Maria C Raven1, Margot Kushel2, Michelle J Ko3, Joanne Penko4, Andrew B Bindman5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: maria.raven@ucsf.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco/San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, CA; Center for Vulnerable Populations, University of California, San Francisco/San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, CA. 3. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. Center for Vulnerable Populations, University of California, San Francisco/San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, CA. 5. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and California Medicaid Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco/San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Previous reviews of emergency department (ED) visit reduction programs have not required that studies meet a minimum quality level and have therefore included low-quality studies in forming conclusions about the benefits of these programs. We conduct a systematic review of ED visit reduction programs after judging the quality of the research. We aim to determine whether these programs are effective in reducing ED visits and whether they result in adverse events. METHODS: We identified studies of ED visit reduction programs conducted in the United States and targeted toward adult patients from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014. We evaluated study quality according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and included moderate- to high-quality studies in our review. We categorized interventions according to whether they targeted high-risk or low-acuity populations. RESULTS: We evaluated the quality of 38 studies and found 13 to be of moderate or high quality. Within these 13 studies, only case management consistently reduced ED use. Studies of ED copayments had mixed results. We did not find evidence for any increase in adverse events (hospitalization rates or mortality) from the interventions in either high-risk or low-acuity populations. CONCLUSION: High-quality, peer-reviewed evidence about ED visit reduction programs is limited. For most program types, we were unable to draw definitive conclusions about effectiveness. Future ED visit reduction programs should be regarded as demonstrations in need of rigorous evaluation.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Previous reviews of emergency department (ED) visit reduction programs have not required that studies meet a minimum quality level and have therefore included low-quality studies in forming conclusions about the benefits of these programs. We conduct a systematic review of ED visit reduction programs after judging the quality of the research. We aim to determine whether these programs are effective in reducing ED visits and whether they result in adverse events. METHODS: We identified studies of ED visit reduction programs conducted in the United States and targeted toward adult patients from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014. We evaluated study quality according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and included moderate- to high-quality studies in our review. We categorized interventions according to whether they targeted high-risk or low-acuity populations. RESULTS: We evaluated the quality of 38 studies and found 13 to be of moderate or high quality. Within these 13 studies, only case management consistently reduced ED use. Studies of ED copayments had mixed results. We did not find evidence for any increase in adverse events (hospitalization rates or mortality) from the interventions in either high-risk or low-acuity populations. CONCLUSION: High-quality, peer-reviewed evidence about ED visit reduction programs is limited. For most program types, we were unable to draw definitive conclusions about effectiveness. Future ED visit reduction programs should be regarded as demonstrations in need of rigorous evaluation.
Authors: Pankaj B Patel; David R Vinson; Marla N Gardner; David A Wulf; Patricia Kipnis; Vincent Liu; Gabriel J Escobar Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Michelle P Lin; David Muhlestein; Brendan G Carr; Lynne D Richardson; Jennifer L Wiler; Jeremiah D Schuur Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: James E Bailey; Satya Surbhi; Jim Y Wan; Kiraat D Munshi; Teresa M Waters; Bonnie L Binkley; Michael O Ugwueke; Ilana Graetz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Catherine Hudon; Maud-Christine Chouinard; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Nazeem Muhajarine; Fred Burge; Paula Louise Bush; Alya Danish; Vivian R Ramsden; France Légaré; Line Guénette; Paul Morin; Mireille Lambert; Fiona Fick; Olivia Cleary; Véronique Sabourin; Mike Warren; Pierre Pluye Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Catherine Hudon; Maud-Christine Chouinard; Pierre Pluye; Reem El Sherif; Paula Louise Bush; Benoît Rihoux; Marie-Eve Poitras; Mireille Lambert; Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun; France Légaré Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Miriam Komaromy; Judy Bartlett; Andrea Zurawski; Sarah R Gonzales-van Horn; Summers G Kalishman; Venice Ceballos; Xi Sun; Martin Jurado; Sanjeev Arora Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 5.128