Frequency, Causes, and Outcomes of Return Visits to the Emergency Department Within 72 Hours: A Retrospective Observational Study

Factors associated with mental health representations to the emergency department within six months

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

ED representation places a tremendous drain on resources with mental health (MH) representation among the most common. This study aimed to identify patient and clinical factors associated with 28-day and six-month ED MH representation of an index MH ED presentation.

METHOD

All MH related ED presentations from 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2019 were extracted from routinely collected administrative data. Cox regression and multinomial logistic regression models tested associations between patient characteristics and risk of representation.

RESULTS

For the 8,010 patients, 28-day and six-month representations were 8 % and 16 % respectively. Self-identifying with a MH problem at index presentation (28-day hazard ratio (HR) = 1.48, 95 % CI = 1.19-1.84; six-month HR = 1.52, 95 % CI = 1.29-1.78), leaving ED before completing treatment (28-day HR = 4.13, 95 % CI = 3.36-5.08; six-month HR = 2.52, 95 % CI = 2.12-2.99), no private health insurance (six-month HR = 1.34, 95 % CI = 1.08-1.66), and hospital admission within one year prior to index (six month MH-related admission vs non-MH, HR = 1.59, 95 % CI = 1.19-2.13) were associated with increased risk of representation. Being uninsured was associated with frequent six-month representation among adults aged 16-39 years (OR = 3.16, 95 %CI = 1.59-6.25).

CONCLUSION

Self-identifying with a MH problem, leaving ED prematurely, being uninsured and prior hospitalisation are areas for in-depth investigation for improved understanding of unplanned representations.

Adherence to Emergency Department Referral Criteria in a Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine Center

Background: The safety of direct-to-consumer telemedicine (TM) is closely related to red flag detection and correct referrals. The adherence to referral criteria from current guidelines is not well quantified. Objective: To analyze the emergency department (ED) referral rate and adherence to referral guidelines in TM encounters of acutely ill patients calling a center that adopts stewardship protocols. Methods: This is a retrospective observational unicentric study, between March 2020 and March 2022, with patients who spontaneously sought direct-to-consumer urgent virtual medical assistance. A video-based teleconsultation was provided immediately after connection. Physicians managed situations according to their clinical judgment. Current guidelines, containing specific guidance for referral if red flags were identified, were available for consultation. Physicians' semiannual performance feedback was carried out. We analyzed the patterns for referral to immediate face-to-face medical evaluation and the agreement degree with the institutional guidelines. Results: A total of 232,197 patients were available, and 14,051 (6.05%) patients were referred to ED. A total of 8,829 (68.4%) referrals were based in specific guidelines according to the International Classification of Diseases hypothesis, and 8,708 (98.6%) were justified according to guidelines. Diarrhea had the highest guidelines' adherence to referral (97.6%), followed by COVID-19 (90%), headache (84.2%), and conjunctivitis (78.8%). Policies did not support 5,222 (31.6%) referrals, though 5,100 (97.6%) of these were justified according to the doctor's clinical judgment. Conclusion: TM doctors' assessment of acutely ill patients has high rates of adherence to guidelines regarding referral. Stewardship protocol adoption provides high rates of red flag description, even in the referral of nonpolicy diseases.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who return to the emergency department: a multicentre observational study by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN)

OBJECTIVE

Unplanned return emergency department (ED) visits can reflect clinical deterioration or unmet need from the original visit. We determined the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who return to the ED for COVID-19-related revisits.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used data for all adult patients visiting 47 Canadian EDs with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 March 2022. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the characteristics associated with having a no return visit (SV=single visit group) versus at least one return visit (MV=return visit group) after being discharged alive at the first ED visit.

RESULTS

39 809 patients with COVID-19 had 44 862 COVID-19-related ED visits: 35 468 patients (89%) had one visit (SV group) and 4341 (11%) returned to the ED (MV group) within 30 days (mean 2.2, SD=0.5 ED visit). 40% of SV patients and 16% of MV patients were admitted at their first visit, and 41% of MV patients not admitted at their first ED visit were admitted on their second visit. In the MV group, the median time to return was 4 days, 49% returned within 72 hours. In multivariable modelling, a repeat visit was associated with a variety of factors including older age (OR=1.25 per 10 years, 95% CI (1.22 to 1.28)), pregnancy (1.86 (1.46 to 2.36)) and presence of comorbidities (eg, 1.72 (1.40 to 2.10) for cancer, 2.01 (1.52 to 2.66) for obesity, 2.18 (1.42 to 3.36) for organ transplant), current/prior substance use, higher temperature or WHO severe disease (1.41 (1.29 to 1.54)). Return was less likely for females (0.82 (0.77 to 0.88)) and those boosted or fully vaccinated (0.48 (0.34 to 0.70)).

CONCLUSIONS

Return ED visits by patients with COVID-19 within 30 days were common during the first two pandemic years and were associated with multiple factors, many of which reflect known risk for worse outcomes. Future studies should assess reasons for revisit and opportunities to improve ED care and reduce resource use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04702945.

Inequities among patient placement in emergency department hallway treatment spaces

BACKGROUND

Limited capacity in the emergency department (ED) secondary to boarding and crowding has resulted in patients receiving care in hallways to provide access to timely evaluation and treatment. However, there are concerns raised by physicians and patients regarding a decrease in patient centered care and quality resulting from hallway care. We sought to explore social risk factors associated with hallway placement and operational outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS

Observational study between July 2017 and February 2020. Primary outcome was the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of patient placement in a hallway treatment space adjusting for patient demographics and ED operational factors. Secondary outcomes included left without being seen (LWBS), discharge against medical advice (AMA), elopement, 72-h ED revisit, 10-day ED revisit and escalation of care during boarding.

RESULTS

Among 361,377 ED visits, 100,079 (27.7%) visits were assigned to hallway beds. Patient insurance coverage (Medicaid (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01,1.06) and Self-pay/Other (1.08, (1.03, 1.13))) with comparison to private insurance, and patient sex (Male (1.08, (1.06, 1.10))) with comparison to female sex are associated with higher odds of hallway placement but patient age, race, and language were not. These associations are adjusted for ED census, triage assigned severity, ED staffing, boarding level, and time effect, with social factors mutually adjusted. Additionally adjusting for patients' social factors, patients placed in hallways had higher odds of elopement (1.23 (1.07,1.41)), 72-h ED revisit (1.33 (1.08, 1.64)) and 10-day ED revisit (1.23 (1.11, 1.36)) comparing with patients placed in regular ED rooms. We did not find statistically significant associations between hallway placement and LWBS, discharge AMA, or escalation of care.

CONCLUSION

While hallway usage is ad hoc, we find consistent differences in care delivery with those insured by Medicaid and self-pay or male sex being placed in hallway beds. Further work should examine how new front-end processes such as provider in triage or split flow may be associated with inequities in patient access to emergency and hospital care.

The risk factors of the 72-h unscheduled return visit admission to emergency department in adults below 50 years old

BACKGROUND

An unscheduled return visit (URV) to the emergency department (ED) within 72-h is an indicator of ED performance. An unscheduled return revisit (URV) within 72-h was used to monitor adverse events and medical errors in a hospital quality improvement program. The study explores the potential factors that contribute to URV to the ED within 72-h and the unscheduled return revisit admission (URVA) in adults below 50 years old.

METHODS

The case-control study enrolled 9483 URV patients during 2015-2020 in National Cheng-Kung University Hospital. URVA and URV non-admission (URVNA) patients were analyzed. The Gini impurity index was calculated by decision tree (DT) to split the variables capable of partitioning the groups into URVA and URVNA. Logistic regression is applied to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of candidate variables. The α level was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Among patients under the age of 50, the percentage of females in URVNA was 55.05%, while in URVA it was 53.25%. Furthermore, the average age of URVA patients was 38.20 ± 8.10, which is higher than the average age of 35.19 ± 8.65 observed in URVNA. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of the URVA patients (1.59 ± 1.00) was significantly higher than that of the URVNA patients (1.22 ± 0.64). The diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of the URVA patients was 85.29 ± 16.22, which was lower than that of the URVNA (82.89 ± 17.29). Severe triage of URVA patients is 21.1%, which is higher than the 9.7% of URVNA patients. The decision tree suggests that the factors associated with URVA are "severe triage," "CCI higher than 2," "DBP less than 86.5 mmHg," and "age older than 34 years". These risk factors were verified by logistic regression and the OR of CCI was 2.42 (1.50-3.90), the OR of age was 1.84 (1.50-2.27), the OR of DBP less than 86.5 was 0.71 (0.58-0.86), and the OR of severe triage was 2.35 (1.83-3.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide physicians with a reference for discharging patients and could help ED physicians reduce the cognitive burden associated with the diagnostic errors and stress.

Healthcare-associated adverse events and readmission to the emergency departments within seven days after a first consultation

Introduction

The use of emergency hospital service has become increasingly frequent with a rise of approximately 3.6%. in annual emergency department visits. The objective of this study was to describe the reasons for reconsultations to emergency departments and to identify the risk and protective factors of reconsultations linked to healthcare-associated adverse events.

Materials and methods

A retrospective, descriptive, multicenter study was performed in the emergency department of Troyes Hospital and the Sainte Anne Army Training Hospital in Toulon, France from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Patients over 18 years of age who returned to the emergency department for a reconsultation within 7 days were included. Healthcare-associated adverse events in the univariate analysis (p < 0.10) were introduced into a multivariate logistic regression model. Model performance was examined using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and calculated with c-statistic.

Results

Weekend visits and performing radiology examinations were risk factors linked to healthcare associated adverse events. Biological examinations and the opinion of a specialist were protective factors.

Discussion

Numerous studies have reported that a first consultation occurring on a weekend is a reconsultation risk factor for healthcare-associated adverse events, however, performing radiology examinations were subjected to confusion bias. Patients having radiology examinations due to trauma-related pathologies were more apt for a reconsultation.

Conclusion

Our study supports the need for better emergency departments access to biological examinations and specialist second medical opinions. An appropriate patient to doctor ratio in hospital emergency departments may be necessary at all times.

[Return rate to the Primary Care Emergency Service for elderly patients over 65 years old and their assistance requirements]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the unexpected return rate to the Primary Care Emergency Service of elderly patients over 65 years old within the following 72h of a previous visit, as well as to determine the clinical and assistance requirements of these patients.

PROCEDURE

Retrospective and observational epidemiologic study.

LOCATION

Cotolino's Primary Care Emergency Service in Cantabria, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

1940 elderly patients over 65 years old were included. These patients returned to the Primary Care Emergency Service in 2016.

MAIN DATA FOR THE STUDY

The dependent variable was the return rate to the Primary Care Emergency Service. The independent variables were socio-demographic characteristics, health details and medical assistance information. All data was collected from the Primary Care Emergency Service Management Office database. All variables were analysed applying Pearson's chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test, with statistical significance P≤.05.

RESULTS

The rate of unexpected return was 2.3%. The average age was 77.4 years old (standard deviation (SD): 8.4), of which the 37.6% were male. The most frequent range of age was from 75 to 84 years old, with males being the predominant group. A history of polymedication was detected in 54.4% of the cases, as well as a medium cardiovascular risk within this group. Nursing professionals attended the 42.2% of these return cases (P<.001). Patients with dysnea (P=.015), scheduled care or scheduled injection returned with a higher frequency (P<.001). It was as well noticed a higher frequency of return for subsequent attention during the months of December and January (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of unexpected return is low. The main causes why elderly patients returned to the service requiring urgent assistance were issues categorised as unspecific general health indicators and/or respiratory system illnesses. Our proposal is to develop specific protocols combining the work from both Geriatrics and Gerontology professionals, in order to improve the support to this group of population at every Primary Care Emergency Service.