Oriane J Chastonay1,2, Melissa Lemoine3, Véronique S Grazioli3, Marina Canepa Allen3, Miriam Kasztura3, Joanna C Moullin4, Jean-Bernard Daeppen5, Olivier Hugli6, Patrick Bodenmann3. 1. Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. Oriane.Chastonay@unil.ch. 2. Department of Vulnerabilities and Social Medicine, University Center for General Medicine and Public Health, Lausanne, Switzerland. Oriane.Chastonay@unil.ch. 3. Department of Vulnerabilities and Social Medicine, University Center for General Medicine and Public Health, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. 5. Department of Addiction Medicine, University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. 6. Emergency Department, University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frequent users of emergency departments (FUEDs) (≥5 ED visits/year) represent a vulnerable population with complex needs accounting for a significant number of emergency department (ED) consultations, thus contributing to EDs overcrowding. Research exploring ED staff perceptions of FUEDs is scarce. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to evaluate in ED staff a) the extent to which FUEDs are perceived as an issue; b) their perceived levels of knowledge and understanding of FUEDs; c) levels of perceived usefulness of case management (CM) and interest in implementing this intervention in their ED service. METHODS: Head physicians of the EDs at all public hospitals in Switzerland (of various level of specialization) were sent a 19-item web-based survey, pilot tested prior to its dissemination. The head physicians were asked to forward the survey to ED staff members from different health professional backgrounds. RESULTS: The hospital response rate was 81% (85/106). The exploitable hospital response rate was 71% (75/106 hospitals) including 208 responding health professionals. Issues and difficulties around FUEDs were perceived as important by 64% of respondents. The perceived frequency of being confronted with FUEDs was higher among nurses in more specialized EDs. In total, 64% of respondents felt poorly informed about FUEDs, nurses feeling less informed than physicians. The understanding of FUEDs was lower in the French-Italian-speaking parts (FISP) of Switzerland than in the German-speaking part. Eighty-one percent of respondents had no precise knowledge of FUED-related interventions. The perceived usefulness of CM interventions after receiving explanations about it was high (92%). However, the overall level of interest for CM implementation was 59%. The interest in CM by physicians was low across all regions and ED categories. Nurses, on the other hand, showed more interest, especially those in EDs of high specialization. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ED staff reported being confronted with FUEDs on a regular basis. Staff perceived FUEDs as a vulnerable population, yet, they felt poorly informed about how to manage the issue. The majority of ED staff thought a CM intervention would be useful for FUEDs, however there appears to be a gap in their desire or willingness to implement such interventions.
BACKGROUND: Frequent users of emergency departments (FUEDs) (≥5 ED visits/year) represent a vulnerable population with complex needs accounting for a significant number of emergency department (ED) consultations, thus contributing to EDs overcrowding. Research exploring ED staff perceptions of FUEDs is scarce. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to evaluate in ED staff a) the extent to which FUEDs are perceived as an issue; b) their perceived levels of knowledge and understanding of FUEDs; c) levels of perceived usefulness of case management (CM) and interest in implementing this intervention in their ED service. METHODS: Head physicians of the EDs at all public hospitals in Switzerland (of various level of specialization) were sent a 19-item web-based survey, pilot tested prior to its dissemination. The head physicians were asked to forward the survey to ED staff members from different health professional backgrounds. RESULTS: The hospital response rate was 81% (85/106). The exploitable hospital response rate was 71% (75/106 hospitals) including 208 responding health professionals. Issues and difficulties around FUEDs were perceived as important by 64% of respondents. The perceived frequency of being confronted with FUEDs was higher among nurses in more specialized EDs. In total, 64% of respondents felt poorly informed about FUEDs, nurses feeling less informed than physicians. The understanding of FUEDs was lower in the French-Italian-speaking parts (FISP) of Switzerland than in the German-speaking part. Eighty-one percent of respondents had no precise knowledge of FUED-related interventions. The perceived usefulness of CM interventions after receiving explanations about it was high (92%). However, the overall level of interest for CM implementation was 59%. The interest in CM by physicians was low across all regions and ED categories. Nurses, on the other hand, showed more interest, especially those in EDs of high specialization. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ED staff reported being confronted with FUEDs on a regular basis. Staff perceived FUEDs as a vulnerable population, yet, they felt poorly informed about how to manage the issue. The majority of ED staff thought a CM intervention would be useful for FUEDs, however there appears to be a gap in their desire or willingness to implement such interventions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acceptability; Case management; Emergency department; Equity; Evidence-based practice; Frequent user; Health professionals’ perception; Implementation
Authors: Sofie van Tiel; Pleunie P M Rood; Aida M Bertoli-Avella; Vicky Erasmus; Juanita Haagsma; Ed van Beeck; Peter Patka; Suzanne Polinder Journal: Eur J Emerg Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.799
Authors: Lesley J J Soril; Laura E Leggett; Diane L Lorenzetti; Tom W Noseworthy; Fiona M Clement Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Véronique S Grazioli; Joanna C Moullin; Miriam Kasztura; Marina Canepa-Allen; Olivier Hugli; Judy Griffin; Francis Vu; Catherine Hudon; Yves Jackson; Hans Wolff; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Bernard Daeppen; Patrick Bodenmann Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Michael von Allmen; Véronique S Grazioli; Miriam Kasztura; Oriane Chastonay; Joanna C Moullin; Olivier Hugli; Jean-Bernard Daeppen; Patrick Bodenmann Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2021-08-04