Shannon Kirby1, William Wooten2, Adam J Spanier3. 1. Medical Student, University of Maryland, School of Medicine (S Kirby), Baltimore, Md. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Maryland, School of Medicine (W Wooten), Baltimore, Md. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Maryland, School of Medicine (AJ Spanier), Baltimore, Md. Electronic address: aspanier@som.umaryland.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Non-urgent emergency department (ED) use contributes to healthcare costs and disrupts continuity of care. Factors influencing patient/guardian decision-making in non-urgent situations are poorly understood. We sought to determine the association of patient/guardian - primary care provider (PCP) relationship with non-urgent ED usage and explore related factors. METHODS: In an urban practice, we recruited 218 parent-child pairs and administered a survey with the PCP relationship (PDRQ-9), caregiver knowledge of office resources, and care-seeking behavior. We performed a 12-month retrospective chart review to document non-urgent ED visits. We evaluated the association of PDRQ9 and non-urgent ED usage by regression analysis. RESULTS: Mean child age was 7.0 ± 5 years, and 32.6% of children had at least one non-urgent ED visit. Mean PDRQ9 score was 39.8 ± 7.3 and was not associated with non-urgent ED use (P = .46). Lower child age (P < .001) and shorter time coming to the PCP practice (P < .001) were both associated with increased non-urgent ED use. Only 36.4% reported usually going to their PCP when they are sick. Knowledge of office resources was limited, and when prompted with acute, non-urgent medical scenarios, in 4 of 5 scenarios, 50% or more of participants chose to go to the ED over communicating with or going to their PCP. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find an association between patient-doctor relationship strength and non-urgent ED usage. Many patients/guardians were unaware of the practice's resources and selected the ED as first choice for acute, non-urgent medical scenarios. Additional work is needed to determine interventions to reduce non-urgent ED use.
OBJECTIVE: Non-urgent emergency department (ED) use contributes to healthcare costs and disrupts continuity of care. Factors influencing patient/guardian decision-making in non-urgent situations are poorly understood. We sought to determine the association of patient/guardian - primary care provider (PCP) relationship with non-urgent ED usage and explore related factors. METHODS: In an urban practice, we recruited 218 parent-child pairs and administered a survey with the PCP relationship (PDRQ-9), caregiver knowledge of office resources, and care-seeking behavior. We performed a 12-month retrospective chart review to document non-urgent ED visits. We evaluated the association of PDRQ9 and non-urgent ED usage by regression analysis. RESULTS: Mean child age was 7.0 ± 5 years, and 32.6% of children had at least one non-urgent ED visit. Mean PDRQ9 score was 39.8 ± 7.3 and was not associated with non-urgent ED use (P = .46). Lower child age (P < .001) and shorter time coming to the PCP practice (P < .001) were both associated with increased non-urgent ED use. Only 36.4% reported usually going to their PCP when they are sick. Knowledge of office resources was limited, and when prompted with acute, non-urgent medical scenarios, in 4 of 5 scenarios, 50% or more of participants chose to go to the ED over communicating with or going to their PCP. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find an association between patient-doctor relationship strength and non-urgent ED usage. Many patients/guardians were unaware of the practice's resources and selected the ED as first choice for acute, non-urgent medical scenarios. Additional work is needed to determine interventions to reduce non-urgent ED use.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Andrea K Morrison; Ruben Chanmugathas; Marilyn M Schapira; Marc H Gorelick; Raymond G Hoffmann; David C Brousseau Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.107