Kristin L. Rising

Patient Returns to the Emergency Department: The Time‐to‐return Curve

OBJECTIVES Although 72-hour emergency department (ED) revisits are increasingly used as a hospital metric, there is no known empirical basis for this 72-hour threshold. The objective of this study was to determine the timing of ED revisits for adult patients within 30 days of ED discharge. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of all nonfederal ED discharges in Florida and Nebraska from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011, using data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). ED discharges were followed forward to identify ED revisits occurring at any hospital within the same state within 30 days. The cumulative hazard of an ED revisit was plotted. Parametric and nonparametric modeling was performed to characterize the rate of ED revisits. RESULTS There were 4,782,045 ED discharges, with 7.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.4% to 7.5%) associated with 3-day revisits, and 22.4% (95% CI = 22.3% to 22.4%) associated with 30-day revisits, inclusive of the 3-day revisits. A double-exponential model fit the data best (p < 0.0001), and a single hinge point at 9 days (multivariate adaptive regression splines [MARS] model) yielded the best linear fit to the data, suggesting 9 days as the most reasonable cutoff for identification of acute ED revisits. Multiple stratified and subgroup analyses produced similar results. Future work should focus on identifying primary reasons for potentially avoidable return ED visits instead of on the revisit occurrence itself, thus more directly measuring potential lapses in delivery of high-quality care. CONCLUSIONS Almost one-quarter of ED discharges are linked to 30-day ED revisits, and the current 72-hour ED metric misses close to 70% of these patients. Our findings support 9 days as a more inclusive cutoff for studies of ED revisits.

Dialysis Care and Death Following Hurricane Sandy

BACKGROUND Hurricane Sandy affected access to critical health care infrastructure. Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) historically have experienced problems accessing care and adverse outcomes during disasters. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort study with 2 comparison groups. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS Using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data, we assessed the frequency of early dialysis, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and 30-day mortality for patients with ESRD in Sandy-affected areas (study group) and 2 comparison groups: (1) patients with ESRD living in states unaffected by Sandy during the same period and (2) patients with ESRD living in the Sandy-affected region a year prior to the hurricane (October 1, 2011, through October 30, 2011). FACTOR Regional variation in dialysis care patterns and mortality for patients with ESRD in New York City and the State of New Jersey. MEASUREMENTS Frequency of early dialysis, ED visits, hospitalizations, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS Of 13,264 study patients, 59% received early dialysis in 70% of the New York City and New Jersey dialysis facilities. The ED visit rate was 4.1% for the study group compared with 2.6% and 1.7%, respectively, for comparison groups 1 and 2 (both P<0.001). The hospitalization rate for the study group also was significantly higher than that in either comparison group (4.5% vs 3.2% and 3.8%, respectively; P<0.001 and P<0.003). 23% of study group patients who visited the ED received dialysis in the ED compared with 9.3% and 6.3% in comparison groups 1 and 2, respectively (both P<0.001). The 30-day mortality rate for the study group was slightly higher than that for either comparison group (1.83% vs 1.47% and 1.60%, respectively; P<0.001 and P=0.1). LIMITATIONS Lack of facility level damage and disaster-induced power outage severity data. CONCLUSIONS Nearly half the study group patients received early dialysis prior to Sandys landfall. Poststorm increases in ED visits, hospitalizations, and 30-day mortality were found in the study group, but not in the comparison groups.

“I'm Just a Patient”: Fear and Uncertainty as Drivers of Emergency Department Use in Patients With Chronic Disease

STUDY OBJECTIVE Despite focus during the past decade about the need to design a more patient-centered US health care system, patients have been minimally engaged to define what they want from it. Our objective is to engage patients to identify individual-defined priority outcomes on discharge from the emergency department (ED) and individually tailored interventions to help achieve their outcomes. METHODS We used qualitative semistructured interviews with patients with diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular disease who were being discharged from 2 EDs. Questions focused on reasons for seeking ED care, expectations about ED visits, and goals and needs for the days after ED discharge. Themes were identified with a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS Forty patients participated. Patients identified uncertainty about the significance of their symptoms and fear as a result of this uncertainty as primary drivers for their ED visit. Their primary expectation about the visit was receiving a diagnosis and reassurance. The most prominent postdischarge need was answers about the cause of their symptoms and what to expect. Patients were concerned about ability to access follow-up services because of lack of time to navigate the system, transportation, and priority scheduling needs. Suggestions for improvement focused on contacting patients (physically or virtually) once they were home and offering them expedited outpatient evaluations. Primary limitations included enrollment of patients within a single health system and only those with certain chronic conditions, both potentially limiting generalizability. CONCLUSION Many patients have ongoing needs that are often not addressed during ED discharge. These needs are based on ongoing uncertainty about the cause of their symptoms and what to expect, and result in feelings of fear. Work is needed to develop approaches to alleviate patient fear and uncertainty and to equip providers with the capabilities and resources needed to adequately address these needs.

Recurrent violent injury: magnitude, risk factors, and opportunities for intervention from a statewide analysis.

INTRODUCTION Although preventing recurrent violent injury is an important component of a public health approach to interpersonal violence and a common focus of violence intervention programs, the true incidence of recurrent violent injury is unknown. Prior studies have reported recurrence rates from 0.8% to 44%, and risk factors for recurrence are not well established. METHODS We used a statewide, all-payer database to perform a retrospective cohort study of emergency department visits for injury due to interpersonal violence in Florida, following up patients injured in 2010 for recurrence through 2012. We assessed risk factors for recurrence with multivariable logistic regression and estimated time to recurrence with the Kaplan-Meier method. We tabulated hospital charges and costs for index and recurrent visits. RESULTS Of 53 908 patients presenting for violent injury in 2010, 11.1% had a recurrent violent injury during the study period. Trauma centers treated 31.8%, including 55.9% of severe injuries. Among recurrers, 58.9% went to a different hospital for their second injury. Low income, homelessness, Medicaid or uninsurance, and black race were associated with increased odds of recurrence. Patients with visits for mental and behavioral health and unintentional injury also had increased odds of recurrence. Index injuries accounted for

Patient‐centered outcomes research in emergency care: opportunities, challenges and future directions

105 million in costs, and recurrent injuries accounted for another

A qualitative analysis of interprofessional healthcare team members’ perceptions of patient barriers to healthcare engagement

25.3 million. CONCLUSIONS Recurrent violent injury is a common and costly phenomenon, and effective violence prevention programs are needed. Prevention must include the nontrauma centers where many patients seek care.

Patient Perceptions of Telehealth Primary Care Video Visits

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established by Congress in 2010 to promote the conduct of research that could better inform patients in making decisions that reflect their desired health outcomes. PCORI has established five national priorities for research around which specific funding opportunities are issued: 1) assessment of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options; 2) improving healthcare systems; 3) communication and dissemination research; 4) addressing disparities; and 5) improving methods for conducting patient-centered outcomes research. To date, implementation of patient-centered research in the emergency care setting has been limited, in part because of perceived challenges in meeting PCORI priorities such as the need to focus on a specific disease state or to have planned follow up. We suggest that these same factors that have been seen as challenges to performing patient-centered research within the emergency setting are also potential strengths to be leveraged to conduct PCORI research. This paper explores factors unique to patient-centered emergency care research and highlights specific areas of potential alignment within each PCORI priority.

Cardiovascular Admissions, Readmissions, and Transitions of Care

BackgroundHealthcare systems increasingly engage interprofessional healthcare team members such as case managers, social workers, and community health workers to work directly with patients and improve population health. This study elicited perspectives of interprofessional healthcare team members regarding patient barriers to health and suggestions to address these barriers.MethodsThis is a qualitative study employing focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 39 interprofessional healthcare team members in Philadelphia to elicit perceptions of patients’ needs and experiences with the health system, and suggestions for positioning health care systems to better serve patients. Themes were identified using a content analysis approach.ResultsThree focus groups and 21 interviews were conducted with 26 hospital-based and 13 ambulatory-based participants. Three domains emerged to characterize barriers to care: social determinants, health system factors, and patient trust in the health system. Social determinants included insurance and financial shortcomings, mental health and substance abuse issues, housing and transportation-related limitations, and unpredictability associated with living in poverty. Suggestions for addressing these barriers included increased financial assistance from the health system, and building a workforce to address these determinants directly. Health care system factors included poor care coordination, inadequate communication of hospital discharge instructions, and difficulty navigating complex systems. Suggestions for addressing these barriers included enhanced communication between care sites, patient-centered scheduling, and improved patient education especially in discharge planning. Finally, factors related to patient trust of the health system emerged. Participants reported that patients are often intimidated by the health system, mistrusting of physicians, and fearful of receiving a serious diagnosis or prognosis. A suggestion for mitigating these issues was increased visibility of the health system within communities to foster trust and help providers gain a better understanding of unique community needs.ConclusionThis work explored interprofessional healthcare team members’ perceptions of patient barriers to healthcare engagement. Participants identified barriers related to social determinants of health, complex system organization, and patient mistrust of the health system. Participants offered concrete suggestions to address these barriers, with suggestions supporting current healthcare reform efforts that aim at addressing social determinants and improving health system coordination and adding new insight into how systems might work to improve patient and community trust.

Working together to prepare for disasters.

PURPOSE Telehealth is a care delivery model that promises to increase the flexibility and reach of health services. Our objective is to describe patient experiences with video visits performed with their established primary care clinicians. METHODS We constructed semistructured, in-depth qualitative interviews with adult patients following video visits with their primary care clinicians at a single academic medical center. Data were analyzed with a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Of 32 eligible patients, 19 were successfully interviewed. All patients reported overall satisfaction with video visits, with the majority interested in continuing to use video visits as an alternative to in-person visits. The primary benefits cited were convenience and decreased costs. Some patients felt more comfortable with video visits than office visits and expressed a preference for receiving future serious news via video visit, because they could be in their own supportive environment. Primary concerns with video visits were privacy, including the potential for work colleagues to overhear conversations, and questions about the ability of the clinician to perform an adequate physical examination. CONCLUSIONS Primary care video visits are acceptable in a variety of situations. Patients identified convenience, efficiency, communication, privacy, and comfort as domains that are potentially important to consider when assessing video visits vs in-person encounters. Future studies should explore which patients and conditions are best suited for video visits.

Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure patient uncertainty: The “Uncertainty Scale”:

Hospital 30-day readmissions have become a major priority for hospitals, which face penalties for excessive readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF). Thus, it is important for hospitals to understand the transitions of care that occur for both of these conditions, and what tools are available to guide the processes involved. A multi-disciplinary team including Emergency Medical Service providers, Emergency Medicine providers, cardiologists, hospitalists, pharmacists, nurses, case managers, and outpatient physicians can all be involved in the process of safely transitioning a patient between care settings. Small-scale studies in the geriatric population have shown improved transitions of care and decreased readmissions with these care teams. The emergency department is a key transition point for patients with AMI and HF, yet it is rarely identified and utilized as such in transitions of care interventions. Future research and implementation projects will need to refine and expand the role of the emergency department in the process.