Emergency Medical Care: Types, Trends, and Factors Related to Nonurgent Visits

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

To describe and compare national trends in ED use by statistical analyses on data from the 1992 to 1996 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) with a special interest in factors related to nonurgent visits. The NHAMCS collects data for ED visits using a four-stage national probability sample. Data from 135,723 ED visits in 1992-1996 were analyzed using the chi-square test for proportions with logistic regression modeling for multivariate analysis. More than half of the ED visits were considered nonurgent. There was a decreasing trend for nonurgent ED visits over the first three years of the sample (54.0% to 52.1%, p < 0.05). The proportion of ED visits for nonurgent care bounced back in 1995 (54.7%) and 1996 (54.1%). Significant variation existed in the proportion of nonurgent care visit based on disease category, age, race, and insurance coverage status. Marked variation in nonurgent visits also existed among geographic regions and types of hospital ownership. Analyses of data from the NHAMCS identify trends in ED use. The study of nonurgent ED visits with this database has inherent methodologic problems such as retrospective coding and geographic coding inconsistency. Since the nonurgent visit is clearly linked to certain social-demographic factors, addressing these underlying issues by establishing a comprehensive health care system is a priority.

Related collections

Most cited references 12

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effect of a copayment on use of the emergency department in a health maintenance organization.

B Fireman, James Swain, Peter Selby (1996)

Use of the emergency department for nonemergency care is frequent and costly. We studied the effect of a copayment on emergency department use in a group-model health maintenance organization (HMO). We examined the use of the emergency department in 1992 and 1993 by 30,276 subjects who ranged in age from 1 to 63 years at the start of the study and belonged to the Kaiser Permanente HMO in northern California. We assessed their use of various HMO services and their clinical outcomes before and after the introduction of a copayment of $25 to $35 for using the emergency department. This copayment group was compared with two randomly selected control groups not affected by the copayment. One control group, with 60,408 members, was matched for age, sex, and area of residence to the copayment group. The second, with 37,539 members, was matched for these factors and also for the type of employer. After adjustment for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and use of the emergency department in 1992, the decline in the number of visits in 1993 was 14.6 percentage points greater in the copayment group than in either control group (P<0.001 for each comparison). Visits for urgent care did not increase among subjects in any stratum defined by age and sex, and neither did the number of outpatient visits by adults and children. The decline in emergency visits for presenting conditions classified as "always an emergency" was small and not significant. For conditions classified as "often an emergency". "sometimes not an emergency", or "often not an emergency", the declines in the use of the emergency department were larger and statistically significant, and they increased with decreasing severity of the presenting condition. Although our ability to detect any adverse effects of the copayment was limited, there was no suggestion of excess adverse events in the copayment group, such as increases in mortality or in the number of potentially avoidable hospitalizations. Among members of an HMO, the introduction of a small copayment for the use of the emergency department was associated with a decline of about 15 percent in the use of that department, mostly among patients with conditions considered likely not to present an emergency.

0 comments Cited 42 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The use of hospital emergency departments for nonurgent health problems: a national perspective.

C. Clancy, M Wilets, John Cunningham … (1995)

The use of the hospital emergency department (ED) for nonurgent health problems has been a subject of considerable controversy, in part because there is no widely accepted definition of "nonurgent." Elimination or substantial reduction in nonurgent ED use is frequently offered as a strategy for reducing health expenditures. Previous studies, often limited to individual hospitals or communities, have limited generalizability and do not permit examination of multiple factors likely to influence nonurgent ED utilization or examination of ED use for nonurgent problems in the context of overall outpatient utilization. This analysis of the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey (NMES) provides a nationally representative examination of nonurgent ED utilization that describes the frequency of ED use for nonurgent problems, characteristics of individuals that are associated with an increased likelihood of nonurgent ED use, the use of other outpatient physician services, and expenditures associated with nonurgent ED visits.

0 comments Cited 26 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Disagreement among health care professionals about the urgent care needs of emergency department patients.

J. Gill, C REESEIV, J. Diamond (1996)

To assess agreement among health professionals with regard to the need for urgent care among emergency department patients. We conducted a chart review of 266 ED patients in an urban teaching hospital. Eight health professionals (four emergency nurses, two emergency physicians, two family physicians) used identical criteria to retrospectively rate urgency. Agreement was measured for all reviewers, as well as among health professionals of the same specialty. Agreement was also measured between one ED nurse's retrospective assessment and the prospective assessments of the triage nurses who had seen the patients on presentation. The percentage of patients rated as needing urgent care by the retrospective reviewers ranged from 11% to 63%. Agreement among the retrospective reviewers was fair (kappa = .38; 95% confidence interval, .30 to .46) and was no better among reviewers of the same specialty. We found only slight agreement between the nurse reviewer's retrospective assessment and the triage nurses' prospective assessments (kappa = 19; 95% confidence interval, .07 to .31). Even when using the same criteria, health professionals frequently disagree about the urgency of care in ED patients. When retrospective reviewers disagree with a prospective assessment of urgency, the potential exists for denial of payment or even lawsuits. Because the subjectivity of urgency definitions may increase disagreement, the development of more objective and uniform definitions may help improve agreement.