Search

Abstract Background Emergency department (ED) visits due to non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) conditions have drastically decreased since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to identify the magnitude, characteristics and underlying motivations of ED visitors with delayed healthcare seeking behaviour during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods Between March 9 and July 92,020, adults visiting the ED of an academic hospital in the East of the Netherlands received an online questionnaire to collect self-reported data on delay in seeking emergency care and subsequent motivations for this delay. Telephone interviews were held with a subsample of respondents to better understand the motivations for delay as described in the questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Results One thousand three hundred thirty-eight questionnaires were returned (34.0% response). One in five respondents reported a delay in seeking emergency care. Almost half of these respondents (n = 126; 45.4%) reported that the pandemic influenced the delay. Respondents reporting delay were mainly older adults (mean 61.6; ±13.1 years), referred to the ED by the general practitioner (GP; 35.1%) or a medical specialist (34.7%), visiting the ED with cardiac problems (39.7%). The estimated median time of delay in receiving ED care was 3 days (inter quartile range 8 days). Respectively 46 (16.5%) and 26 (9.4%) respondents reported that their complaints would be either less severe or preventable if they had sought for emergency care earlier. Delayed care seeking behaviour was frequently motivated by: fear of contamination, not wanting to burden professionals, perceiving own complaints less urgent relative to COVID-19 patients, limited access to services, and by stay home instructions from referring professionals. Conclusions A relatively large proportion of ED visitors reported delay in seeking emergency care during the first wave. Delay was often driven by misperceptions of the accessibility of services and the legitimacy for seeking emergency care. Public messaging and close collaboration between the ED and referring professionals could help reduce delayed care for acute needs during future COVID-19 infection waves.

Abstract Background The growing demand for elderly care often exceeds the ability of emergency department (ED) services to provide quality of care within reasonable time. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of interventions on reducing ED crowding by older patients, and to identify core characteristics shared by successful interventions. Methods Six major biomedical databases were searched for (quasi)experimental studies published between January 1990 and March 2017 and assessing the effect of interventions for older patients on ED crowding related outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened and selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data into a standardized form. Data were synthesized around the study setting, design, quality, intervention content, type of outcome and observed effects. Results Of the 16 included studies, eight (50%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two (13%) were non-RCTs and six (34%) were controlled before-after (CBA) studies. Thirteen studies (81%) evaluated effects on ED revisits and four studies (25%) evaluated effects on ED throughput time. Thirteen studies (81%) described multicomponent interventions. The rapid assessment and streaming of care for older adults based on time-efficiency goals by dedicated staff in a specific ED unit lead to a statistically significant decrease of ED length of stay (LOS). An ED-based consultant geriatrician showed significant time reduction between patient admission and geriatric review compared to an in-reaching geriatrician. Conclusion Inter-study heterogeneity and poor methodological quality hinder drawing firm conclusions on the intervention’s effectiveness in reducing ED crowding by older adults. More evidence-based research is needed using uniform and valid effect measures. Trial registration The protocol is registered with the PROSPERO International register of systematic reviews: ID = CRD42017075575).