How community members and health professionals conceptualize medical emergencies: implications for primary care promotion

Factors Affecting Visits to the Emergency Department for Urgent and Nonurgent Ocular Conditions

PURPOSE

To determine the frequency of emergency department (ED) visits for nonurgent and urgent ocular conditions and risk factors associated with ED use for nonurgent and urgent ocular problems.

DESIGN

Retrospective, longitudinal cohort analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

All enrollees aged 21 years or older in a United States managed care network during 2001-2014.

METHODS

We identified all enrollees visiting an ED for ocular conditions identified by International Classification of Diseases, billing codes. Diagnosis is well-described as urgent, nonurgent, or other. We assessed the frequency of ED visits for urgent and nonurgent ocular conditions and how they changed over time. Next, we performed multivariable Cox regression modeling to determine factors associated with visiting an ED for urgent or nonurgent ocular conditions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of visiting an ED for urgent or nonurgent ocular conditions.

RESULTS

Of the 11 160 833 enrollees eligible for this study, 376 680 (3.4%) had 1 or more ED visit for an eye-related problem over a mean ± standard deviation of 5.4±3.3 years' follow-up. Among these enrolled, 86 473 (23.0%) had 1 or more ED visits with a nonurgent ocular condition and 25 289 (6.7%) had at least 1 ED visit with an urgent ocular condition. Use of the ED for nonurgent ocular problems was associated with younger age (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons), black race or Latino ethnicity (P < 0.0001 for both), male sex (P < 0.0001), lower income (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons), and those who frequently sought treatment at an ED for nonophthalmologic medical problems in a given year (P < 0.0001). Enrollees with established eye care professionals had a 10% reduced hazard of visiting the ED for nonurgent ocular conditions (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.92; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly one-quarter of enrollees who visited the ED for an ocular problem received a diagnosis of a nonurgent condition. Better educating and incentivizing patients to seek care for nonurgent ocular diseases in an office-based setting could yield considerable cost savings without adversely affecting health outcomes and could allow EDs to better serve patients with more severe conditions.

Understanding Low-Acuity Visits to the Pediatric Emergency Department

Background

Canadian pediatric emergency department visits are increasing, with a disproportionate increase in low-acuity visits locally (33% of volume in 2008-09, 41% in 2011-12). We sought to understand: 1) presentation patterns and resource implications; 2) parents’ perceptions and motivations; and 3) alternate health care options considered prior to presenting with low-acuity problems.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study at our tertiary pediatric emergency department serving two provinces to explore differences between patients with and without a primary care provider. During four, 2-week study periods over 1 year, parents of low-acuity visits received an anonymous survey. Presentation times, interventions, diagnoses and dispositions were captured on a data collection form linked to the survey by study number.

Results

Parents completed 2,443 surveys (74.1% response rate), with survey-data collection form pairs available for 2,146 visits. Overall, 89.7% of respondents had a primary care provider; 68% were family physicians. Surprisingly, 40% of visits occurred during weekday office hours and 27.3% occurred within 4 hours of symptom onset; 67.5% of those early presenters were for injuries. Few parents sought care from their primary care provider (25%), health information line (20.7%), or urgent care clinic (18.5%); 36% reported that they believed their child’s problem required the emergency department. Forty-five percent required only a history, physical exam and reassurance; only 11% required an intervention not available in an office setting. Patients without a primary care provider were significantly more likely to present during weekday office hours (p = 0.003), have longer symptom duration (p<0.001), and not know of other options (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Many parents seek pediatric emergency department care for low-acuity problems despite their child having a primary care provider. Ensuring timely access to these providers may help reduce pediatric emergency department overuse. Educational initiatives should inform parents about low-acuity problems and where appropriate care can/should be accessed.