the rate of allied health interventions (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in inpatient admission rates or LOS between obese and non-obese patients managed in the ESSU. Provisions for increased rate of investigations and allied health interventions for obese patients may facilitate timely assessment and disposition from ESSU.

The efficacy and value of emergency medicine: a supportive literature review

Study objectives

The goal of this study was to identify publications in the medical literature that support the efficacy or value of Emergency Medicine (EM) as a medical specialty and of clinical care delivered by trained emergency physicians. In this study we use the term "value" to refer both to the "efficacy of clinical care" in terms of achieving desired patient outcomes, as well as "efficiency" in terms of effective and/or cost-effective utilization of healthcare resources in delivering emergency care. A comprehensive listing of publications describing the efficacy or value of EM has not been previously published. It is anticipated that the accumulated reference list generated by this study will serve to help promote awareness of the value of EM as a medical specialty, and acceptance and development of the specialty of EM in countries where EM is new or not yet fully established.

Methods

The January 1995 to October 2010 issues of selected journals, including the EM journals with the highest article impact factors, were reviewed to identify articles of studies or commentaries that evaluated efficacy, effectiveness, and/or value related to EM as a specialty or to clinical care delivered by EM practitioners. Articles were included if they found a positive or beneficial effect of EM or of EM physician-provided medical care. Additional articles that had been published prior to 1995 or in other non-EM journals already known to the authors were also included.

Results

A total of 282 articles were identified, and each was categorized into one of the following topics: efficacy of EM for critical care and procedures (31 articles), efficacy of EM for efficiency or cost of care (30 articles), efficacy of EM for public health or preventive medicine (34 articles), efficacy of EM for radiology (11 articles), efficacy of EM for trauma or airway management (27 articles), efficacy of EM for using ultrasound (56 articles), efficacy of EM faculty (34 articles), efficacy of EM residencies (24 articles), and overviews and editorials of EM efficacy and value (35 articles).

Conclusion

There is extensive medical literature that supports the efficacy and value for both EM as a medical specialty and for emergency patient care delivered by trained EM physicians.