A Geospatial Analysis of Freestanding and Hospital Emergency Department Accessibility via Public Transit.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (ED) are an important source of care for underserved populations and represent a significant part of the social safety net. In order to explore the effect of freestanding emergency departments (FSED) on access to care for urban underserved populations, we performed a geospatial analysis comparing the proximity of FSEDs and hospital EDs to public transit lines in three United States (U.S.) metropolitan areas: Houston, Denver, and Cleveland. METHODS: We used publicly available U.S. Census data, public transportation maps obtained from regional transit authorities, and geocoded FSED and hospital ED locations. Euclidean distance from each FSED and hospital ED to the nearest public transit line was calculated in ArcGIS. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) of an FSED, relative to a hospital ED, being located within 0.5 miles (mi) of a public transit line using logistic regression, adjusting for population density and median household income and with error clustered at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level. RESULTS: The median distance from FSEDs to public transit lines was significantly greater than from hospital EDs across all three markets. In Houston, Denver, and Cleveland, the median distance between FSEDs and public transit lines was greater than from hospital EDs by 1.0 mi, 0.2 mi, and 1.6 mi, respectively. The OR of a public transit line being located within 0.5 mi of an FSED, as compared with a hospital ED, across all three MSAs was 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.34) unadjusted and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.11-0.40) adjusted for population density and median household income. CONCLUSION: In comparison with hospital EDs, FSEDs are located farther from public transit lines and are less likely to be within walking distance of public transportation. These findings suggest that FSEDs are unlikely to directly increase access to care for patients without private means of transportation. Further research is necessary to explore both the direct and indirect impact of FSEDs on access to care, potentially through effects on hospital ED crowding and overall healthcare expenditures, as well as the ultimate role and responsibility of FSEDs in improving access to care for underserved populations.

Emergency Department Management of Patients With Febrile Neutropenia: Guideline Concordant or Overly Aggressive?

OBJECTIVES: The Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend risk stratification of patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) and discharge with oral antibiotics for low-risk patients. We studied guideline concordance and clinical outcomes of FN management in our emergency department (ED). METHODS: Our urban, tertiary care teaching hospital provides all emergency and inpatient services to a large comprehensive cancer center. We performed a structured chart review of all FN patients seen in our ED from January 2010 to December 2014. Using electronic medical records, we identified all visits by patients with fever and an absolute neutrophil count of <1000 cells/mm3 and then included only patients without a clear source of infection. Following national guidelines, we classified patients as low or high risk and assessed guideline concordance in disposition and parenteral versus oral antibiotic therapy by risk category as our main outcome measure. RESULTS: Of 173 qualifying visits, we classified 44 (25%) as low risk and 129 (75%) as high risk. Management was guideline concordant in 121 (70%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 63% to 77%). Management was guideline discordant in 43 (98%, 95% CI = 88% to 100%) of low-risk patients versus 9 (7%, 95% CI = 3% to 13%) of high-risk patients (relative risk [RR] = 14, 95% CI = 7.5 to 26). Of 52 guideline-discordant cases, 36 (83%, 95% CI = 72% to 93%) involved low-risk cases with treatment that was more aggressive than recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline concordance was low among low-risk patients, with management tending to be more aggressive than recommended. Unless data emerge that undermine the guidelines, we believe that many of these hospitalizations and parenteral antibiotic regimens can be avoided, decreasing the risks associated with hospitalization, while improving antibiotic stewardship and patient comfort.