Tanja Schleef1, Kristine Engeleit2, Olaf Krause2,3, Nils Schneider2. 1. Institut für Allgemeinmedizin und Palliativmedizin, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. schleef.tanja@mh-hannover.de. 2. Institut für Allgemeinmedizin und Palliativmedizin, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland. 3. Zentrum für Medizin im Alter, DIAKOVERE Henriettenstift, Hannover, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a university emergency department (ED), patients with low treatment urgency and general medical complaints are assigned to general practitioners within the ED. The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) was implemented to determine the urgency of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of the ESI implementation on the patient population treated by general practitioners and to show the distribution of ESI categories among these patients. METHODS: Comparison of emergency patients treated by general practitioners over 6 months before (t0) and after (t1) ESI implementation using routine data and an evaluation form to be completed by the general practitioner. The analysis was carried out descriptively and using the Χ2 test and t‑test. RESULTS: At t0, 615 treatment cases and at t1 751 cases were analyzed. There were no significant differences in age, gender, the proportion of patients being referred to ED, or hospital admissions. The ESI classification was predominantly in the low urgency categories ESI 5 (37%) and ESI 4 (46%), with 8% of patients in ESI 3 or 2. The predicted resource needs matched for 76% of patients in ESI 5, for 36% in ESI 4, and for 44% of patients in ESI 3. Hospital admission was required for 3% of ESI 5 patients and 7% of ESI 4 patients. CONCLUSION: Even for patients with low treatment urgency, hospital admission may be indicated. In addition, differences from the predicted resource requirements indicate triaging problems in the patient population studied. Thus, the ESI assessment does not seem suitable to redirect patients to non-ED-based outpatient care.
BACKGROUND: In a university emergency department (ED), patients with low treatment urgency and general medical complaints are assigned to general practitioners within the ED. The Emergency Severity Index (ESI) was implemented to determine the urgency of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of the ESI implementation on the patient population treated by general practitioners and to show the distribution of ESI categories among these patients. METHODS: Comparison of emergency patients treated by general practitioners over 6 months before (t0) and after (t1) ESI implementation using routine data and an evaluation form to be completed by the general practitioner. The analysis was carried out descriptively and using the Χ2 test and t‑test. RESULTS: At t0, 615 treatment cases and at t1 751 cases were analyzed. There were no significant differences in age, gender, the proportion of patients being referred to ED, or hospital admissions. The ESI classification was predominantly in the low urgency categories ESI 5 (37%) and ESI 4 (46%), with 8% of patients in ESI 3 or 2. The predicted resource needs matched for 76% of patients in ESI 5, for 36% in ESI 4, and for 44% of patients in ESI 3. Hospital admission was required for 3% of ESI 5 patients and 7% of ESI 4 patients. CONCLUSION: Even for patients with low treatment urgency, hospital admission may be indicated. In addition, differences from the predicted resource requirements indicate triaging problems in the patient population studied. Thus, the ESI assessment does not seem suitable to redirect patients to non-ED-based outpatient care.
Authors: Michael Christ; Florian Grossmann; Daniela Winter; Roland Bingisser; Elke Platz Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 5.594