Literature DB >> 8922014

A multisite survey of factors contributing to medically unnecessary ambulance transports.

A J Billittier1, R Moscati, D Janicke, E B Lerner, J Seymour, D Olsson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the social and demographic factors associated with medically unnecessary ambulance utilization, and to determine the willingness of patients to use alternate modes of transportation to the ED.
METHODS: A multisite prospective survey was conducted of all patients arriving by ambulance to 1 suburban and 4 urban EDs in New York State during a 1-week period.
RESULTS: For 626 patients surveyed, 71 (11.3%) transports were judged medically unnecessary by the receiving emergency physicians using preestablished guidelines. The patient's type of medical insurance and age were significant predictors of unnecessary ambulance transport (stepwise forward logistic regression analysis). Of the 71 patients whose ambulance transports were deemed medically unnecessary, 42 (59%) were Medicaid recipients and 53 (74%) were < 40 years of age. The most common reason for using ambulance transport was lack of an alternate mode of transportation (38.5%), although 82% would have been willing to use an alternate mode of transportation if it had been available. Of those who had medically unnecessary ambulance use, 30% indicated that they would not pay for the ambulance service if billed and 50% believed the cost of their ambulance transports was < $100. More than 85% of the patients whose ambulance transports were deemed medically unnecessary were unemployed; and nearly 85% reported a net annual income of < $20,000. While 33% had a primary care provider, only 22% had attempted to contact their doctors before requesting an ambulance.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient age < 40 years and Medicaid coverage were associated with medically unnecessary ambulance use. Those patients for whom ambulance use was considered medically unnecessary commonly had no alternate means of transportation. Providing alternate means of unscheduled transportation may reduce the incidence of unnecessary ambulance use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8922014     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03352.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  21 in total

Review 1.  NHS emergency response to 999 calls: alternatives for cases that are neither life threatening nor serious.

Authors:  Helen Snooks; Susan Williams; Robert Crouch; Theresa Foster; Chris Hartley-Sharpe; Jeremy Dale
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-08-10

2.  Prehospital triage, discrepancy in priority-setting between emergency medical dispatch centre and ambulance crews.

Authors:  A Khorram-Manesh; K Lennquist Montán; A Hedelin; M Kihlgren; P Örtenwall
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 3.693

3.  The pattern of ambulance arrivals in the emergency department of an acute care hospital in Singapore.

Authors:  E Seow; H P Wong; A Phe
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.740

4.  Medically unnecessary emergency medical services (EMS) transports among children ages 0 to 17 years.

Authors:  P Daniel Patterson; Elizabeth G Baxley; Janice C Probst; James R Hussey; Charity G Moore
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2006-07-01

Review 5.  Appropriateness of use of emergency ambulances.

Authors:  H Snooks; H Wrigley; S George; E Thomas; H Smith; A Glasper
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1998-07

6.  Inappropriate ambulance usage is a retrospective diagnosis.

Authors:  S Wilson; S Edwards; M W Cooke
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1999-01

7.  Characteristics of Medicaid-Covered Emergency Department Visits Made by Nonelderly Adults: A National Study.

Authors:  Roberta Capp; David R West; Kelly Doran; Angela Sauaia; Jennifer Wiler; Tyler Coolman; Adit A Ginde
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 1.484

8.  Computer assisted assessment and advice for "non-serious" 999 ambulance service callers: the potential impact on ambulance despatch.

Authors:  J Dale; J Higgins; S Williams; T Foster; H Snooks; R Crouch; C Hartley-Sharpe; E Glucksman; R Hooper; S George
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.740

9.  Safety of telephone consultation for "non-serious" emergency ambulance service patients.

Authors:  J Dale; S Williams; T Foster; J Higgins; H Snooks; R Crouch; C Hartley-Sharpe; E Glucksman; S George
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-10

10.  Pediatric Use of Emergency Medical Services: The Role of Chronic Illnesses and Behavioral Health Problems.

Authors:  Amy R Knowlton; Brian Weir; Julie Fields; Gerald Cochran; Junette McWilliams; Lawrence Wissow; Benjamin J Lawner
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.077

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.