Search

Study objective Frequent users of the emergency department (ED) are often associated with increased health care costs. Limited research is devoted to frequent ED use within the increasing senior population, which accounts for the highest use of health care resources. We evaluate patient characteristics and patterns of ED use among geriatric patients. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective, longitudinal, cohort study of ED visits among geriatric patients older than 65 years in 2013 and 2014. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent associations with frequent users. The setting was a nonpublic statewide database in California, which includes 326 licensed nonfederal hospitals. We included all geriatric patients within the database who were older than 65 years and had an ED visit in 2014, for a total of 1,259,809 patients with 2,792,219 total ED visits. The main outcome was frequent users, defined as having greater than or equal to 6 ED visits in a 1-year period, starting from their last visit in 2014. Results Overall, 5.7% of geriatric patients (n=71,449) were identified as frequent users of the ED. They accounted for 21.2% (n=592,407) of all ED visits. The associations of frequent ED use with the largest magnitude were patients with an injury-related visit (odds ratio 3.8; 95% confidence interval 3.8 to 3.9), primary diagnosis of pain (odds ratio 5.5; 95% confidence interval 5.4 to 5.6), and comorbidity index score greater than or equal to 3 (odds ratio 7.2; 95% confidence interval 7.0 to 7.5). Conclusion Geriatric frequent users are likely to have comorbid conditions and be treated for conditions related to pain and injuries. These findings provide evidence to guide future interventions to address these needs that could potentially decrease frequent ED use among geriatric patients.

To test whether the differences across sex and race in the treatment of and outcomes for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) have changed over a recent decade.We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with a diagnosis of STEMI or NSTEMI in California from 2005 to 2015 using the Office of State Health Planning and Development dataset. Using multivariable linear regression with county-fixed effects, we measured the baseline and change over time in the proportions of patients with STEMI or NSTEMI who underwent appropriately-timed coronary angiography (day of admission and within 3 days of admission, respectively) and survived at 1 year according to sex and race (Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White) and adjusting for comorbidities, payor, and hospital characteristics.We analyzed 159,068 STEMI and 294,068 NSTEMI presentations. In 2005, 50.0% of 12,329 men and 35.7% of 6,939 women with STEMI and 45.0% of 14,379 men and 33.1% of 10,674 women with NSTEMI underwent timely angiography. In 2015, 76.7% of 6,257 men and 66.8% of 2,808 women with STEMI underwent timely angiography and 56.3% of 13,889 men and 45.9% of 9,334 women with NSTEMI underwent timely angiography. In 2005, 1-year survival was 82.3% for men and 69.6% for women after STEMI; in 2013, 1-year survival was 88.1% for men and 79.1% for women. In the multivariable model, the baseline difference was 1.1 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2 to 1.9), and survival increased for women compared with men by 0.3 percentage points per year (95% CI 0.2 to 0.5). In 2005, 46.0% (5,878) of 12,789 White patients and 31.2% (330) of 1,057 Black patients with STEMI underwent timely angiography; in 2015 75.2% of 3,928 White patients and 69.2% of 522 Black patients underwent timely angiography for STEMI. In the multivariable model, this difference was 6.4 percentage points at baseline (95% CI 4.5 to 8.3), and the probability of undergoing timely angiography for Black patients increased by 0.3 percentage points per year (95% CI -0.1 to 0.6).Despite overall improvements in the treatment of and outcomes for STEMI and NSTEMI, disparities persist in the treatment of and outcomes for both the conditions, particularly for women.

In this issue of Annals, Pathak et al use patient-level data to provide an excellent bird’s-eye view of access to percutaneous coronary intervention of ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs) presented in Florida. Their diligent work shows that almost all (90%) patients who were hospitalized in STEMI referral hospitals (those with either no percutaneous coronary intervention capability or “low-volume” centers, using the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology definition of 199 catheterizations per year or fewer) were within 31 minutes’ driving time to the nearest STEMI receiving hospital (200 or more catheterizations annually). When they examined facilities rather than patients, 77% of the STEMI referral hospitals had a travel time of 30 minutes or less; facilities in the 90th percentile had a 56-minute driving time. The difference of the times can be attributed to the fact that more patients live in urban areas with a greater density of hospitals, so that even though the facilities had longer travel times, when calculated with patient data the travel times were shorter. The authors’ methods are likely to be perceived by some as their greatest strength and by others as their greatest weakness; we feel they deserve a balanced critique here. The authors use patient data to identify the location of initial presentation of patients with STEMI. They then calculate interfacility drive times by using a Web-based publicly available application and determine the proportion of hospitals and of patients who could rapidly arrive at a STEMI receiving facility if transferred. At first blush, the methods may be considered too theoretical and too simplistic for the medical community. Emergency medical services (EMS) researchers will be dissatisfied with the overly simple approach to examining the complexity of transfer times because the authors did nothing to estimate the amount of time required to evaluate, initiate treatment, stabilize for transfer, and obtain advanced life support ground or air transportation. Operations researchers will likely critique the simplistic approach to examining road travel times that ignores weather and traffic conditions, ignores the use of air ambulances for f

Study objective The location of a patient's residence is often used for emergency medical services (EMS) system planning. Our objective is to evaluate the association between patient residence and emergency incident zip codes for 911 calls. Methods We used data from the 2013 National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) Public-Release Research Dataset. We studied all 911 calls with a valid complaint by dispatch, identifying zip codes for both the residence and incident locations (n=12,376,784). The primary outcomes were geographic and distance discordances between patient residence and incident zip codes. We used a multivariate logistic regression model to determine geographic discordance between residence and incident zip codes by dispatch complaint, age, and sex. We also measured distances between locations with geospatial processing. Results The overall proportion of geographic discordance for all 911 calls was 27.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.7% to 27.8%) and the median distance discordance was 11.5 miles (95% CI 11.5 to 11.5 miles). Lower geographic discordance rates were found among patients aged 65 to 79 years (20.2%; 95% CI 20.1% to 20.2%) and 80 years and older (14.5%; 95% CI 14.5% to 14.6%). Motor vehicle crashes (63.5%; 95% CI 63.5% to 63.6%), industrial accidents (59.3%; 95% CI 58.0% to 60.6%), and mass casualty incidents (50.6%; 95% CI 49.6% to 51.5%) were more likely to occur outside a patient's residence zip code. Median network distance between home and incident zip centroid codes ranged from 8.6 to 23.5 miles. Conclusion In NEMSIS, there was geographic discordance between patient residence zip code and call location zip code in slightly more than one quarter of EMS responses records. The geographic discordance rates between residence and incident zip codes were associated with dispatch complaints and age. Although a patient's residence might be a valid proxy for incident location for elderly patients, this relationship holds less true for other age groups and among different complaints. Our findings have important implications for EMS system planning, resource allocation, and injury surveillance.

© 2016 American College of Emergency Physicians. Study objective The 2010 provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) extended eligibility for health insurance for young adults aged 19 to 25 years. It is unclear, however, how expanded coverage changes health care behavior and promotes efficient use of emergency department (ED) services. Our objective was to use population-level emergency department data to characterize any changes in diagnoses seen in ED among young adults since the implementation of the ACA dependent coverage expansion. Methods We performed a difference-in-differences analysis of 2009 to 2011 ED visits from California, Florida, and New York, using all-capture administrative data to determine how the use of ED services changed for clinical categories after the ACA provision among young adults aged 19 to 25 years compared with slightly older adults unaffected by the provision, aged 26 to 31 years. Results We analyzed a total of 10,158,254 ED visits made by 4,734,409 patients. After the implementation of the 2010 ACA provision, young adults had a relative decrease of 0.5% ED visits per 1,000 people compared with the older group. For the majority of diagnostic categories, young adults' rates and risk of visit did not change relative to that of slightly older adults after the implementation of the ACA. However, although young adults' ED visits significantly increased for mental illnesses (2.6%) and diseases of the circulatory system (eg, nonspecific chest pain) (4.8%), visits decreased for pregnancy-related diagnoses and diseases of the skin (eg, cellulitis, abscess) compared with that of the older group (3.7% and 3.1%, respectively). Conclusion Our results indicate that increased coverage has kept young adults out of the ED for specific conditions that can be cared for through access to other channels. As EDs face capacity challenges, these results are encouraging and offer insight into what could be expected under further insurance expansions from health care reform.

Study objective Emergency department (ED) closures threaten community access to emergency services, but few data exist to describe factors associated with closure. We evaluate factors associated with ED closure in California and seek to determine whether hospitals serving more vulnerable populations have a higher rate of ED closure. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of California hospital EDs between 1998 and 2008, using hospital- and patient-level data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), as well as OSHPD patient discharge data. We examined the effects of hospital and patient factors on the hospital's likelihood of ED closure by using Cox proportional hazards models. Results In 4,411 hospital-years of observation, 29 of 401 (7.2%) EDs closed. In a model adjusted for total ED visits, hospital discharges, trauma center and teaching status, ownership, operating margin, and urbanicity, hospitals with more black patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41 per increase in proportion of blacks by 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16 to 1.72) and Medi-Cal recipients (HR 1.17 per increase in proportion insured by Medi-Cal by 0.1; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.34) had higher risk of ED closure, as did for-profit institutions (HR 1.65; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.41). Conclusion The population served by EDs and hospitals' profit model are associated with ED closure. Whether our findings are a manifestation of poorer reimbursement in at-risk EDs is unclear.

Emergency care serves a key function within health care systems by providing an entry point to health care and by decreasing morbidity and mortality. Although primarily focused on evaluation and treatment for acute conditions, emergency care also serves as an important locus of provision for preventive care with regard to injuries and disease progression. Despite its important and increasing role, however, emergency care has been frequently overlooked in the discussion of health systems and delivery platforms, particularly in developing countries. Little research has been done in lower- and middle-income countries on the burden of disease reduction attributable to emergency care, whether through injury treatment and prevention, urgent and emergency treatment of acute conditions, or emergency treatment of complications from chronic conditions. There is a critical need for research documenting the role of emergency care services in reducing the global burden of disease. In addition to applying existing methodologies toward this aim, new methodologies should be developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of these interventions and how to effectively cover the costs of and demands for emergency care needs. These analyses could be used to emphasize the public health and clinical importance of emergency care within health systems as policymakers determine health and budgeting priorities in resource-limited settings.

Study objective We examine differences in inpatient mortality and hospitalization costs at trauma and nontrauma centers for injuries of minor and moderate severity. Methods Inpatient data sets from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development were analyzed for 2009 to 2011. The study population included patients younger than 85 years and admitted to general, acute care hospitals with a primary diagnosis of a minor or moderate injury. Minor injuries were defined as having a New Injury Severity Score less than 5 and moderate injuries as having a score of 5 to 15. Multivariate logistic regression and generalized linear model with log-link and γ distribution were used to estimate differences in adjusted inpatient mortality and costs. Results A total of 126,103 admissions with minor or moderate injury were included in the study population. The unadjusted mortality rate was 6.4 per 1,000 admissions (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.9 to 6.8). There was no significant difference found in mortality between trauma and nontrauma centers in unadjusted (odds ratio 1.2; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.48) or adjusted models (odds ratio 1.1; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.57). The average cost of a hospitalization was $13,465 (95% CI $12,733 to $14,198) and, after adjustment, was 33.1% higher at trauma centers compared with nontrauma centers (95% CI 16.9% to 51.6%). Conclusion For patients admitted to hospitals for minor and moderate injuries, hospitalization costs in this study population were higher at trauma centers than nontrauma centers, after adjustments for patient clinical-, demographic-, and hospital-level characteristics. Mortality was a rare event in the study population and did not significantly differ between trauma and nontrauma centers.

Study objective We seek to determine whether patients living in areas affected by emergency department (ED) closure, with subsequent increased distance to the nearest ED, have a higher risk of inpatient death from time-sensitive conditions. Methods Using the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development database, we performed a nonconcurrent cohort study of hospital admissions in California between 1999 and 2009 for patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, sepsis and asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models comparing adjusted inpatient mortality for patients experiencing increased distance to the nearest ED versus no change in distance. Results Of 785,385 patient admissions, 67,577 (8.6%) experienced an increase in distance to ED care because of an ED closure. The median change for patients experiencing an increase in distance to the nearest ED was only 0.8 miles, with a range of 0.1 to 33.4 miles. Patients with an increase did not have a significantly higher mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.09). In subgroups, we also observed no statistically significant differences in adjusted mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction, stroke, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and sepsis. We did not observe any significant variations in mortality for time-sensitive conditions in sensitivity analyses that incorporated a lag effect of time after change in distance, allowance for a larger affected population, or removal of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction from the acute myocardial infarction subgroup. Conclusion In this large population-based sample, less than 10% of the patients experienced an increase in distance to the nearest ED, and of that group, the majority had less than a 1-mile increase. These small increased distances to the nearest ED were not associated with higher inpatient mortality among time-sensitive conditions.

Study objective The proportion of patients who leave without being seen in the emergency department (ED) is an outcome-oriented measure of impaired access to emergency care and represents the failure of an emergency care delivery system to meet its goals of providing care to those most in need. Little is known about variation in the amount of left without being seen or about hospital-level determinants. Such knowledge is necessary to target hospital-level interventions to improve access to emergency care. We seek to determine whether hospital-level socioeconomic status case mix or hospital structural characteristics are predictive of ED left without being seen rates. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of all acute-care, nonfederal hospitals in California that operated an ED in 2007, using data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database and the US census. Our outcome of interest was whether a visit to a given hospital ED resulted in left without being seen. The proportion of left without being seen was measured by the number of left without being seen cases out of the total number of visits. Results We studied 9.2 million ED visits to 262 hospitals in California. The percentage of left without being seen varied greatly over hospitals, ranging from 0% to 20.3%, with a median percentage of 2.6%. In multivariable analyses adjusting for hospital-level socioeconomic status case mix, visitors to EDs with a higher proportion of low-income and poorly insured patients experienced a higher risk of left without being seen. We found that the odds of an ED visit resulting in left without being seen increased by a factor of 1.15 for each 10-percentage-point increase in poorly insured patients, and odds of left without being seen decreased by a factor of 0.86 for each $10,000 increase in household income. When hospital structural characteristics were added to the model, county ownership, trauma center designation, and teaching program affiliation were positively associated with increased probability of left without being seen (odds ratio 2.09; 1.62, and 2.14, respectively), and these factors attenuated the association with insurance status. Conclusion Visitors to different EDs experience a large variation in their probability of left without being seen, and visitors to hospitals serving a high proportion of low-income and poorly insured patients are at disproportionately higher risk of leaving without being seen. Our findings suggest that there is room for substantial improvement in this outcome, and regional interventions can be targeted toward certain at-risk hospitals to improve access to emergency care.

There is increasing concern that decreasing reimbursements to emergency departments (EDs) will negatively affect their functioning, but little evidence has been published identifying trends in reimbursement rates. We seek to examine and document the trends in reimbursement for outpatient ED visits throughout the past decade.We use Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data covering a 9-year span from 1996 to 2004, using outpatient ED visits as the unit of analysis. Our primary outcome variables were total and per-visit charges and payments across insurance. Using regression analyses with a generalized linear models approach, we also derived the adjusted mean payment and mean charge for each ED visit, as well as the average payment ratio.Overall, adjusted mean charges for an outpatient ED visit increased from $713 (95% confidence interval [CI] $665 to $771) in 1996 to $1,390 (95% CI $1,317 to $1,462) in 2004. The adjusted mean payment also increased from $410 (95% CI $366 to $453) in 1996 to $592 (95% CI $551 to $634) in 2004. Because payments increased at a slower rate in all payer groups compared with charges, the overall share of charges that were paid decreased over time from 57% in 1996 (n=3,433) to 42% in 2004 (n=5,763; P.001). The proportion of total charges paid in 2004 was highest for privately insured visits (56%; n=2,005) and lowest for Medicaid visits (33%; n=1,618). For visits by uninsured patients (n=996), 35% of charges were paid in 2004.The proportion of charges paid for outpatient ED visits from Medicaid, Medicare, and privately insured and uninsured patients persistently decreased from 1996 to 2004. These concerning decreases may threaten the survival of EDs and their ability to continue to provide care as safety nets in the US health care system.