STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with outpatient follow-up of emergency department visits. DESIGN: A retrospective review of 587 ED charts meeting strict criteria was performed. The following variables were identified: method used to arrange follow-up, age, sex, consultant contacts, distance from patient's residence to hospital, previous physician, recommended time to clinic return, and funding source. Compliance was assessed using the outpatient registration computer data base. SETTING: ED and outpatient clinics of an urban university teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were age between 18 and 75 years, patient released to outpatient care, and instructions specifying a university hospital clinic or ED follow-up and a time period within which this appointment was to occur. Follow-up options included patients being asked to return to the ED on a specific day (group 1), being given a specific clinic appointment (group 2), or being given the clinic telephone number and instructed to call for an appointment (group 3). RESULTS: Compliance rates, defined as follow-up within seven days of the recommended date, were group 1, 51%; group 2, 65%; and group 3, 46%. Significant confounding factors adversely affecting follow-up as determined by multiple logistic regression analysis were decreasing age (P < .05), absence of insurance (P < .01), and no ED consultation with follow-up clinic physician (P < .01). Controlling for these factors and the reason for follow-up showed that having the patient schedule their own follow-up was associated with poor follow-up compliance (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Compliance with follow-up is multifactorial. Consultant contact at the time of initial patient evaluation and provision of a return visit appointment at the time of ED release should improve compliance in a university hospital setting.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with outpatient follow-up of emergency department visits. DESIGN: A retrospective review of 587 ED charts meeting strict criteria was performed. The following variables were identified: method used to arrange follow-up, age, sex, consultant contacts, distance from patient's residence to hospital, previous physician, recommended time to clinic return, and funding source. Compliance was assessed using the outpatient registration computer data base. SETTING: ED and outpatient clinics of an urban university teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were age between 18 and 75 years, patient released to outpatient care, and instructions specifying a university hospital clinic or ED follow-up and a time period within which this appointment was to occur. Follow-up options included patients being asked to return to the ED on a specific day (group 1), being given a specific clinic appointment (group 2), or being given the clinic telephone number and instructed to call for an appointment (group 3). RESULTS: Compliance rates, defined as follow-up within seven days of the recommended date, were group 1, 51%; group 2, 65%; and group 3, 46%. Significant confounding factors adversely affecting follow-up as determined by multiple logistic regression analysis were decreasing age (P < .05), absence of insurance (P < .01), and no ED consultation with follow-up clinic physician (P < .01). Controlling for these factors and the reason for follow-up showed that having the patient schedule their own follow-up was associated with poor follow-up compliance (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Compliance with follow-up is multifactorial. Consultant contact at the time of initial patient evaluation and provision of a return visit appointment at the time of ED release should improve compliance in a university hospital setting.
Authors: Melissa S Bosma; Kasey L Morden; Katherine A Klein; Colleen H Neal; Ursula S Knoepp; Stephanie K Patterson Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2015-10-03
Authors: Kell Julliard; Craig Orvieto; Allison Win; Sam Sadler; Basel Al-Haddad; Bonnie Simmons; Laura Gabbe; Julie M Pearson; Tom-Meka Archinard Journal: J Community Health Date: 2012-02
Authors: Kerry B Broderick; Megan L Ranney; Federico E Vaca; Gail D'Onofrio; Richard E Rothman; Karin V Rhodes; Bruce Becker; Jason S Haukoos Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.451