Felix Holzinger1, Sarah Oslislo2, Rebecca Resendiz Cantu2,3, Martin Möckel3, Christoph Heintze2. 1. Institute of General Practice, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. felix.holzinger@charite.de. 2. Institute of General Practice, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. 3. Division of Emergency Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Mitte and Virchow, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Diversion of less urgent emergency medical services (EMS) callers to alternative primary care (PC) is much debated. Using data from the EMACROSS survey of respiratory ED patients, we aimed to characterize self-referred EMS patients, compare these with non-EMS patients, and assess scope and acceptability of a potential redirection to alternative PC. RESULTS: Of n = 292 self-referred patients, n = 99 were transported by EMS. Compared to non-EMS patients, these were older, triaged more urgently and arrived out-of-hours more frequently. The share of chronically and severely ill patients was greater. Out-of-hours ED visit, presence of a chronic pulmonary condition as well as a hospital diagnosis of respiratory failure were identified as determinants of EMS utilization in a logistic model, while consultation for access and quality motives as well as migrant status decreased the probability. EMS-transported lower urgency outpatients visiting during regular physicians' hours were defined as potential PC cases and evaluated descriptively (n = 9). As a third was medically complex and potentially less suitable for PC, redirection potential could be estimated at only 6% of EMS cases. This would be reduced to 2% if considering patients' judgment concerning the appropriate setting. Overall, the scope for PC diversion of respiratory EMS patients seems limited.
OBJECTIVE: Diversion of less urgent emergency medical services (EMS) callers to alternative primary care (PC) is much debated. Using data from the EMACROSS survey of respiratory ED patients, we aimed to characterize self-referred EMS patients, compare these with non-EMS patients, and assess scope and acceptability of a potential redirection to alternative PC. RESULTS: Of n = 292 self-referred patients, n = 99 were transported by EMS. Compared to non-EMS patients, these were older, triaged more urgently and arrived out-of-hours more frequently. The share of chronically and severely ill patients was greater. Out-of-hours ED visit, presence of a chronic pulmonary condition as well as a hospital diagnosis of respiratory failure were identified as determinants of EMS utilization in a logistic model, while consultation for access and quality motives as well as migrant status decreased the probability. EMS-transported lower urgency outpatients visiting during regular physicians' hours were defined as potential PC cases and evaluated descriptively (n = 9). As a third was medically complex and potentially less suitable for PC, redirection potential could be estimated at only 6% of EMS cases. This would be reduced to 2% if considering patients' judgment concerning the appropriate setting. Overall, the scope for PC diversion of respiratory EMS patients seems limited.
Entities:
Keywords:
Consultation determinants; Emergency department; Emergency medical services; Health care utilization; Respiratory conditions
Authors: Kevin G Munjal; Siri Shastry; George T Loo; Daniel Reid; Corita Grudzen; Manish N Shah; Hugh H Chapin; Brandon First; Sasilada Sirirungruang; Erin Alpert; Kevin Chason; Lynne D Richardson Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Martina Schmiedhofer; Tobias Inhoff; Verena Krobisch; Liane Schenk; Matthias Rose; Felix Holzinger; Thomas Keil; Ursula Müller-Werdan; Christian Günster; Martin Möckel Journal: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes Date: 2018-08-16
Authors: Bernd Nowak; Evangelos Giannitsis; Thomas Riemer; Thomas Münzel; Michael Haude; Lars S Maier; Claus Schmitt; Burghard Schumacher; Harald Mudra; Christian Hamm; Jochen Senges; Thomas Voigtländer Journal: Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care Date: 2012-12
Authors: Gabriella Norberg; Birgitta Wireklint Sundström; Lennart Christensson; Maria Nyström; Johan Herlitz Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Felix Holzinger; Sarah Oslislo; Lisa Kümpel; Rebecca Resendiz Cantu; Martin Möckel; Christoph Heintze Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: José Antonio Lozano-Lozano; Salvador Chacón-Moscoso; Susana Sanduvete-Chaves; Francisco Pablo Holgado-Tello Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 3.390