Status of Emergency Department Seventy-Two Hour Return Visits Among Homeless Patients.
Appropriate utilization
ED return visit
Emergency department
Homeless
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine research
ISSN: 1918-3003
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101538301
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
09
01
2019
accepted:
28
01
2019
entrez:
6
3
2019
pubmed:
6
3
2019
medline:
6
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aim to externally validate the status of emergency department (ED) appropriate utilization and 72-h ED returns among homeless patients. This is a retrospective single-center observational study. Patients were divided into two groups (homeless versus non-homeless). Patients' general characteristics, clinical variables, ED appropriate utilization, and ED return disposition deviations were compared and analyzed separately. Study enrolled a total of 63,990 ED visits. Homeless patients comprised 9.3% (5,926) of visits. Higher ED 72-h returns occurred among homeless patients in comparison to the non-homeless patients (17% versus 5%, P < 0.001). Rate of significant ED disposition deviations (e.g., admission, triage to operation room, or death) on return visits were lower in homeless patients when compared to non-homeless patient populations (15% versus 23%, P < 0.001). Though ED return rate was higher among homeless patients, return visit case management seems appropriate, indicating that 72-h ED returns might not be an optimal healthcare quality measurement for homeless patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We aim to externally validate the status of emergency department (ED) appropriate utilization and 72-h ED returns among homeless patients.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a retrospective single-center observational study. Patients were divided into two groups (homeless versus non-homeless). Patients' general characteristics, clinical variables, ED appropriate utilization, and ED return disposition deviations were compared and analyzed separately.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Study enrolled a total of 63,990 ED visits. Homeless patients comprised 9.3% (5,926) of visits. Higher ED 72-h returns occurred among homeless patients in comparison to the non-homeless patients (17% versus 5%, P < 0.001). Rate of significant ED disposition deviations (e.g., admission, triage to operation room, or death) on return visits were lower in homeless patients when compared to non-homeless patient populations (15% versus 23%, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Though ED return rate was higher among homeless patients, return visit case management seems appropriate, indicating that 72-h ED returns might not be an optimal healthcare quality measurement for homeless patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30834037
doi: 10.14740/jocmr3747
pmc: PMC6396788
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
157-164Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
No potential conflicts of interest exist for all authors.
Références
Acad Emerg Med. 2007 May;14(5):426-33
pubmed: 17369450
Public Health Rep. 2010 May-Jun;125(3):398-405
pubmed: 20433034
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Apr;18(4):390-7
pubmed: 21496142
Open Med. 2011;5(2):e94-e103
pubmed: 21915240
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jun;103(6):e24-37
pubmed: 23597340
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 02;8(10):e73979
pubmed: 24098329
Med Care. 2014 May;52(5):454-61
pubmed: 24714583
Acad Emerg Med. 2014 Aug;21(8):864-71
pubmed: 25154879
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Jan;33(1):104-7
pubmed: 25303847
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 08;10(4):e0123803
pubmed: 25853822
Fed Regist. 2015 May 1;80(84):24819-21
pubmed: 25985477
West J Emerg Med. 2015 May;16(3):481-5
pubmed: 25987933
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Aug;33(8):1006-11
pubmed: 26001738
Am J Med Qual. 2016 Nov;31(6):541-551
pubmed: 26160967
Med Care. 2015 Dec;53(12):1010-7
pubmed: 26492212
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 May;23(5):645-9
pubmed: 26932394
Singapore Med J. 2016 Jun;57(6):301-6
pubmed: 27353286
West J Emerg Med. 2016 Sep;17(5):607-12
pubmed: 27625726
Ann Emerg Med. 1989 Sep;18(9):964-8
pubmed: 2764329
Can Geriatr J. 2016 Dec 23;19(4):189-194
pubmed: 28050223
J Emerg Med. 1987 Sep-Oct;5(5):359-62
pubmed: 3668198