Stephen J Traub1,2, Soroush Saghafian3, Matthew R Buras4, M'Hamed Temkit4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA. Traub.Stephen@Mayo.edu. 2. College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Traub.Stephen@Mayo.edu. 3. Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous work has shown poisoning-related emergency department (ED) visits are increasing, and these visits are resource-intensive. Little is known, however, about how resource utilization for patients with known or suspected poisoning differs from that of general ED patients. METHODS: We reviewed 4 years of operational data at a single ED. We identified visits due to known or suspected poisoning (index cases), and paired them with time-matched controls. In the primary analysis, we compared the groups with respect to a broad array of resource utilization characteristics. In a secondary analysis, we performed the same comparison after excluding patients ultimately transferred to a psychiatric facility. RESULTS: There were 405 index cases and 802 controls in the primary analysis, and 374 index cases and 741 controls in the secondary analysis. In the primary/secondary analyses, patients with known or suspected poisoning had longer ED lengths of stay in minutes (370 vs. 232/295 vs. 234), higher rates of laboratory results per patient (40.4 vs. 26.8/39.6 vs. 26.8), greater administration of intravenous medications and fluids per patient (2.0 vs. 1.6/2.1 vs. 1.6), higher rates of transfer to a psychiatric facility (7.7 vs. 0.2%/not applicable), and higher rates of both admission (40.2 vs. 32.8/43.6 vs. 33.1%) and admission to an advanced care bed (21.5 vs. 7.6/23.3 vs. 7.8%). Patients with known or suspected poisoning had lower rates of imaging per patient, for both plain radiographs (0.4 vs. 0.5/0.4 vs. 0.5) and advanced imaging studies (0.3 vs. 0.5/0.4 vs. 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: ED patients with known or suspected poisoning are more resource intensive than general ED patients. These results may have implications for both resource allocation (particularly for departments that might see a high volume of such patients) and ED operations management.
INTRODUCTION: Previous work has shown poisoning-related emergency department (ED) visits are increasing, and these visits are resource-intensive. Little is known, however, about how resource utilization for patients with known or suspected poisoning differs from that of general ED patients. METHODS: We reviewed 4 years of operational data at a single ED. We identified visits due to known or suspected poisoning (index cases), and paired them with time-matched controls. In the primary analysis, we compared the groups with respect to a broad array of resource utilization characteristics. In a secondary analysis, we performed the same comparison after excluding patients ultimately transferred to a psychiatric facility. RESULTS: There were 405 index cases and 802 controls in the primary analysis, and 374 index cases and 741 controls in the secondary analysis. In the primary/secondary analyses, patients with known or suspected poisoning had longer ED lengths of stay in minutes (370 vs. 232/295 vs. 234), higher rates of laboratory results per patient (40.4 vs. 26.8/39.6 vs. 26.8), greater administration of intravenous medications and fluids per patient (2.0 vs. 1.6/2.1 vs. 1.6), higher rates of transfer to a psychiatric facility (7.7 vs. 0.2%/not applicable), and higher rates of both admission (40.2 vs. 32.8/43.6 vs. 33.1%) and admission to an advanced care bed (21.5 vs. 7.6/23.3 vs. 7.8%). Patients with known or suspected poisoning had lower rates of imaging per patient, for both plain radiographs (0.4 vs. 0.5/0.4 vs. 0.5) and advanced imaging studies (0.3 vs. 0.5/0.4 vs. 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: ED patients with known or suspected poisoning are more resource intensive than general ED patients. These results may have implications for both resource allocation (particularly for departments that might see a high volume of such patients) and ED operations management.
Authors: Alan B Storrow; Cathy A Jenkins; Wesley H Self; Pauline T Alexander; Tyler W Barrett; Jin H Han; Candace D McNaughton; Benjamin S Heavrin; Mihai Gheorghiade; Sean P Collins Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Ray Lucas; Heather Farley; Joseph Twanmoh; Andrej Urumov; Nils Olsen; Bruce Evans; Hamed Kabiri Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Terry L Bunn; Svetla Slavova; Henry A Spiller; Jonathan Colvin; Arne Bathke; Valerie J Nicholson Journal: J Toxicol Environ Health A Date: 2008
Authors: Wolf E Hautz; Thomas C Sauter; Stephanie C Hautz; Juliane E Kämmer; Stefan K Schauber; Tanja Birrenbach; Aristomenis K Exadaktylos; Stephanie Stock; Martin Müller Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 2.740