The inappropriateness of "appropriateness"

Appropriateness of emergency care use: a retrospective observational study based on professional versus patients' perspectives in Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are to refine the measurement of appropriate emergency department (ED) use and to provide a natural observation of appropriate ED use rates based on professional versus patient perspectives.

SETTING

Taiwan has a population of 23 million, with one single-payer universal health insurance scheme. Taiwan has no limitations on ED use, and a low barrier to ED use may be a surrogate for natural observation of users' perspectives in ED use.

PARTICIPANTS

In 7 years, there were 1 835 860 ED visits from one million random samples of the National Health Insurance Database.

MEASURES

Appropriate ED use was determined according to professional standards, measured by the modified Billings New York University Emergency Department (NYU-ED) algorithm, and further analysed after the addition of prudent patient standards, measured by explicit process-based and outcome-based criteria.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to reflect the performance of appropriate ED use measures, and sensitivity analyses were conducted using different thresholds to determine the appropriateness of ED use. The generalised estimating equation model was used to measure the associations between appropriate ED use based on process and outcome criteria and covariates including sex, age, occupation, health status, place of residence, medical resources area, date and income level.

RESULTS

Appropriate ED use based on professional criteria was 33.5%, which increased to 63.1% when patient criteria were added. The AUC, which combines both professional and patient criteria, was high (0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

The appropriate ED use rate nearly doubled when patient criteria were added to professional criteria. Explicit process-based and outcome-based criteria may be used as a supplementary measure to the implicit modified Billings NYU-ED algorithm when determining appropriate ED use.

Comparison of presenting complaint vs discharge diagnosis for identifying " nonemergency" emergency department visits

IMPORTANCE

Reduction in emergency department (ED) use is frequently viewed as a potential source for cost savings. One consideration has been to deny payment if the patient's diagnosis upon ED discharge appears to reflect a "nonemergency" condition. This approach does not incorporate other clinical factors such as chief complaint that may inform necessity for ED care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether ED presenting complaint and ED discharge diagnosis correspond sufficiently to support use of discharge diagnosis as the basis for policies discouraging ED use.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The New York University emergency department algorithm has been commonly used to identify nonemergency ED visits. We applied the algorithm to publicly available ED visit data from the 2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) for the purpose of identifying all "primary care-treatable" visits. The 2009 NHAMCS data set contains 34,942 records, each representing a unique ED visit. For each visit with a discharge diagnosis classified as primary care treatable, we identified the chief complaint. To determine whether these chief complaints correspond to nonemergency ED visits, we then examined all ED visits with this same group of chief complaints to ascertain the ED course, final disposition, and discharge diagnoses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and disposition associated with chief complaints related to nonemergency ED visits.

RESULTS

Although only 6.3% (95% CI, 5.8%-6.7%) of visits were determined to have primary care-treatable diagnoses based on discharge diagnosis and our modification of the algorithm, the chief complaints reported for these ED visits with primary care-treatable ED discharge diagnoses were the same chief complaints reported for 88.7% (95% CI, 88.1%-89.4%) of all ED visits. Of these visits, 11.1% (95% CI, 9.3%-13.0%) were identified at ED triage as needing immediate or emergency care; 12.5% (95% CI, 11.8%-14.3%) required hospital admission; and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.5%-4.3%) of admitted patients went directly from the ED to the operating room.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among ED visits with the same presenting complaint as those ultimately given a primary care-treatable diagnosis based on ED discharge diagnosis, a substantial proportion required immediate emergency care or hospital admission. The limited concordance between presenting complaints and ED discharge diagnoses suggests that these discharge diagnoses are unable to accurately identify nonemergency ED visits.

Impact of policy changes on emergency department use by Medicaid enrollees in Oregon

OBJECTIVE

In 2003, Oregon's Medicaid expansion program, the Oregon Health Plan (OHP), implemented premiums and copayments and eliminated outpatient behavioral health services. We ascertained whether these changes, including $50 copayments for emergency department (ED) visits, affected ED use.

METHODS

This study used statewide administrative data on 414,009 adult OHP enrollees to compare ED utilization rates (adjusted for patient characteristics) in 3 time periods: (1) before the cutbacks, (2) after the cutbacks, and (3) after partial restoration of benefits. We examined overall ED visits and several subsets of ED visits: visits requiring hospital admission, injury-related, drug-related, alcohol-related, and other psychiatric visits. Because the policy changes affected only the expansion program (OHP Standard), we ascertained the impact of these changes compared with a control group of categorically eligible Medicaid enrollees (OHP Plus).

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, case-mix-adjusted ED utilization rates fell 18% among OHP Standard enrollees after the cutbacks. The rate of ED visits leading to hospitalization fell 24%. Injury-related visits and psychiatric visits excluding chemical dependency exhibited a similar pattern to overall ED visits. Drug-related ED visits increased 32% in the control group, perhaps reflecting the closure of drug treatment programs after the cutbacks reduced their revenue.

CONCLUSION

The policy changes were followed by a substantial reduction in ED use. That ED visits requiring hospital admission fell to about the same extent as overall ED use suggests that OHP enrollees may have been discouraged from using EDs for emergencies as well as less-serious problems.

Derivation and reliability of an instrument to estimate medical benefit of emergency treatment

OBJECTIVES

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Low-severity musculoskeletal complaints evaluated in the emergency department

Patients with musculoskeletal disorders represent a considerable percentage of emergency department volume. Although patients with acute or high-severity conditions are encouraged to seek care in the emergency department, patients with nonacute, low-severity conditions may be better served elsewhere. This study prospectively assessed patients presenting to the emergency department with nonacute, low-severity musculoskeletal conditions to test the hypothesis that these patients have access to care outside the emergency department. One thousand ten adult patients with a musculoskeletal complaint were identified, and a detailed questionnaire was completed by 862 (85.3%) during their emergency department stay. Three hundred fifty (40.6%) patients presented with nonacute, low-severity conditions. Patients with nonacute, low-severity problems were less likely to have a primary care physician (62.5% versus 72.3%) or to have medical insurance (82.5% versus 87.7%), but a majority had both (59.3%). Only 14.3% had neither. Forty-four percent of all patients with primary care physicians believed their primary care physician was incapable of managing musculoskeletal problems. Appropriate use of the emergency department by patients with musculoskeletal disorders may require not only increased access to insurance and primary care, but also improved public understanding of the scope of care offered by primary care physicians and the conflicting demands placed on emergency department providers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, prognostic study.

Association between primary care practice characteristics and emergency department use in a medicaid managed care organization

BACKGROUND

Many patients use emergency departments (EDs) for primary care. Previous studies have found that patient characteristics affect ED utilization. However, such studies have led to few policy changes.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether Medicaid patients' ED use is associated with characteristics of their primary care practices.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This was a cohort study.

SUBJECTS

A total of 57,850 patients, assigned to 353 primary care practices affiliated with a Medicaid HMO, were included.

MEASURES

Predictor variables were characteristics of primary care practices, which were measured by visiting each practice. The outcome variable was ED use adjusted for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

On average, patients made 0.80 ED visits/person/yr. Patients from practices with more than 12 evening hours/wk used the ED 20% less than patients from practices without evening hours. A higher ratio of the number of active patients per clinician-hour of practice time was associated with more ED use. When more Medicaid patients were in a practice, these patients used the ED more frequently. Other factors associated with ED use included equipment for the care of asthma and presence of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

DISCUSSION

Modifiable characteristics of primary care practices were associated with ED use. Because the observational design of this study does not allow definitive conclusions about causality, future studies should include intervention trials to determine whether changing practice characteristics can reduce ED use.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving primary care access and scope of services may reduce ED use. Focusing on systems issues rather than patient characteristics may be a more productive strategy to improve appropriate use of emergency medical care.

Inappropriate Emergency Department Visits and Use of the Health Care for the Homeless Program Services by Homeless Adults in the Northeastern United States

This study tested whether the use of the Health Care for the Homeless Program (HCHP) by homeless adults was associated with reduced risk of inappropriate emergency department (ED) use. Researchers interviewed 941 homeless adults at 52 soup kitchens. Of those interviewed, 508 reported having at least 1 ED visit during the last 6 months. Then, 243 subjects' 688 ED records were retrieved. Inappropriateness of each ED use was evaluated based on clinical criteria. Logistic regressions were applied. Having two or more HCHP visits [odds ratio (OR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19, 0.90] by homeless adults was associated with decreased odds of having inappropriate ED visits.

Appropriateness of emergency department visits in a Portuguese university hospital

STUDY OBJECTIVE

There are no studies in Portugal supporting a common claim that most emergency department visits are inappropriate. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of and to evaluate factors associated with an appropriate ED visit in a major public hospital.

METHODS

A cross-sectional prospective study was performed at a public university hospital ED. Data for demographic variables, duration of complaint, transfer from other medical sources, and previous medical care for the same complaints were collected by interviewing all patients who arrived at the ED within a consecutive period of at least 24 hours. Data for diagnostic tests, treatment performed, and final patient destination were collected by triage records review. An appropriate ED visit was defined by explicit criteria: interhospital transfer, patient death at the ED, hospitalization, and diagnostic tests or treatments performed.

RESULTS

The study included 5,818 adult patients. The prevalence of an appropriate ED visit, by use of our criteria, was 68.7%. Sex was an effect modifier. According to this study, determinants of an appropriate visit for men and women were age 60 years or older and complaints of 24 hours or less and in women but not in men, retired from work and with arrival between midnight and 8 AM.

CONCLUSIONS

In a university hospital in Oporto, the majority of ED visits were appropriate according to explicit criteria. Some variables may be associated with appropriateness of ED visits. A duration of the complaint 24 hours or less along with an arrival between midnight and 8 AM in women and age 60 years or older in men were the most important determinants.

Effect of ethnicity on denial of authorization for emergency department care by managed care gatekeepers

OBJECTIVE

After a pilot study suggested that African American patients enrolled in managed care organizations (MCOs) were more likely than whites to be denied authorization for emergency department (ED) care through gatekeeping, the authors sought to determine the association between ethnicity and denial of authorization in a second, larger study at another hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design was used, with adjustment for triage score, age, gender, day and time of arrival at the ED, and type of MCO.

RESULTS

African Americans were more likely to be denied authorization for ED visits by the gatekeepers representing their MCOs even after adjusting for confounders, with an odds ratio of 1.52 (95% CI = 1.18 to 1.94).

CONCLUSIONS

African Americans were more likely than whites to be denied authorization for ED visits. The observational study design raises the possibility that incomplete control of confounding contributed to or accounted for the association between ethnicity and gatekeeping decisions. Nevertheless, the questions that these findings raise about equity of gatekeeping indicate a need for additional research in this area.

Retrospective denial of emergency department payments is inappropriate

Third-party payers typically use patients' discharge diagnoses to determine "appropriate" Emergency Department (ED) usage. This analysis compared the resource intensity involved in ED evaluation for "inappropriate" and all other ED visits. In this retrospective database review, 11 discharge diagnoses (DX11) (chronic nasopharyngitis; chronic sinusitis; chronic pharyngitis; rhinitis; constipation; head cold; hemorrhoids; toothache; flu; headache; and tension headache) were identified by a third party payor as being "inappropriate" for ED evaluation. The chief complaints of all patients seen in 1994 and 1995 with one of the DX11 were identified along with their E & M billing level, ED length of stay (LOS), and the frequency of consultation. In this urban, university trauma center, 1994 and 1995 visits totaled 120,402. Eighty-two different chief complaints were associated with a final diagnosis of DX11; 79% of all ED patients presented with one of the chief complaints (AllCC). Four percent of patients with DX11 were admitted, and the AllCC group had comparable resource utilization to the entire ED population. Patients' presenting complaints are incapable of predicting diagnosis or disposition. Retrospective denial of payment by discharge diagnosis is inappropriate.

Development of new methods to assess the outcomes of emergency care

This article provides information supporting the need for new outcome measures in emergency care. It also addresses the use of outcome measures in emergency care, the impact of emergency care, identification of at-risk groups, new approaches to measuring patient satisfaction, quality of life and cost-effectiveness, and the unique related implications for emergency medicine.

Development of new methods to assess the outcomes of emergency care

This article provides information supporting the need for new outcome measures in emergency care. It also addresses the use of these measures in emergency care, the impact of emergency care, identification of at-risk groups, new approaches to measuring patient satisfaction, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness, and the related unique implications for emergency medicine.

Adverse outcomes of managed care gatekeeping

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether telephone preauthorization for reimbursement of ED care (medical "gate-keeping") by managed care organizations (MCOs) is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

A structured review was performed of case reports solicited during 1994 and 1995 with possible adverse outcomes related to managed care gatekeeping. Gatekeeping was defined as the requirement imposed by an MCO that ED staff contact on-call gatekeepers (i.e., clinical or nonclinical MCO personnel) to request preauthorization for ED treatment (a requirement that such MCOs enforce by refusing payment for the ED care unless preauthorization is obtained). Cases in which gatekeeper denial of preauthorization occurred were sought. Two physicians agreed on patient eligibility and classification criteria, then independently, retrospectively classified case reports identified as MCO ED payment denials into 1 of 4 categories: 1) adverse outcome; 2) patient placed at increased risk of death or disability; 3) "near miss" (emergency physicians prevented adverse outcome by caring for patient despite denial); and 4) none of the above.

RESULTS

Of the 143 cases reviewed, 29 reports represented MCO ED payment denial. Of these 29 eligible cases, there were 4 (14%) patients with adverse outcomes, 4 (14%) patients placed at increased risk, and 21 (72%) near misses. All of the 29 cases came from different EDs, representing 9 different states, with the majority from California. Adverse outcomes included respiratory failure from fulminant meningococcemia, hypovolemic syncope from ruptured ectopic pregnancy, hypovolemic arrest from vascular fibroid hemorrhage necessitating emergency hysterectomy, and prolonged postoperative course following ruptured duodenal ulcer. Patients placed at increased risk were diagnosed as having epiglottitis, myocardial infarction, ruptured ectopic pregnancy, and delayed treatment of hip septic arthritis. Near misses included diagnoses of ectopic pregnancy (n = 2), pneumothorax (n = 2), alcohol withdrawal seizures and pancreatitis necessitating intensive care unit admission, appendicitis, bacterial meningitis, cerebrovascular accident, cryptococal meningitis in immuno comprised host, endocarditis, incarerated inguinal hernia, meningocococemia, meninoccocal meningitis, peritonsillar abscess, pneumococcal meningitis, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, shock from gastrointestinal bleeding, small bowel obstruction, schizophrenic crisis resulting in psychiatric hospitalization, suicidal depression resulting in psychiatric hospitalization, and unstable angina.

CONCLUSION

Adverse outcomes occur with MCO gatekeeping, Although the present study cannot ascertain whether this is a frequent event or a rare one, the safety of MCO gatekeeping deserves further study.

Psychosocial difficulties and emergency department use

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether psychosocial difficulties are more prevalent among ambulatory patients using the ED for nonemergent complaints as compared with ambulatory patients having emergent complaints.

METHODS

A survey of noncritical ED patients was performed using anonymous questionnaires addressing psychosocial difficulties: psychiatric illness, educational level, homelessness, alcohol and/or drug dependency (CAGE and DAST surveys), and depression (DSM-III criteria). Three independent physicians ranked each patient's chief complaint as either emergent or appropriate for primary care. The majority ranking was used to determine whether the complaint was emergent. Groups with and without specific psychosocial difficulties were compared for their proportion of emergent vs primary care complaints.

RESULTS

Of 700 patients, 367 (52%) met criteria for > or = 1 psychosocial difficulty [acute psychosis-36 (5%), illiteracy-139 (20%), homelessness-45 (6%), alcohol dependency-111 (16%), drug dependency-66 (9%), and depression-130 (19%)]. There were 379 (54%) ED visits considered emergent. Patient groups with vs without > or = 1 psychosocial difficulty had similar rates of emergent visits (58% vs 50%, p = 0.04). Emergent visit rates also were similar for subgroups with vs without specific psychosocial difficulties: psychosis (56% vs 54%, p = 1.00) illiteracy (58% vs 53%, p = 0.89), homelessness (62% vs 54%, p = 0.33), alcohol dependency (62% vs 53%, p = 0.08), drug dependency (59% vs 54%, p = 0.47), or depression (58% vs 53%, p = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Psychosocial difficulties are common among ED patients; however, emergent complaints are just as common in these patients as they are in those without psychosocial difficulties.

Judging who needs emergency department care: a prerequisite for policy-making

The debate regarding risks and benefits of triaging nonurgent patients away from emergency departments (EDs) stems from widely varying estimates as to what proportion of ED visits are inappropriate. A study was undertaken based on the hypothesis that these discrepant estimates might be due to differences in how "appropriateness" is defined. This cross-sectional study included 596 ED patients. Seven different indicators of "Inappropriate" ED visits were used. Two could be determined by the patient; two were based on the triage nurse's assessment; three were determined retrospectively, by chart review. All 21 possible pairs of indicators were compared for agreement using the kappa statistic. The proportion of ED visits classified as inappropriate by the different indicators ranged from 10% to 90%. Kappa values for agreement between indicators ranged from -0.04 to 0.31, indicating poor agreement beyond that expected due to chance alone. Decisions as to which ED visits are appropriate depend heavily on the criteria used. Limiting patients' access to EDs without the aid of a valid and reliable standard for what constitutes an appropriate ED visit could create harmful barriers to care.