A Comparison of Care Delivered in Hospital-based and Freestanding Emergency Departments

Who do freestanding emergency departments treat? Comparing Texas hospitals to satellite and independent freestanding departments in 2021 and 2022

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to describe characteristics of emergency department visits to Texas satellite and independent freestanding emergency departments (FrEDs) relative to hospital emergency departments (EDs).

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

The study used all 2021-2022 hospital and FrED discharges from the publicly available Texas Emergency Department Public Use Data Files (PUDF).

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a descriptive analysis, comparing patient and visit characteristics at satellite and independent FrEDs and hospital EDs using chi-square tests. We characterized the top 20 diagnoses and procedures ranked by volume, treatment intensity, and potentially avoidable ED use.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Discharge data from 2021 to 2022 were combined for the analysis, and ED data at critical access hospitals were excluded.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our sample consisted of 21,605,421 ED visits, 76% occurring at hospitals, 12% at satellite FrEDs, and 12% at independent FrEDs. Compared with hospitals and satellite FrEDs, patients to independent FrEDs were younger, healthier, more likely covered by private insurance, and less likely to be identified as non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic. Visits at satellite and independent FrEDs were more likely to be of moderate and low intensity and potentially avoidable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underscore the need to address potentially avoidable utilization of emergency services.

Individual Attributes and Environmental Conditions of Registered Nurses Working in Freestanding Emergency Departments in the United States: A Descriptive Exploratory Study

INTRODUCTION

Freestanding emergency departments (FSEDs) are emergency facilities not connected to inpatient services. The percentage of FSEDs of all EDs grew from 1% in 2001 to 12% in 2017, making FSEDs a substantial subset of US emergency care. The purpose of this study was to describe the individual attributes and environmental conditions of registered nurses working in FSEDs in the US.

METHODS

A quantitative descriptive exploratory design with cross-sectional survey methodology.

RESULTS

A total of 364 emergency nurses responded to the survey. Most reported their FSED was open 24 hours/day (99.5%), with board-certified emergency physicians onsite (91.5%) and a mean of 3.6 RNs working per shift. Resources immediately available in more than 50% of FSEDs included laboratory and imaging services, and in fewer than 30% of FSEDs included behavioral health care, MRI, obstetric care, orthopedic care, neurologic care, and surgical consult care. Respiratory therapy was reported by 39.6% of respondents as being immediately available. A significant minority of respondents expressed concerns about adequacy of resources and training and the effect on patient care in both survey (30% of respondents) and open-ended questions (42.5% of respondents).

DISCUSSION

The practice environment of emergency nurses in FSEDs was reported as having positive elements; however, a substantial subpopulation reported serious concerns. FSEDs adhere to some of the standards put forward by the American College of Emergency Physicians, with notable exceptions in the areas of staffing RNs, staffing ancillary staff, and availability of some resources.

Computed Tomography Utilization for Patients Presenting with Chest Pain

INTRODUCTION

Computed tomography (CT) is routinely used in the emergency department (ED) due to its ease of access and its ability to rapidly rule in or out many serious conditions. Freestanding emergency departments (FSEDs) have become increasingly used as an alternative to hospital-based emergency departments (HBEDs). The objective of this study was to investigate if the utilization rate of CT differs between FSEDs and HBEDs for chest pain.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of patients presenting to 17 EDs within a large integrated healthcare system between May 1, 2019 - April 30, 2021 with a chief complaint chest pain. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. Continuous variables are presented as mean and standard deviation. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the effect of facility on CT utilization for chest pain.

RESULTS

There were 67,084 patient encounters included in the study. Patients were predominately female (55%), white (61%), and insured through Medicare/Medicaid (59%). After controlling for predictive variables which included Charlson Comorbidity Index, ESI, age, sex, and race, patients who presented to FSEDs with chest pain were less likely to have a CT than those who presented to a HBED (AOR = 0.85, CI (0.81-0.90).

CONCLUSION

CT scans of the chest are utilized less frequently at FSEDs compared to HBEDs for patient presenting with chest pain.

Patients utilizing emergency medical services - Does facility type matter?

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (EDs) play a critical role in the US healthcare system. As freestanding EDs (FSEDs) are integrated into the acute care landscape, local EMS providers are transporting to these facilities, which may be closer in proximity and provide faster turnaround times. We hypothesized that patients transported via EMS to a freestanding ED required fewer tests and are admitted less frequently than those transported to a HBED. Our objective was to compare testing frequency and admission rates between patients transported via EMS to a FSED vs. HBED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented within a large integrated hospital system via EMS to one of 10 HBEDs or one of 6 FSEDs between April 1, 2020 - May 1, 2021. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages and comparisons between groups were obtained using chi squared tests. Continuous variables are presented as mean and standard deviation and p-values comparing groups were obtained using t-tests. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the effect of ED type on admission status, labs ordered, and testing performed.

RESULTS

A total of 123,120 encounters were included in our study. Mean age at the FSEDs was 59.9 vs. 61.3 at the HBEDs. At the FSEDs 55.6% (n = 4675) were female vs. 53.0% (n = 60,809) at the HBEDs. At the FSEDs 82.0% (n = 6805) were White vs. 60.7% (n = 68,430) at the HBEDs. We found 50.0% (n = 3974) had Medicare at the FSEDs vs 50.9% (n = 55,372) at the FSEDs. At the FSEDs, 69.5% (n = 5846) had bloodwork vs. 82.4% (n = 94,512) at the HBEDs; 68.3% (n = 5745) had an x-ray at the FSEDs vs. 70.7% (n = 81,089) at the HBEDs; 40.1% (n = 3370) had a CT scan at the FSEDs vs. 44.9% (n = 51,503) at the HBEDs; and 40.6% (n = 3412) were admitted at the FSEDs vs. 56.1% (n = 64,355) at the HBEDs. After controlling for Charlson Comorbidity Index, acuity, age, gender, sex, insurance and race, patients in FSEDs were 35% less likely to be admitted as compared to HBEDs.

CONCLUSION

Patients brought in via EMS to a FSED were less likely to have blood work, x-ray, or CT scan, and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital than those transported to a HBED.

Estimates of throughput and utilization at freestanding compared to low-volume hospital-based emergency departments

OBJECTIVE

Our investigation compared throughput metrics and utilization measures for freestanding emergency departments (FSEDs) versus hospital-based emergency departments (HBEDs) of similar volumes in the United States.

METHODS

This study is a cross sectional survey of 183 FSEDs and 317 HBEDs located across the United States using the Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance (EDBA) Database. We measured common emergency department (ED) throughput metrics. Primary outcomes included overall length of stay, length of stay for admitted, and length of stay for treated and released patients. Outcomes were weighted based on the proportion of ED volume per facility as per a prior pilot study. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to adjust for measured differences between FSEDs and HBEDs. The variables that were controlled for in regression analysis included geographic location of the ED (urban, suburban, and rural), percent of high acuity capacity, ED volume, percentage of patients arriving via emergency medical services (EMS), and percentage of pediatric patients.

RESULTS

Nationally, the median length of stay in minutes (104.2 vs 140.0), length of stay for treated and released patients (98.6 vs 122.9), door-to-bed (4.0 vs 8.0), door-to-doctor (11.0 vs 16.0), percentage of patients admitted through the ED (4.0 vs 11.0), and percentage of patients leaving the ED without being seen (LWBS) (0.9 vs 1.5), were significantly lower at FSEDs compared to HBEDs (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Length of stay for admitted patients (265.9 vs 241.8) and median boarding time (96.8 vs. 71.3) were significantly lower in HBEDs compared to FSEDs. X-ray, computed tomography, and ECG utilization per 100 patients was significantly lower at the FSEDs compared to HBEDs. Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that the length of stay for treated and released patients was 8.67 minutes shorter for FSEDs as compared to HBEDs (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.4 to -16.0). The length of stay for admitted patients was 44 minutes longer for FSEDs as compared to HBEDs (95% CI = 25.5 to 63.0).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of similarly sized EDs in the United States, throughput metrics for FSEDs tended to be significantly shorter from the arrival of the patient until their departure, except for patients requiring hospital admission. For measures favoring FSEDs, throughput times range from 20%-50% shorter than HBEDs.

Timeliness of Care for High-acuity Conditions at Hospital-affiliated Freestanding Emergency Departments

BACKGROUND

Hospital-affiliated freestanding emergency departments (FREDs) are rapidly proliferating in some states and have been the subject of recent policy debate. As FREDs' role in acute care delivery is expanding in certain regions, little is known about the quality of care that they provide for their sickest patients. Our aim was to compare timeliness of emergent care at FREDs and hospital-based EDs (HEDs) for patient visits with selected high-acuity and time-sensitive conditions.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational analysis of adult patient visit data from 19 FREDs and five HEDs from one health system over a 1-year period. Median times to events and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated via Cox regression.

RESULTS

The median time to electrocardiogram for visits with chest pain was 10 minutes at FREDs and 9 minutes at HEDs (HR = 0.91 [CI = 0.87 to 0.96]). Time to cardiac catheterization lab for visits with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was 78 minutes at FREDs, inclusive of transfer time, and 31 minutes at HEDs (HR = 0.41 [CI = 0.24 to 0.71]). Time to computed tomography for visits with stroke was 37 minutes at FREDs and 29 minutes at HEDs (HR = 0.42 [CI = 0.31 to 0.58]). Among visits with sepsis, FREDs had longer times to lactate collection (HR = 0.41 [CI = 0.30 to 0.56]), blood culture collection (HR = 0.24 [CI = 0.11 to 0.51]), and antibiotic administration (HR = 0.61 [CI = 0.26 to 1.42]). Beta agonists were administered for visits with asthma exacerbations in 24 minutes at FREDs and 44 minutes at HEDs (HR = 2.50 [CI = 2.34 to 2.68]), with similar times for anticholinergic and corticosteroid administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Freestanding EDs provided more timely care than HEDs for visits with asthma exacerbation and less timely care for acute chest pain, stroke, and sepsis, although absolute differences were small. Even though STEMI patients at FREDs required transfer for catheterization, they tended to receive care in line with national guidelines.

Same provider, different location: Variation in patient satisfaction scores between freestanding and hospital-based emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Patient satisfaction scores have become quality benchmarks for hospitals, are publicly reported, and are often tied to financial incentives. We determined whether patient satisfaction scores for individual emergency medicine providers varied according to the clinical setting.

METHODS

We obtained patient satisfaction survey results from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 for patients treated at 6 freestanding (FED) and 11 hospital-based emergency departments (HBED). Differences in mean score by ED facility were tested for significance. Mean score differences with 95% confidence intervals are presented. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict the odds of receiving different scores by type of ED facility and adjusted for patient and provider demographics and ED length of stay.

RESULTS

Sixty-six providers with 3743 total surveys were analyzed: FED (n = 1974) and HBED (n = 1769). Overall satisfaction scores were higher for FED compared to HBED surveys 1.13 [95% CI, 1.0-1.3]. In multivariable logistic regression, we found patients seen at the FEDs were 42% more likely to rate providers courtesy as "very good" compared to patients seen at a HBED [OR: 1.42, 95% CI (0.94-2.15)]. Similarly, patients from FEDs showed increased likelihood to rate providers as "very good" for keeping patients informed about treatment [OR: 1.70, 95% CI (1.21-2.39)], took time to listen to patients [OR: 1.66, 95% CI (0.72-1.60)] and concerned for patient's comfort [OR: 1.54, 95% CI (1.12-2.12)].

CONCLUSION

Individual providers, who practice at both types of facilities, consistently received higher satisfaction ratings from patients at FEDs compared to HBEDs.

Freestanding Emergency Department Entry and Market-level Spending on Emergency Care

Background

Freestanding emergency departments (FrEDs) could reduce wait times in overcrowded emergency departments (EDs), but they might also increase usage and overall spending for emergency care. We investigate the relationship between the number of FrEDs entering a local market and overall spending on emergency care.

Methods

We accessed data from Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas in Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis; a limited data set of deidentified insurance data claims that we linked to Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) data from the American Community Survey; and lists of licensed FrEDs from state agencies. Regression analysis was used to estimate the association between changes in the number of FrEDs in 495 PUMAs and total spending on emergency care, out‐of‐pocket spending, utilization, and price per visit from January 2013 to December 2017. Final estimates came from a PUMA‐level fixed‐effects model, with controls for state, quarter, and PUMA‐level demographics.

Results

Entry of an additional FrED in a PUMA was associated with a 3.6 percentage point (pp; CI = 2.4 to 4.9) increase in emergency provider reimbursement per insured beneficiary in Texas, Florida, and North Carolina. There was no change in spending (2.5 pp; CI = −8.2 to 3.1) associated with a FrED's entry in Arizona. Entry of an additional FrED was associated with a 0.18 (CI = 0.12 to 0.23) increase in the number of emergency care visits per 100 enrollees in Texas, Florida, and Arizona. In contrast, entry of another FrED was not associated with a change in utilization (−0.03; CI =  −0.09 to 0.02) in North Carolina. Estimated out‐of‐pocket payments for emergency care increased 3.6 pp (CI = 2.5 to 4.8) with the entry of a FrED in Texas, Florida, and Arizona, but declined by 15.3 pp (CI = −26.8 to −3.7) in North Carolina.

Conclusions

Rather than functioning as substitutes for hospital‐based EDs, FrEDs have increased local market spending on emergency care in three of four states’ markets where they have entered. State policy makers and researchers should carefully track spending and utilization of emergency care as FrEDs disseminate to better understand their potential health benefits and cost implications for patients.

Trends in United States emergency department visits and associated charges from 2010 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Demographic shifts and care delivery system evolution affect the number of Emergency Department (ED) visits and associated costs. Recent aggregate trends in ED visit rates and charges between 2010 and 2016 have not been evaluated.

METHODS

Data from the National Emergency Department Sample, comprising approximately 30 million annual patient visits, were used to estimate the ED visit rate and charges per visit from 2010 to 2016. ED visits were grouped into 144 mutually exclusive clinical categories. Visit rates, compound annual growth rates (CAGRs), and per visit charges were estimated.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2016, the number of ED visits increased from 128.97 million to 144.82 million; the cumulative growth was 12.29% and the CAGR was 1.95%, while the population grew at a CAGR of 0.73%. Expressed as a population rate, ED visits per 1000 persons increased from 416.92 in 2010 to 448.19 in 2016 (p value <0.001). The mean charges per visit increased from $2061 (standard deviation $2962) in 2010 to $3516 (standard deviation $2962) in 2016; the CAGR was 9.31% (p value <0.001). Of 144 clinical categories, 140 categories had a CAGR for mean charges per visit of at least 5%.

CONCLUSION

The rate of ED visits per 1000 persons and the mean charge per ED visit increased significantly between 2010 and 2016. Mean charges increased for both high- and low-acuity clinical categories. Visits for the 5 most common clinical categories comprise about 30% of ED visits, and may represent focus areas for increasing the value of ED care.

Emergency room as primary point of access in the German healthcare system : Objective evaluation and interview of motivation for ER entrance of 235 ER patients in a German hospital

BACKGROUND

The importance of emergency rooms (ERs) as everyday healthcare suppliers is growing. Due to increasing patient flows, hospitals are forced to raise physicians' and caregivers' headcount continuously to meet the new demand of patients seeing the ER as primary point of contact in non-emergency situations. Patients from various cultural and educational backgrounds approach the ER for different reasons. Detailed understanding of these reasons and their roots is key to be able to offer guidance for patients as well as planning and staffing of hospitals in the future.

AIM

This study examines motivation for the entrance to the medical system via the ER in Germany via an anonymized patient survey. Evaluation in regard to socioeconomic and medical reasons is taken into account.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over the course of 210 h in the ER, a total of 235 patients were interviewed in the surgical emergency room of Klinikum rechts der Isar in the year 2016. Focus was set on standard cases to allow for facilitated comparability. Heavily injured patients were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

The main reasons for patients entering the ER were immediate help (45.9%) and treatment by a specialist (35.4%). Furthermore, the location/good accessibility (47.9%) and prior positive experience with the emergency room (20.7%) were decisive reasons for choosing the hospital over the outpatient sector. Analysis of demands of patients in relation to their migration background and their religious confession showed no significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

Younger patients tend to more often access the ER instead of an outpatient clinic or doctor in private practice. As a survey suits the less urgent patients, our research describes this population in detail. The need for better information of patients regarding treatment options becomes apparent. The study's outcomes aim to teach physicians as well as operators how to influence resource management in the healthcare system by meaningful information of patients. Further research may evaluate long-term results of information measures.