Mohana Roy1,2, Brian Halbert3, Scott Devlin4, David Chiu5, Ryan Graue6, Jessica A Zerillo3. 1. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Stanford University and Stanford Cancer Institute, 269 Campus Drive, Center for Clinical Sciences Research (CCSR) Room 1136, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. mohanar@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. mohanar@stanford.edu. 3. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Center for Healthcare Delivery Science, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Operations and Process Improvement, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oncology patients disproportionately utilize the emergency department (ED) for symptom management. At our institution, approximately 1 in 4 visits to the ED by oncology patients led to discharge. We hypothesized that many of the visits leading to ED discharge would be potentially preventable (PP). METHODS: We retrospectively characterized ED discharges of oncology patients. Visits were classified by presenting symptom, type of cancer, and time of ED visit. Chart reviewers were additionally asked whether each case could have been safely managed as an outpatient. RESULTS: We analyzed 100 ED discharges in a 4-month period in 2016 and 2017. Gastrointestinal (GI) complaints, pain, and fever were the most common presenting symptoms for these visits. We rated 44 of 100 ED discharges as potentially preventable. Given we analyzed only ED discharges which comprise about 25% of ED visits for patients with cancer, overall about 10% of all ED visits by these patients may be preventable. We also found that ED visits without a clinic appointment or phone call to the clinic on the day of ED presentation were more likely to be preventable (51% vs 27%, OR 2.9, p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Many ED visits by oncology patients may be preventable and occur for symptoms which can be managed as an outpatient. More of these visits also appear to occur in those who do not reach a clinic member prior to the visit. These findings suggest that improved access to clinics and standardized outpatient symptom management are next steps to consider in preventing ED visits in this vulnerable population.
BACKGROUND: Oncology patients disproportionately utilize the emergency department (ED) for symptom management. At our institution, approximately 1 in 4 visits to the ED by oncology patients led to discharge. We hypothesized that many of the visits leading to ED discharge would be potentially preventable (PP). METHODS: We retrospectively characterized ED discharges of oncology patients. Visits were classified by presenting symptom, type of cancer, and time of ED visit. Chart reviewers were additionally asked whether each case could have been safely managed as an outpatient. RESULTS: We analyzed 100 ED discharges in a 4-month period in 2016 and 2017. Gastrointestinal (GI) complaints, pain, and fever were the most common presenting symptoms for these visits. We rated 44 of 100 ED discharges as potentially preventable. Given we analyzed only ED discharges which comprise about 25% of ED visits for patients with cancer, overall about 10% of all ED visits by these patients may be preventable. We also found that ED visits without a clinic appointment or phone call to the clinic on the day of ED presentation were more likely to be preventable (51% vs 27%, OR 2.9, p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Many ED visits by oncology patients may be preventable and occur for symptoms which can be managed as an outpatient. More of these visits also appear to occur in those who do not reach a clinic member prior to the visit. These findings suggest that improved access to clinics and standardized outpatient symptom management are next steps to consider in preventing ED visits in this vulnerable population.
Entities:
Keywords:
ED visits; Quality of care; Symptom management
Authors: Scott W Kirkland; Miriam Garrido-Clua; Daniela R Junqueira; Sandra Campbell; Brian H Rowe Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Gabriel A Brooks; Thomas A Abrams; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Peter C Enzinger; Karen Sommer; Carole K Dalby; Hajime Uno; Joseph O Jacobson; Charles S Fuchs; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laura Panattoni; Catherine Fedorenko; Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman; Karma Kreizenbeck; Julia R Walker; Renato Martins; Keith D Eaton; John W Rieke; Ted Conklin; Bruce Smith; Gary Lyman; Scott D Ramsey Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Mark G Kris; Howard I Scher; Clifford A Hudis; Paul Sabbatini; Lauren Rogak; Antonia V Bennett; Amylou C Dueck; Thomas M Atkinson; Joanne F Chou; Dorothy Dulko; Laura Sit; Allison Barz; Paul Novotny; Michael Fruscione; Jeff A Sloan; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joann Hsu; John P Donnelly; Justin Xavier Moore; Karen Meneses; Grant Williams; Henry E Wang Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Jeffrey M Caterino; David Adler; Danielle D Durham; Sai-Ching Jim Yeung; Matthew F Hudson; Aveh Bastani; Steven L Bernstein; Christopher W Baugh; Christopher J Coyne; Corita R Grudzen; Daniel J Henning; Adam Klotz; Troy E Madsen; Daniel J Pallin; Cielito C Reyes-Gibby; Juan Felipe Rico; Richard J Ryan; Nathan I Shapiro; Robert Swor; Arvind Venkat; Jason Wilson; Charles R Thomas; Jason J Bischof; Gary H Lyman Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-03-01