S McDermott1, J Royer2, J R Mann3, B S Armour4. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 2. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office, Columbia, SC, USA. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine and John D. Bower School of Population Health, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA. 4. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) can be seen as failure of access or management in primary care settings. Identifying factors associated with ACSCs for individuals with an Intellectual Disability (ID) provide insight into potential interventions. METHOD: To assess the association between emergency department (ED) ACSC visits and a number of demographic and health characteristics of South Carolina Medicaid members with ID. A retrospective cohort of adults with ID was followed from 2001 to 2011. Using ICD-9-CM codes, four ID subgroups, totalling 14 650 members, were studied. RESULTS: There were 106 919 ED visits, with 21 214 visits (19.8%) classified as ACSC. Of those, 82.9% were treated and released from EDs with costs averaging $578 per visit. People with mild and unspecified ID averaged greater than one ED visit per member year. Those with Down syndrome and other genetic cause ID had the lowest rates of ED visits but the highest percentage of ACSC ED visits that resulted in inpatient hospitalisation (26.6% vs. an average of 16.8% for other subgroups). When compared with other residential types, those residing at home with no health support services had the highest ED visit rate and were most likely to be discharged back to the community following an ED visit (85.2%). Adults residing in a nursing home had lower rates of ED visits but were most likely to be admitted to the hospital (38.9%) following an ED visit. Epilepsy and convulsions were the leading cause (29.6%) of ACSC ED visits across all subgroups and residential settings. CONCLUSION: Prevention of ACSC ED visits may be possible by targeting adults with ID who live at home without health support services.
INTRODUCTION: Ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) can be seen as failure of access or management in primary care settings. Identifying factors associated with ACSCs for individuals with an Intellectual Disability (ID) provide insight into potential interventions. METHOD: To assess the association between emergency department (ED) ACSC visits and a number of demographic and health characteristics of South Carolina Medicaid members with ID. A retrospective cohort of adults with ID was followed from 2001 to 2011. Using ICD-9-CM codes, four ID subgroups, totalling 14 650 members, were studied. RESULTS: There were 106 919 ED visits, with 21 214 visits (19.8%) classified as ACSC. Of those, 82.9% were treated and released from EDs with costs averaging $578 per visit. People with mild and unspecified ID averaged greater than one ED visit per member year. Those with Down syndrome and other genetic cause ID had the lowest rates of ED visits but the highest percentage of ACSC ED visits that resulted in inpatient hospitalisation (26.6% vs. an average of 16.8% for other subgroups). When compared with other residential types, those residing at home with no health support services had the highest ED visit rate and were most likely to be discharged back to the community following an ED visit (85.2%). Adults residing in a nursing home had lower rates of ED visits but were most likely to be admitted to the hospital (38.9%) following an ED visit. Epilepsy and convulsions were the leading cause (29.6%) of ACSC ED visits across all subgroups and residential settings. CONCLUSION: Prevention of ACSC ED visits may be possible by targeting adults with ID who live at home without health support services.
Authors: Arvind Venkat; Rene B Pastin; Gajanan G Hegde; John M Shea; Jeffrey T Cook; Carl Culig Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Daniel B Gingold; Rachelle Pierre-Mathieu; Brandon Cole; Andrew C Miller; Joneigh S Khaldun Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Pamela Jo Johnson; Neha Ghildayal; Andrew C Ward; Bjorn C Westgard; Lori L Boland; Jon S Hokanson Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Xinling Xu; Suzanne W McDermott; Joshua R Mann; James W Hardin; Chelsea B Deroche; Dianna D Carroll; Elizabeth A Courtney-Long Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 4.018