Identifying Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits by Nursing Home Residents in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe potentially preventable emergency department (ED) visits by nursing home (NH) residents in the United States. These visits are important because they are common, frequently lead to hospitalization, and can be associated with significant cost to the patient and the health care system. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the 2005-2010 National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey (NHAMCS), comparing ED visits by nursing home residents that did not lead to hospital admission (potentially preventable) with those that led to admission (less likely preventable). SETTING: Nationally representative sample of US EDs; federal hospitals and hospitals with fewer than 6 beds were excluded. PARTICIPANTS: Older (age ≥65 years) NH residents with an ED visit during this time period. MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics, ED visit information including testing performed, interventions (both procedures and medications) provided, and diagnoses treated. RESULTS: Older NH residents accounted for 3857 of 208,956 ED visits during the time period of interest (1.8%). When weighted to be nationally representative, these represent 13.97 million ED visits, equivalent to 1.8 ED visits annually per NH resident in the United States. More than half of visits (53.5%) did not lead to hospital admission; of those discharged from the ED, 62.8% had normal vital signs on presentation and 18.9% did not have any diagnostic testing before ED discharge. Injuries were 1.78 times more likely to be discharged than admitted (44.8% versus 25.3%, respectively, P < .001), whereas infections were 2.06 times as likely to be admitted as discharged (22.9% versus 11.1%, respectively). Computed tomography (CT) scans were performed in 25.4% and 30.1% of older NH residents who were discharged from the ED and admitted to the hospital, respectively, and more than 70% of these were CTs of the head. NH residents received centrally acting, sedating medications before ED discharge in 9.4% of visits. CONCLUSION: This nationally representative sample of older NH residents suggests ED visits for injury, those that are associated with normal triage vital signs, and those that are not associated with any diagnostic testing are potentially preventable. Those discharged from the ED often undergo important testing and receive medications that may alter their physical examination on return to the nursing facility, highlighting the need for seamless communication of the ED course to NHs.

Frequent users of US emergency departments: characteristics and opportunities for intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of US adults by frequency of emergency department (ED) utilisation, specifically the prevalence of chronic diseases and outpatient primary care and mental health utilisation. METHODS: We analysed 157 818 adult participants of the 2004-2009 US National Health Interview Survey, an annual nationally representative sample. We defined ED utilisation during the past 12 months as non-users (0 ED visits), infrequent users (1-3 visits), frequent users (4-9 visits) and super-frequent users (≥10 visits). We compared demographic data, socioeconomic status, chronic diseases and access to care between these ED utilisation groups using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, super-frequent use was reported by 0.4% of US adults, frequent use by 2% and infrequent ED use by 19%. Patients reporting ≥4 ED visits were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85 vs private); fair or poor self-reported health (OR 2.98; 95% CI 2.57 to 3.46 vs excellent-very good); and chronic diseases such as coronary artery disease (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.86), stroke (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.83) or asthma (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.46 to 1.85). While patients reporting the ED as their usual source of sick care were more likely to have ≥4 ED visits (OR 7.09; 95% CI 5.61 to 8.95 vs outpatient clinic as source), ≥10 outpatient visits in the past 12 months was also associated with frequent ED use (OR 11.4; 95% CI 9.09 to 14.2 vs no outpatient visits). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent ED users had a large burden of chronic diseases that also required high outpatient resources. Interventions designed to divert frequent ED users should focus on chronic disease management and access to outpatient services, particularly for Medicaid beneficiaries and other high risk subpopulations.

National study of health insurance type and reasons for emergency department use.

BACKGROUND: The rates of emergency department (ED) utilization vary substantially by type of health insurance, but the association between health insurance type and patient-reported reasons for seeking ED care is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the association between health insurance type and self-perceived acuity or access issues among individuals discharged from the ED. DESIGN, PATIENTS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Adults whose last ED visit did not result in hospitalization (n = 4,606) were asked structured questions about reasons for seeking ED care. We classified responses as 1) perceived need for immediate evaluation (acuity issues), or 2) barriers to accessing outpatient services (access issues). MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed survey-weighted data using multivariable logistic regression models to test the association between health insurance type and reasons for ED visits, while adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 65.0% (95% CI 63.0-66.9) of adults reported ≥ 1 acuity issue and 78.9% (95% CI 77.3-80.5) reported ≥ 1 access issue. Among those who reported no acuity issue leading to the most recent ED visit, 84.2% reported ≥ 1 access issue. Relative to those with private insurance, adults with Medicaid (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.79-1.40) and those with Medicare (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.66-1.47) were similarly likely to seek ED care due to an acuity issue. Adults with Medicaid (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.06-2.13) and Medicaid + Medicare (dual eligible) (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.18-3.19) were more likely than those with private insurance to seek ED care for access issues. CONCLUSION: Variability in reasons for seeking ED care among discharged patients by health insurance type may be driven more by lack of access to alternate care, rather than by differences in patient-perceived acuity. Policymakers should focus on increasing access to alternate sites of care, particularly for Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as strategies to increase care coordination that involve ED patients and providers.

Update on midlevel provider utilization in U.S. emergency departments, 2006 to 2009.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have noted a sharp increase in utilization of physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs), up to 13% of all U.S. emergency department (ED) visits in 2005. The authors sought to reevaluate utilization and visit acuity for these midlevel providers (MLPs) in U.S. EDs from 2006 to 2009. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the 2006-2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NHAMCS), using the "providers seen" fields to categorize visits. Demographic, visit, and hospital characteristics of visits seen by MLPs only were compared to those seen by MLPs with physician involvement and by physicians only. RESULTS: Of the estimated 496 million U.S. ED visits from 2006 to 2009, 5.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.7% to 7.1%) were seen by MLPs only and 7.4% (95% CI = 6.3% to 8.5%) by MLPs with physician involvement. The annual proportions of visits seen by MLPs only for 2006 to 2009 ranged from 5.4% to 6.0% without an obvious trend. Acuity of MLP-only visits in 2006-2009 was similar to prior 1993-2005 data for arrival by ambulance (6.5% vs. 6.0%), urgent/emergent triage acuity (33% vs. 37%), and hospital admission (3.3% vs. 3.0%). From 2006 through 2009, 64% of EDs utilized MLPs, with higher utilization in urban (72%, 95% CI = 64% to 78%) compared to nonurban EDs (51%, 95% CI = 39% to 63%). However, among EDs that did utilize MLPs, nonurban EDs had MLPs without physician involvement see a median 27% of all ED visits, compared to 7.5% for urban EDs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a rapid expansion of MLP utilization in U.S. EDs, recent growth appears to have plateaued. The scope of practice of MLPs in EDs does not appear to be rapidly expanding. Urban EDs use MLPs more than nonurban EDs, but among EDs that use MLPs, nonurban EDs had MLPs see a larger proportion of overall ED visits.