Seventy-Two–Hour Returns Are Not Useful in Identifying Emergency Department Patients With a Concerning Intra-Abdominal Process

Association of a Callback Program With Emergency Department Revisit Rates Among Patients Seeking Emergency Care

IMPORTANCE

The emergency department (ED) discharge process often involves haste and poor communication.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association of an automated telephone call 2 days after ED discharge with the likelihood of an unplanned ED revisit at both 72 hours and 7 days after the index visit and with perceived care metrics measured at 14 days.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective nonrandomized clinical trial was conducted at a single academically affiliated county emergency department among 8110 patients presenting to and discharged from the ED during a 10-week period from June 25 to August 30, 2018. Initial statistical analysis was performed from February 1 to November 30, 2020, with additional analyses performed from March 1 to 16, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated in a nonrandom fashion to 1 of 2 groups: patients who received an automated telephone call 2 days after discharge were compared with patients who received no call 2 days after discharge. All patients received a telephone questionnaire at 14 days to assess secondary outcome measures.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a return visit to the ED at 7 days. Secondary outcomes included a return visit to the ED within 72 hours, a return visit to the ED within 7 days resulting in hospital admission, and patient-reported perceptions of their care measured by 4 questions related to quality metrics assessed at 14 days. A secondary analysis compared patients who actually responded to the initial call at 2 days with all nonresponders, regardless of whether they received a call. Analyses were made on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

More than 15 000 patients were seen in the ED during the 10-week study period, and 10 948 were discharged. A total of 8110 patient encounters (4460 male patients [55.0%]; 3313 Hispanic patients [40.9%]; mean [SD] age, 40.5 [19.4] years) were enrolled. A total of 2958 patients (36.5%) received an automated telephone call at 2 days after discharge, while 5152 (63.5%) received no call. Rates of ED return within 7 days of the initial index visit were significantly lower among those who received a call at 2 days than those who did not receive a call (224 of 2958 [7.6%] vs 533 of 5152 [10.3%]; P < .001). Patients who received a 2-day call were more likely than those who did not receive a call to have followed up with a health care clinician (67.9% [374 of 551] vs 66.3% [604 of 911]), understood their health issues (77.5% [490 of 632] vs 74.9% [780 of 1042]), and have received their discharge medications (87.0% [507 of 583] vs 83.6% [793 of 949]), although none of these differences between the 2 groups were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A telephone call to patients 2 days after discharge from the ED was associated with decreased ED use at 7 days after the index visit and may have been associated with marginal improvements in measured quality of care metrics.

Predictors and outcomes of patients that return unplanned to the Emergency Department and require critical care admission: A multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, characteristics (including timeframe) and predictors of patients discharged from the Emergency Department (ED) that later return and require admission.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study examining all return visits to three EDs in Sydney, Australia, over a 12-month period. Patients returning within 28 days from ED discharge with the same or similar complaint were classified as a return visit to ensure capture of all return visits. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data and logistic regression was performed to predict factors associated with return visits with general admission, and return visits admitted to critical care.

RESULTS

There were 1,798 (30%) return visits which resulted in admission, mostly to a non-critical care area (1,679, 93%). The current NSW 48 -h time frame used to define a return visit in NSW captured half of all admitted returns (49.5%) and just over half (59.2%) of critical care admissions. Variables associated with an admission to critical care were age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01, 1.03), initial presentation (index visit) made to a lower level ED (OR 3.76 95% CI 2.06, 6.86), Triage Category 2 (OR 3.67 95% CI 2.04, 6.60) and a cardiac diagnosis (OR 5.76, 95% CI 3.01, 11.01). This model had adequate discriminant ability with AUROC = 0.825.

CONCLUSION

A small number of return visits result in admission, especially to critical care. These patients are at risk of poor outcomes. As such, clinicians should have increased index of suspicion for patients who return that are older, present with cardiac problems, or have previously presented to a lower level ED. Revision of the current timeframe that defines a return visit ought to be considered by policy makers to improve the accuracy of this widely used key performance indicator.

Identifying return visits to the Emergency Department: A multi-centre study

BACKGROUND

Patients who return to the Emergency Department (ED) for the same complaint are known to be at risk of adverse events. Monitoring of return visits is considered a way to measure the quality of care provided in the ED, although the most commonly used benchmark of 48h lacks evidence. This study aimed to describe the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients with unplanned return visits. The study also aimed to determine the capture rate of the 48-h benchmark using an all-inclusive method of return visit identification.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted across three EDs in Sydney, New South Wales from July 1st, 2017 to June 30th, 2018. Visits that occurred within 28 days with the same or similar presenting complaint following discharge from the ED were classified as a return visit. Data were grouped by index and return visit. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise incidence, patient characteristics and outcomes for all presentations. Categorical data were analysed using Chi square tests. Continuous data were analysed using Mann-Whitney when data were not normally distributed and t-tests when normally distributed.

RESULTS

Of all ED presentations (n=164,598), 5860 (3.6%) were identified as a return visit. Return patients were younger than non-return patients, but those that required admission were older (43 vs 33 years, p=<0.01). Abdominal problems were the most common reason for return followed by urological and mental health. The median time to return was 64:51h (IQR 20:35-226:37). Only 43% of return visits occurred within 48h. Return visits to a different ED accounted for 13.2% of return visits.

CONCLUSION

More than half of ED return visits are missed when the existing benchmark of 48h is used. Current policy makers should consider increasing the 48-h benchmark to more accurately reflect the incidence of return visits. Further investigation into the causal factors for return visits is warranted, particularly in patients with abdominal, urological or mental health complaints.

Incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients that return to Emergency Departments. An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Unplanned return visits account for up to 5% of Emergency Department presentations in Australia and have been associated with adverse events and increased costs. A large number of studies examine the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of unplanned return visits but few studies examine the reasons for return from a patient perspective. The objective of this integrative review was to determine the incidence, characteristics, outcomes and reasons for unplanned return visits to Emergency Departments.

METHOD

An integrative literature review design was employed to conduct a structured search of the literature using the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, ProQuest and EMBASE (inception to June 2018). Results were screened using predefined criteria and final studies collated and appraised using a quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

Fifty-two primary research articles were included in the review. The timeframe used to capture unplanned return visits varied and the incidence ranged between 0.07% and 33%. The majority of patients who return unplanned to the Emergency Department are subsequently discharged (51% and 90%) without an adverse event.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus on the timeframe employed to classify unplanned return visits to the Emergency Department and the commonly used 72h lacks evidence. Routine statewide data linkage to capture return visits to other facilities is needed to ensure accurate data about this vulnerable patient group. Further research that focuses on patient and clinician perspectives is required to facilitate the development of local strategies to reduce the incidence of avoidable unplanned return visits.