Given the higher incidence of emergency conditions in older inhabitants, the global increase in aged population will pose a challenge for emergency services. In this study we examined the burden ...caused to emergency health care by the aged population.
Consecutive patients aged 80 years or over visiting a high-volume, collaborative emergency department (ED) between 2015 and 2016 were included. The key factors under analysis were the incidence of emergency conditions and costs associated with emergency care.
A total of 6944 patients (median age 85 years, range 80-104 years; 67% female) aged ≥80 years representing 1.5% of the local population, made 17,769 ED visits during the two-year observation period accounting for 15% of all ED visits. Forty-two percent (n = 2884) of patients had a single ED visit, whereas 8.2% (n = 570) made ≥5 ED visits/year for a total of 1400 visits (7.9%). Thirty-two percent of those aged ≥80 years required ED services each year. The number of ED visits increased with age (p < 0.001); and was 768/1000 person-years among octogenarians and 1007/1000 among nonagenarians, in comparison to 233/1000 among those aged < 80 years. One in five of the study population were discharged with non-specific diagnoses. Typical diagnoses included pneumonia (4.8%), malaise and fatigue (4.5%) and heart failure (4.3%). Non-specific diagnoses were frequent, and examination of patients with non-specific diagnoses incurred costs similar to or higher than those of other patients. The mean cost per ED visit in older patients was 422 €.
We demonstrated a high incidence of emergency department visits in older patients. While our aim was not to solve how the growing demand should be met, it seems unlikely that increasing ED resources is feasible. Instead, the focus should be on chronic care of the aged and prevention of potentially avoidable ED visits.
In many countries emergency departments (EDs) are facing an increase in demand for services, long waits, and severe crowding. One response to mitigate overcrowding has been to provide primary care ...services alongside or within hospital EDs for patients with non-urgent problems. However, it is unknown how this impacts the quality of patient care and the utilisation of hospital resources, or if it is cost-effective. This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2012.
To assess the effects of locating primary care professionals in hospital EDs to provide care for patients with non-urgent health problems, compared with care provided by regularly scheduled emergency physicians (EPs).
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library; 2017, Issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and King's Fund, from inception until 10 May 2017. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP for registered clinical trials, and screened reference lists of included papers and relevant systematic reviews.
Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies that evaluated the effectiveness of introducing primary care professionals to hospital EDs attending to patients with non-urgent conditions, as compared to the care provided by regularly scheduled EPs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
We identified four trials (one randomised trial and three non-randomised trials), one of which is newly identified in this update, involving a total of 11,463 patients, 16 general practitioners (GPs), 9 emergency nurse practitioners (NPs), and 69 EPs. These studies evaluated the effects of introducing GPs or emergency NPs to provide care to patients with non-urgent problems in the ED, as compared to EPs for outcomes such as resource use. The studies were conducted in Ireland, the UK, and Australia, and had an overall high or unclear risk of bias. The outcomes investigated were similar across studies, and there was considerable variation in the triage system used, the level of expertise and experience of the medical practitioners, and type of hospital (urban teaching, suburban community hospital). Main sources of funding were national or regional health authorities and a medical research funding body.There was high heterogeneity across studies, which precluded pooling data. It is uncertain whether the intervention reduces time from arrival to clinical assessment and treatment or total length of ED stay (1 study; 260 participants), admissions to hospital, diagnostic tests, treatments given, or consultations or referrals to hospital-based specialist (3 studies; 11,203 participants), as well as costs (2 studies; 9325 participants), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low-certainty for all outcomes.No data were reported on adverse events (such as ED returns and mortality).
We assessed the evidence from the four included studies as of very low-certainty overall, as the results are inconsistent and safety has not been examined. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions for practice or policy regarding the effectiveness and safety of care provided to non-urgent patients by GPs and NPs versus EPs in the ED to mitigate problems of overcrowding, wait times, and patient flow.
•A dynamic emergency route planning model for major chemical accidents was proposed.•The Dijkstra algorithm is modified to solve the multi-objective optimization problem for the emergency route ...selection.•An individual emergency risk classification method for major chemical accidents was obtained.
Combining scenario construction with the characteristics of individual emergency behavior is necessary for the emergency route planning of major chemical accidents. We investigated this challenging decision problem and constructed a multi-indicator emergency risk assessment method that considers the evacuation speed of different population types and health consequences caused by various risk components. We also designed a modified Dijkstra algorithm to solve this dynamic multi-objective route planning problem. The comparative experiment results demonstrated that the proposed algorithm performs relatively better than the traditional Dijkstra algorithm. Finally, we performed extensive case studies where our simulation results demonstrate that the proposed model provides reliable and practical emergency route planning services for various personnel types under different accident scenarios. Compared with the commonly used single-dimensional assessment method, this comprehensive and informative assessment of the emergency risks faced by the population in different regions could serve as a useful reference for the formulation and implementation of emergency plans in case of major chemical accidents.
We examined the charges, their variability, and respective payer group for diagnosis and treatment of the ten most common outpatient conditions presenting to the Emergency department (ED).
We ...conducted a cross-sectional study of the 2006-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Analysis was limited to outpatient visits with non-elderly, adult (years 18-64) patients with a single discharge diagnosis.
We studied 8,303 ED encounters, representing 76.6 million visits. Median charges ranged from $740 (95% CI $651-$817) for an upper respiratory infection to $3437 (95% CI $2917-$3877) for a kidney stone. The median charge for all ten outpatient conditions in the ED was $1233 (95% CI $1199- $1268), with a high degree of charge variability. All diagnoses had an interquartile range (IQR) greater than $800 with 60% of IQRs greater than $1550.
Emergency department charges for common conditions are expensive with high charge variability. Greater acute care charge transparency will at least allow patients and providers to be aware of the emergency department charges patients may face in the current health care system.
For several decades, overcrowding in emergency departments (EDs) has been intensifying due to the increased number of patients seeking care in EDs. Demand growth is partly due to misuse of EDs by ...patients who seek care for nonurgent problems. This study explores the reasons why people with nonurgent complaints choose to come to EDs, and how ED health professionals perceive the phenomenon of "nonurgency".
Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 10 EDs with 87 nonurgent patients and 34 health professionals. Interviews of patients revealed three themes: (1) fulfilled health care needs, (2) barriers to primary care providers (PCPs), and (3) convenience. Patients chose EDs as discerning health consumers: they preferred EDs because they had difficulties obtaining a rapid appointment. Access to technical facilities in EDs spares the patient from being overwhelmed with appointments with various specialists. Four themes were identified from the interviews of health professionals: (1) the problem of defining a nonurgent visit, (2) explanations for patients' use of EDs for nonurgent complaints, (3) consequences of nonurgent visits, and (4) solutions to counter this tendency.
Studies on the underlying reasons patients opt for the ED, as well as on their decision-making process, are lacking. The present study highlighted discrepancies between the perceptions of ED patients and those of health professionals, with a special focus on patient behaviour. To explain the use of ED, health professionals based themselves on the acuity and urgency of medical problems, while patients focused on rational reasons to initiate care in the ED (accessibility to health care resources, and the context in which the medical problem occurred). In spite of some limitations due to the slightly outdated nature of our data, as well as the difficulty of categorizing nonurgent situations, our findings show the importance of conducting a detailed analysis of the demand for health care. Understanding it is crucial, as it is the main determining factor in the utilization of health care resources, and provides promising insights into the phenomenon of ED usage increase. For reforms to be successful, the process of decision-making for unscheduled patients will have to be thoroughly investigated.
Emergency manuals (EMs), context-relevant sets of cognitive aids or crisis checklists, have been used in high-hazard industries for decades, although this is a nascent field in health care. In the ...fall of 2012, Stanford clinically implemented EMs, including hanging physical copies in all Stanford operating rooms (ORs) and training OR clinicians on the use of, and rationale for, EMs. Although simulation studies have shown the effectiveness of EMs and similar tools when used by OR teams during crises, there are little data on clinical implementations and uses. In a subset of clinical users (ie, anesthesia residents), the objectives of this pilot study were to (1) assess perspectives on local OR safety culture regarding cognitive aid use before and after a systematic clinical implementation of EMs, although in the context of long-standing resident simulation trainings; and (2) to describe early clinical uses of EMs during critical events.
Surveys collecting both quantitative and qualitative data were used to assess clinical adoption of EMs in the OR. A pre-implementation survey was e-mailed to Stanford anesthesia residents in mid-2011, followed by a post-implementation survey to a new cohort of residents in early 2014. The post-implementation survey included pre-implementation survey questions for exploratory comparison and additional questions for mixed-methods descriptive analyses regarding EM implementation, training, and clinical use during critical events since implementation.
Response rates were similar for the pre- and post-implementation surveys, 52% and 57%, respectively. Comparing post- versus pre-implementation surveys in this pilot study, more residents: agreed or strongly agreed "the culture in the ORs where I work supports consulting a cognitive aid when appropriate" (73.8%, n = 31 vs 52.9%, n = 18, P = .0017) and chose more types of anesthesia professionals that "should use cognitive aids in some way," including fully trained anesthesiologists (z = -2.151, P = .0315). Fifteen months after clinical implementation of EMs, 19 respondents (45%) had used an EM during an actual critical event and 15 (78.9% of these) agreed or strongly agreed "the EM helped the team deliver better care to the patient" during that event, with the rest neutral. We present qualitative data for 16 of the 19 EM clinical use reports from free-text responses within the following domains: (1) triggering EM use, (2) reader role, (3) diagnosis and treatment, (4) patient care impact, and (5) barriers to EM use.
Since Stanford's clinical implementation of EMs in 2012, many residents' self-report successful use of EMs during clinical critical events. Although these reports all come from a pilot study at a single institution, they serve as an early proof of concept for feasibility of clinical EM implementation and use. Larger, mixed-methods studies will be needed to better understand emerging facilitators and barriers and to determine generalizability.
Summary Objective To explore the reasons why nursing staff use the subjective “worried” Medical Emergency Team (MET) calling criterion and compare the outcomes of calls activated using the “worried” ...criterion with those calls activated using “objective” criteria such as vital sign abnormalities. Methods A descriptive study of MET calls in six acute hospitals over a 12 months period. Outcomes for “objective” and “worried” calls were compared. Results The “worried” criterion was used to activate 29% of 3194 MET calls studied; it was the single most common reason for a MET call. Half (51.7%) of the “worried” calls were related to problems with Airway, Breathing, Circulation or Neurology. ‘Breathing’ problems accounted for the largest proportion (35.2%). A low oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (SpO2 ) ( n = 249, 26.9%) and ‘respiratory distress’ ( n = 133, 14.4%) were the most common reasons for a “worried” call. Only 1.1% (10) of calls triggered by the “worried” criteria had cardiac arrest as an outcome compared with 170 calls (7.6%) for “objective” criteria. The proportion of patients who remained in a general ward area after MET calls was higher for the “worried” calls. Conclusions The “worried” criterion was the most frequent reason for MET calls, implying a high degree of empowerment and independent action by nursing staff. Low SpO2 and respiratory distress were the most common causes for concern. There was a significant difference between MET calls triggered by “worried” criteria and “objective” criteria for outcomes immediately following MET ( p < 0.001). Further assessment and refinement of MET triggers particularly in relation to respiratory distress and pulse oximetry may be needed.
PDF
