Maaike Nab1, Robyn van Vehmendahl1, Inne Somers1, Yvonne Schoon2, Gijs Hesselink3,4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Geriatrics, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. gijs.hesselink@radboudumc.nl. 4. Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. gijs.hesselink@radboudumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits due to non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) conditions have drastically decreased since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to identify the magnitude, characteristics and underlying motivations of ED visitors with delayed healthcare seeking behaviour during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Between March 9 and July 92,020, adults visiting the ED of an academic hospital in the East of the Netherlands received an online questionnaire to collect self-reported data on delay in seeking emergency care and subsequent motivations for this delay. Telephone interviews were held with a subsample of respondents to better understand the motivations for delay as described in the questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred thirty-eight questionnaires were returned (34.0% response). One in five respondents reported a delay in seeking emergency care. Almost half of these respondents (n = 126; 45.4%) reported that the pandemic influenced the delay. Respondents reporting delay were mainly older adults (mean 61.6; ±13.1 years), referred to the ED by the general practitioner (GP; 35.1%) or a medical specialist (34.7%), visiting the ED with cardiac problems (39.7%). The estimated median time of delay in receiving ED care was 3 days (inter quartile range 8 days). Respectively 46 (16.5%) and 26 (9.4%) respondents reported that their complaints would be either less severe or preventable if they had sought for emergency care earlier. Delayed care seeking behaviour was frequently motivated by: fear of contamination, not wanting to burden professionals, perceiving own complaints less urgent relative to COVID-19 patients, limited access to services, and by stay home instructions from referring professionals. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively large proportion of ED visitors reported delay in seeking emergency care during the first wave. Delay was often driven by misperceptions of the accessibility of services and the legitimacy for seeking emergency care. Public messaging and close collaboration between the ED and referring professionals could help reduce delayed care for acute needs during future COVID-19 infection waves.
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) visits due to non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) conditions have drastically decreased since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to identify the magnitude, characteristics and underlying motivations of ED visitors with delayed healthcare seeking behaviour during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Between March 9 and July 92,020, adults visiting the ED of an academic hospital in the East of the Netherlands received an online questionnaire to collect self-reported data on delay in seeking emergency care and subsequent motivations for this delay. Telephone interviews were held with a subsample of respondents to better understand the motivations for delay as described in the questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred thirty-eight questionnaires were returned (34.0% response). One in five respondents reported a delay in seeking emergency care. Almost half of these respondents (n = 126; 45.4%) reported that the pandemic influenced the delay. Respondents reporting delay were mainly older adults (mean 61.6; ±13.1 years), referred to the ED by the general practitioner (GP; 35.1%) or a medical specialist (34.7%), visiting the ED with cardiac problems (39.7%). The estimated median time of delay in receiving ED care was 3 days (inter quartile range 8 days). Respectively 46 (16.5%) and 26 (9.4%) respondents reported that their complaints would be either less severe or preventable if they had sought for emergency care earlier. Delayed care seeking behaviour was frequently motivated by: fear of contamination, not wanting to burden professionals, perceiving own complaints less urgent relative to COVID-19patients, limited access to services, and by stay home instructions from referring professionals. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively large proportion of ED visitors reported delay in seeking emergency care during the first wave. Delay was often driven by misperceptions of the accessibility of services and the legitimacy for seeking emergency care. Public messaging and close collaboration between the ED and referring professionals could help reduce delayed care for acute needs during future COVID-19infection waves.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19 pandemic; Delayed care; Emergency department
Authors: Andrew S Oseran; Dina Nash; Carolyn Kim; Stacey Moisuk; Po-Yu Lai; John Pyhtila; Thomas D Sequist; Jason H Wasfy Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Samantha J Lange; Matthew D Ritchey; Alyson B Goodman; Taylor Dias; Evelyn Twentyman; Jennifer Fuld; Laura A Schieve; Giuseppina Imperatore; Stephen R Benoit; Aaron Kite-Powell; Zachary Stein; Georgina Peacock; Nicole F Dowling; Peter A Briss; Karen Hacker; Adi V Gundlapalli; Quanhe Yang Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Marion M Mafham; Enti Spata; Raphael Goldacre; Dominic Gair; Paula Curnow; Mark Bray; Sam Hollings; Chris Roebuck; Chris P Gale; Mamas A Mamas; John E Deanfield; Mark A de Belder; Thomas F Luescher; Tom Denwood; Martin J Landray; Jonathan R Emberson; Rory Collins; Eva J A Morris; Barbara Casadei; Colin Baigent Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bernhard Metzler; Peter Siostrzonek; Ronald K Binder; Axel Bauer; Sebastian Johannes Reinstadler Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Mark É Czeisler; Kristy Marynak; Kristie E N Clarke; Zainab Salah; Iju Shakya; JoAnn M Thierry; Nida Ali; Hannah McMillan; Joshua F Wiley; Matthew D Weaver; Charles A Czeisler; Shantha M W Rajaratnam; Mark E Howard Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Vidya Eswaran; Ralph C Wang; Anita A Vashi; Hemal K Kanzaria; Jahan Fahimi; Maria C Raven Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2021-08-08 Impact factor: 4.093
Authors: Georgina Pujolar; Aida Oliver-Anglès; Ingrid Vargas; María-Luisa Vázquez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna Slagman; Mareen Pigorsch; Felix Greiner; Wilhelm Behringer; Michael Bernhard; Jonas Bienzeisler; Sabine Blaschke; Volker Burst; Katharina Dechant; Michael Dommasch; Sebastian Ewen; André Gries; Felix Patricius Hans; Karl-Georg Kanz; Matthias Klein; Philipp Kümpers; Matthias Napp; Christopher Plata; Alexandra Ramshorn-Zimmer; Joachim Risse; Rainer Röhrig; Rajan Somasundaram; Domagoj Schunk; Felix Walcher; Thomas Walter; Dirk Weismann; Sebastian Wolfrum; Markus Wörnle; Yves Noel Wu; Martin Möckel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 6.138
Authors: Paul Buntine; Emogene S Aldridge; Simon Craig; Dianne Crellin; Julian Stella; Stephen D Gill; Breanna Wright; Rob D Mitchell; Glenn Arendts; Helen Rawson; Amanda M Rojek Journal: Emerg Med Australas Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 2.279