Literature DB >> 27364030

A Comprehensive View of Frequent Emergency Department Users Based on Data from a Regional HIE.

Steven Howard Saef1, Christine Marie Carr1, Jeffrey S Bush1, Marc T Bartman1, Adam B Sendor1, Wenle Zhao1, Zemin Su1, Jingwen Zhang1, Justin Marsden1, J Christophe Arnaud1, Cathy L Melvin1, Leslie Lenert1, William P Moran1, Patrick D Mauldin1, Jihad S Obeid1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A small but significant number of patients make frequent emergency department (ED) visits to multiple EDs within a region. We have a unique health information exchange (HIE) that includes every ED encounter in all hospital systems in our region. Using our HIE we were able to characterize all frequent ED users in our region, regardless of hospital visited or payer class. The objective of our study was to use data from an HIE to characterize patients in a region who are frequent ED users (FEDUs).
METHODS: We constructed a database from a cohort of adult patients (18 years old or older) with information in a regional HIE for a 1-year period beginning in April 2012. Patients were defined as FEDUs (those who made four or more visits during the study period) and non-FEDUs (those who made fewer than four ED visits during the study period). Predictor variables included age, race, sex, payer class, county of residence, and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Bivariate (χ(2)) and multivariate (logistic regression) analyses were performed to determine associations between predictor variables and the outcome of being a FEDU.
RESULTS: The database contained 127,672 patients, 12,293 (9.6%) of whom were FEDUs. Logistic regression showed the following patient characteristics to be significantly associated with the outcome of being a FEDU: age 35 to 44 years; African American race; Medicaid, Medicare, and dual-pay payer class; and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes 630 to 679 (complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and puerperium), 780 to 799 (ill-defined conditions), 280 to 289 (diseases of the blood), 290-319 (mental disorders), 680 to 709 (diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue), 710 to 739 (musculoskeletal and connective tissue disease), 460 to 519 (respiratory disease), and 520 to 579 (digestive disease). No significant differences were noted between men and women.
CONCLUSIONS: Data from an HIE can be used to describe all of the patients within a region who are FEDUs, regardless of the hospital system they visited. This information can be used to focus care coordination efforts and link appropriate patients to a medical home. Future studies can be designed to learn the reasons why patients become FEDUs, and interventions can be developed to address deficiencies in health care that result in frequent ED visits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27364030      PMCID: PMC4933324          DOI: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000488

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  South Med J        ISSN: 0038-4348            Impact factor:   0.954


  25 in total

Review 1.  Frequent users of emergency departments: the myths, the data, and the policy implications.

Authors:  Eduardo LaCalle; Elaine Rabin
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2010-03-26       Impact factor: 5.721

2.  Identifying frequent users of emergency department resources.

Authors:  Edward M Castillo; Jesse J Brennan; James P Killeen; Theodore C Chan
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 1.484

3.  Predictors and outcomes of frequent emergency department users.

Authors:  Benjamin C Sun; Helen R Burstin; Troyen A Brennan
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressures averaging 115 through 129 mm Hg.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1967-12-11       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Cost analysis of the use of emergency departments for primary care services in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Authors:  Andrew McWilliams; Hazel Tapp; Jolene Barker; Michael Dulin
Journal:  N C Med J       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug

6.  Navigator reduces readmissions, inappropriate ED visits.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hosp Case Manag       Date:  2014-12

7.  An analysis of frequent users of emergency care at an urban university hospital.

Authors:  R H Lucas; S M Sanford
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 5.721

8.  Health Information Exchange in Emergency Medicine.

Authors:  Jason S Shapiro; Diana Crowley; Shkelzen Hoxhaj; James Langabeer; Brian Panik; Todd B Taylor; Arlo Weltge; Jeffrey A Nielson
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 5.721

9.  Defining frequent use of an urban emergency department.

Authors:  Thomas E Locker; Simon Baston; Suzanne M Mason; Jon Nicholl
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.740

10.  Frequent users of US emergency departments: characteristics and opportunities for intervention.

Authors:  Deborah T Vinton; Roberta Capp; Sean P Rooks; Jean T Abbott; Adit A Ginde
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 2.740

View more
  3 in total

1.  An analysis of social determinants of health and structural competency training in global emergency medicine fellowship programs in the United States.

Authors:  Lindsay G Grossman; Oren J Mechanic; Zvika Orr; Eric C Cioe-Peña; Alden Landry; Shifra Unger; Josh Greenstein; Evan Avraham Alpert
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2021-09-29

2.  Relationships Between Race/Ethnicity and Health Care Utilization Among Older Post-Acute Home Health Care Patients.

Authors:  Jo-Ana D Chase; David Russell; Liming Huang; Alexandra Hanlon; Melissa O'Connor; Kathryn H Bowles
Journal:  J Appl Gerontol       Date:  2018-02-19

3.  Emergency Department Utilization among Underserved African American Older Adults in South Los Angeles.

Authors:  Mohsen Bazargan; James L Smith; Sharon Cobb; Lisa Barkley; Cheryl Wisseh; Emma Ngula; Ricky J Thomas; Shervin Assari
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 3.390

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.