Profile and Motivation of Patients Consulting in Emergency Departments While not Requiring Such a Level of Care

Health care utilization of patients with acute abdominal pain before and after emergency department visits

BACKGROUND

Acute abdominal pain (AAP) is a major driver for capacity-use in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Yet, the health care utilization of patients with AAP before and after the ED remains unclear. The primary objective of this study was to describe adult patients presenting to the ED with AAP and their outpatient care (OC) use before and after the ED. Secondary objectives included description of hospitalization rates, in-hospital mortality, ED re-visits, and exploration of potential risk factors for hospitalization and ED re-visits.

METHODS

For the analysis, we combined routine hospital data from patients who visited 15 EDs in Germany in 2016 with their statutory health insurance OC claims data from 2014 to 2017. Adult patients were included based on a chief complaint or an ED diagnosis indicating unspecific AAP or the Manchester Triage System indicator "Abdominal pain in adults". Baseline characteristics, ED diagnosis, frequency and reason of hospitalization, frequency and type of prior-OC (prOC) use up to 3 days before and of post-OC use up to 30 days after the ED visit.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 28,085 adults aged ≥ 20 years with AAP. 39.8% were hospitalized, 33.9% sought prOC before the ED visit (48.6% of them were hospitalized) and 62.7% sought post-OC up to 30 days after the ED visit. Hospitalization was significantly more likely for elderly patients (aged 65 and above vs. younger; adjusted OR 3.05 [95% CI 2.87; 3.25]), prOC users (1.71 [1.61; 1.90]) and men (1.44 [1.37; 1.52]). In-hospital mortality rate was 3.1% overall. Re-visiting the ED within 30 days was more likely for elderly patients (1.32 [1.13; 1.55) and less likely for those with prOC use (0.37 [0.31; 0.44]).

CONCLUSIONS

prOC use was associated with more frequent hospitalizations but fewer ED re-visits. ED visits by prOC patients without subsequent hospitalization may indicate difficulties of OC resources to meet the complex diagnostic requirements and expectations of this patient population. Fewer ED re-visits in prOC users indicate effective care in this subgroup.

Health Status of Nonemergency Patients in the Emergency Department Using the EQ-5D

Background

Emergency department (ED) overcrowding is influenced by several factors including the hospital's capacity, staff, patient discharges, and community resources. The number of annual ED visits has increased, with patients' medical needs exceeding emergency capacity, resulting in a widespread concern about emergency room overcrowding. Nonemergency patients tend to use large amounts of emergency medical resources, which is one reason for ED overcrowding. Most patients consider their medical cases urgent, whereas medical professionals consider many cases to be nonemergency. Only a few studies have examined self-rated health among nonemergency patients.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the ED of a tertiary hospital in China using the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensional Questionnaire to investigate the health status of nonemergency patients.

Results

Among the 545 respondents, 246 (45.14%) self-assessed their health as excellent, 186 (34.13%) as very good, 70 (12.84%) as good, 32 (5.87%) as average, and 11 (2.02%) as poor. Problems related to pain/discomfort were reported by 317 (58.17%) participants, 214 (39.27%) responded that they had problems related to daily activities, 212 (38.90%) responded that they felt anxious or depressed, 211 (38.35%) responded that they had problems related to self-care, and some or extreme problems related to mobility were stated by 193 people (35.41%).

Conclusions

Nonemergency patients generally reported good health. Pain/discomfort was the most significant factor affecting the health of nonemergency patients, followed by limitation of daily activities. The duration of illness onset and self-rated health status were common factors influencing the health status of nonemergency patients. This trial is registered with ChiCTR1900023578.

Why patients self-refer to the emergency service for nonurgency?: A mix-method survey from a family medicine perspective

The definition of "nonurgent emergency service visits" is visits to conditions for medical conditions that require attention but are not life-threatening immediately or severe enough to require urgent intervention. This study aims to investigate the reasons why patients choose to self-refer to the emergency service (ES) instead of their primary care health center for nonurgent complaints. The study was carried out in a tertiary hospital. The survey consisted of 2 parts with sociodemographic questions, knowledge of their family physician, and the reason why it has been applied to the ES with multiple choice answers. Of the 325 patients, the mean age was 34.5 years and 54.2% were women. Also, 26 of the patients were reported as "urgent" by the doctor. The main reasons underlying self-referred patients were classified into 4 themes: "urgency" (13.8%), advantages of ES (12.9%); disadvantages of primary care (25.1%), and other (45.9%). The most common reason patients self-refer to the ES was their belief in "being urgent" (61%). In this study, 26.8%, (n = 84) of the patients are not happy with their family physicians, while only 13.2% (N = 43) prioritize the ES advantages.

An integrative review of adult patient-reported reasons for non-urgent use of the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an integrative review of the scientific literature to explore adult patient-reported reasons for using the emergency department (ED) non-urgently.

METHOD

A literature search of CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE was conducted with filters for humans, published January 1, 1990-September 1, 2021, and English language. Methodological quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist for qualitative and National Institutes Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies for quantitative studies. Data was abstracted on study and sample characteristics, and themes/reasons for ED use. Cited reasons were coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Ninety-three studies met inclusion criteria. Seven themes were found: need to be risk averse with respect to the health issue; knowledge and awareness of alternative sources of care; dissatisfaction with primary care provider; satisfaction with ED; ED accessibility and convenience resulting in low access burden; referred to the ED by others; and relationships between patients and health care providers.

DISCUSSION

This integrative review examined patient-reported reasons for attending the ED on a non-urgent basis. The results suggest that ED patients are heterogenous and many factors influence their decision-making. Considering the complexity with which patients live, treating them as a single entity may be problematic. Limiting excessive non-urgent visits likely requires a multi-pronged approach.

CONCLUSION

For many ED patients, they have a very clear problem which needed to be addressed. Future studies should explore psychosocial factors driving decision-making (e.g., health literacy, health-related personal beliefs, stress and coping ability).

Seguridad en urgencias sobre la referencia de pacientes no urgentes a centros de atención primaria

Objetivos: determinar la seguridad al referir pacientes triage 4 y 5 desde un servicio de urgencias a centros de atención primaria, conociendo su disposición final y las posibles complicaciones por esta estrategia. Métodos: estudio observacional retrospectivo de 333 pacientes clasificados como triage 4 y 5 que fueron referidos desde el servicio de urgencias a un centro de atención primaria en febrero 2019. A través de la aseguradora se obtuvo la información sobre si asistieron o no a dicha cita programada y la conclusión final de la consulta. Resultados: 52 pacientes (15,6%) no asistieron a la cita programada sin que esto causara alguna complicación para su salud. De los 281 que sí asistieron, 1,4% fueron referidos a valoración especializada urgente sin que requirieran ingreso hospitalario y 98,6% fueron atendidos y manejados en forma ambulatoria por el médico de atención primaria. Se encontraron diferencias entre los no asistentes a la atención primaria en los subgrupos de edad entre 3 a 17 (p=0,009) y 18 a 37 años (p=0,04). Conclusiones: la estrategia de referencia de pacientes clasificados en 4 o 5 desde un servicio de urgencias a centros de atención primaria es segura, incluso si estos no asisten a la cita programada.

Development and validation of the first performance assessment scale for interdisciplinary chest tube insertion: a prospective multicenter study

PURPOSE

Chest tube insertion requires interdisciplinary teamwork including an emergency surgeon or physician in conjunction with a nurse. The purpose of the study was to validate an interdisciplinary performance assessment scale for chest tube insertion developed from literature analysis.

METHODS

This prospective study took place in the simulation center of the University of Paris. The participants included untrained emergency/intensivist residents and trained novice emergency/intensivist physicians with less than 2 years of clinical experience and 6 months following training in thoracostomy, and nursing students. Each interdisciplinary pair participated in a high-fidelity simulation session. Two independent observers (O1 and O2) evaluated 61 items. Internal coherence using the Cronbach's α coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and correlation of scores by regression analysis (R2) were analyzed. Comparison between O1 and O2 mean scores used a t test and F test for SDs. p Value < 0.05 was significant.

RESULTS

From an initial selection of 11,277 articles, 19 were selected to create the initial scale. The final scale comprises 61 items scored out of 80, including 24 items for nursing items, 24 items for medical competence, and 13 mixed items for the competence of both. 40 simulations including 80 participants were evaluated. Cronbach's α = 0.76, ICC = 0.92, R2 = 0.88. There was no difference between the observers' assessments of means (p = 0.82) and SDs (p = 0.92). Score was 51.6 ± 5.9 in the group of untrained residents and nursing student, and 57.2 ± 2.8 in the trained group of novice physicians and nursing students (p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

This first performance assessment scale for interdisciplinary chest tube insertion is valid and reliable.

Sociodemographic and clinical factors, visit expectations and driving factors for emergency department attendance for uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection

BACKGROUND

Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) account for substantial non-urgent ED attendances. Hence, we explored the reasons for such attendances using a mixed-methods approach.

METHODS

We interviewed adult patients with URTI who visited the second busiest adult ED in Singapore from June 2016 to November 2018 on their expectations and reasons for attendance. A structured questionnaire, with one open-ended question was used. Using the Andersen's Behavioural Model for Healthcare Utilisation, the topmost reasons for ED attendances were categorised into (1) contextual predisposing factors (referral by primary care physician, family, friends or coworkers), (2) contextual enabling factors (convenience, accessibility, employment requirements), (3) individual enablers (personal preference and trust in hospital-perceived care quality and efficiency) and (4) individual needs (perceived illness severity and non-improvement). Multivariable multinomial logistic regression was used to assess associations between sociodemographic and clinical factors, patient expectations for ED visits and the drivers for ED attendance.

RESULTS

There were 717 patients in the cohort. The mean age of participants was 40.5 (SD 14.7) years, 61.2% were males, 66.5% without comorbidities and 40.7% were tertiary educated. Half had sought prior medical consultation (52.4%) and expected laboratory tests (55.7%) and radiological investigations (46.9%). Individual needs (32.8%) and enablers (25.1%) were the main drivers for ED attendance. Compared with ED attendances due to contextual enabling factors, attendances due to other drivers were more likely to be aged ≥45 years, had prior medical consultation and expected radiological investigations. Having a pre-existing medical condition (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.04) and an expectation for laboratory tests (aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.64) were associated with individual needs while being non-tertiary educated (aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.45) and having pre-existing comorbidities (aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.10) were associated with individual enablers.

CONCLUSIONS

Meeting individual needs of perceived illness severity or non-improvement was the topmost driver of ED visits for URTI, while contextual enabling factors such as convenience was the lowest. Patients' sociodemographic and clinical factors and visit expectations influence their motivations for ED attendances. Addressing these factors and expectations can alleviate the overutilisation of ED services.

Development of a Performance Assessment Scale for Simulated Dispatcher-Assisted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (Telephone-CPR): A Multi-Center Randomized Simulation-Based Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Dispatchers should be trained to interrogate bystanders with strict protocols to elicit information focused on recognizing cardiac arrest and should provide telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instructions in all cases of suspected cardiac arrest. While an objective assessment of training outcomes is needed, there is no performance assessment scale for simulated dispatcher-assisted CPR.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to create a valid and reliable performance assessment scale for simulated dispatcher-assisted CPR.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, controlled, multi-centric simulation-based trial (registration number TCTR20210130002), the scale was developed according to the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines 2015 and revised by experts. The performance of 48 dispatchers' telephone-CPR and of 48 bystanders carrying out CPR on a manikin was assessed by two independent evaluators using the scale and using a SkillReporter (PC) software to provide CPR objective performance. Continuous variables were described as mean (SD) and categorical variables as numbers and percentage (%). Comparative analysis between two groups used a Student t-test or a non-parametric test of Mann-Whitney. The internal structure of the scale was evaluated, including internal consistency using α Cronbach coefficient, and reproducibility using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and linear correlation coefficient (R2) calculation.

RESULTS

The scale included three different parts: two sections for dispatchers' (32 items) and bystanders' CPR performance (15 items) assessment, and a third part recording times. There was excellent internal consistency (α Cronbach coefficient = 0.77) and reproducibility (ICC = 0.93; R² = 0.86). For dispatchers' performance assessment, α Cronbach coefficient = 0.76; ICC = 0.91; R2 = 0.84. For bystanders' performance assessment, α Cronbach coefficient = 0.75; ICC = 0.93; R2 = 0.87. Reproducibility was excellent for nine items, good for 19 items, and moderate for 19 items. No item had poor reproducibility. There was no significant difference between dispatch doctors' and medical dispatch assistants' performances (33.0 [SD = 4.7] versus 32.3 [SD = 3.2] out of 52, respectively; P = .70) or between trained and untrained bystanders to follow the instructions (14.3 [SD = 2.0] versus 13.9 [SD = 1.8], respectively; P = .64). Objective performance (%) was significantly higher for trained bystanders than for untrained bystanders (67.4 [SD = 14.5] versus 50.6 [SD = 19.3], respectively; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

The scale was valid and reliable to assess performance for simulated dispatcher-assisted CPR. To the authors' knowledge, no other valid performance tool currently exists. It could be used in simulated telephone-CPR training programs to improve performance.

Co-location of out of hours primary care and emergency department in Belgium: patients' and physicians' view

Background

In Belgium, General Practitioner Cooperatives (GPC) aim to improve working conditions for unplanned care and to reduce the number of low acuity emergency visits. Although this system is well organized, the number of low acuity visits does not decrease.

Methods

We explored the view of patients and physicians on the co-location of a GPC and an emergency service for unplanned care. The study was carried out in a cross section design in primary and emergency care services and included patients and physicians. Main outcome measure was the view of patients and physician on co-location of a GPC and an emergency service.

Results

404 patients and 488 physicians participated. 334 (82.7%) of all patients favoured a co-location. The major advantages were fast service (104, 25.7) and adequate referral (54, 13.4%). 237 (74%) of the GPs and 38 (95%) of the emergency physicians were in favour of a co-location. The major advantage was a more adequate referral of patients. 254 (79%) of the GPs and 23 (83%) of the emergency physicians believed that a co-location would lower the workload and waiting time and increase care quality (resp. 251 (78%), 224 (70%) and 37 (93%), 34 (85%).

Conclusions

To close the expectation gap between GP’s, emergency physicians and to reach for high care quality, information campaigns and development of workflows are indispensable for a successful implementation of a co-location of primary and emergency care.

The implementation of the nationwide out-of-hours phone number 1733 in Belgium: analysis of efficiency and safety

Background:

Belgium has a problem with inappropriate use of emergency services. The government installed the number 1733 for out-of-hours care. Through a dry run test, we learned that 30% of all calls were allocated to the protocol ‘unclear problem’. In only 11.9% of all cases, there was an unclear problem.

Methods:

The study aimed to determine whether the adjusted protocol ‘unwell for no clear reason’ led to a safer and more efficient referral and to evaluate the efficiency and safety of the primary care protocols (PCPs). The study ran in cross-sectional design involving patients, General Practitioner Cooperatives and telephone operators. A random sample of calls to 1733 and patient referrals were assessed on efficiency and safety.

Results:

During 6 months in 2018, 11 622 calls to 1733 were registered. Seven hundred fifty-six of them were allocated to ‘unwell for no clear reason’, and a random sample of 180 calls was audited. To evaluate the PCPs, 202 calls were audited. The efficiency and safety of the protocol ‘unwell for no clear reason’ improved, and safety levels for under- and over-triage were not exceeded. The GP’s judged that 9/10 of all patient encounters were correctly referred.

Conclusion:

This study demonstrated that the 1733-telephone triage system for out-of-hours care is successful if protocols, flow charts and emergency levels are well defined, monitored and operators are trained.