Search

Introduction: Reducing non-urgent emergency department (ED) visits has been targeted as a method to produce cost savings. To better describe these visits, we sought to compare resource utilization of ED visits characterized as non-urgent at triage to immediate, emergent, or urgent (IEU) visits.Methods: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 2006-2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Urgency of visits was categorized using the assigned 5-level triage acuity score. We analyzed resource utilization, including diagnostic testing, treatment, and hospitalization within each acuity categorization.Results: From 2006-2009, 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2-11.2) of United States ED visits were categorized as non-urgent. Most (87.8% [95%CI, 86.3-89.2]) non-urgent visits had some diagnostic testing or treatment in the ED. Imaging was common in non-urgent visits (29.8% [95%CI, 27.8-31.8]), although not as frequent as for IEU visits (52.9% [95%CI, 51.6-54.2]). Similarly, procedures were performed less frequently for non-urgent (34.1% [95%CI, 31.8-36.4]) compared to IEU visits (56.3% [95%CI, 53.5-59.0]). Medication administration was similar between the 2 groups (80.6% [95%CI, 79.5-81.7] vs. 76.3% [95% CI, 74.7-77.8], respectively). The rate of hospital admission was 4.0% (95%CI, 3.3-4.8) vs. 19.8% (95%CI, 18.4-21.3) for IEU visits, with admission to a critical care setting for 0.5% of non-urgent visits (95%CI, 0.3-0.6) vs. 3.4% (95%CI, 3.1-3.8) of IEU visits.Conclusions: For most non-urgent ED visits, some diagnostic or therapeutic intervention was performed. Relatively low, but notable proportions of non-urgent ED visits were admitted to the hospital, sometimes to a critical care setting. These data call into question non-urgent ED visits being categorized as “unnecessary,” particularly in the setting of limited access to timely primary care for acute illness or injury. [West J Emerg Med.609-616.]

Introduction: The first proposed emergency care alternative payment model seeks to reduce avoidable admissions from the emergency department (ED), but this initiative may increase risk of adverse events after discharge. Our study objective was to describe variation in ED discharge rates and determine whether higher discharge rates were associated with more ED revisits.Methods:  Using all-payer inpatient and ED administrative data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) 2017 database, we performed a retrospective cohort study of hospital-level ED discharge rates and ED revisits using conditions that have been previously described as having variability in discharge rates: abdominal pain; altered mental status; chest pain; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation; skin and soft tissue infection; syncope; and urinary tract infection. We categorized hospitals into quartiles for each condition based on a covariate-adjusted discharge rate and compared the rate of ED revisits between hospitals in the highest and lowest quartiles.Results: We found a greater than 10% difference in the between-quartile median adjusted discharge rate for each condition except for abdominal pain. There was no significant association between adjusted discharge rates and ED revisits. Altered mental status had the highest revisit rate, at 34% for hospitals in the quartile with the lowest and 30% in hospitals with the highest adjusted discharge rate, although this was not statistically significant. Syncope had the lowest rate of revisits at 16% for hospitals in both the lowest and highest adjusted discharge rate quartiles.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that there may be opportunity to increase ED discharges for certain conditions without resulting in higher rates of ED revisits, which may be a surrogate for adverse events after discharge.

In 2007, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) created a novel payment program to create incentives for physician’s to focus on quality of care measures and report quality performance for the first time. Initially termed “The Physician Voluntary Reporting Program,” various Congressional actions, including the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA) and Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) further strengthened and ensconced this program, eventually leading to the quality program termed today as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). As a result of passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the PQRS program has expanded to include both the “traditional PQRS” reporting program and the newer “Value Modifier” program (VM). For the first time, these programs were designed to include pay-for-performance incentives for all physicians providing care to Medicare beneficiaries and to measure the cost of care. The recent passage of the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act in March of 2015 includes changes to these payment programs that will have an even more profound impact on emergency care providers. We describe the implications of these important federal policy changes for emergency physicians.

ObjectivesPolicymakers have increasingly focused on emergency department (ED) utilization for primary care-treatable conditions as a potentially avoidable source of rising health care costs. The objective was to determine the association of health insurance type and arrival time, as indicators of limited availability of primary care, with primary care-treatable classification of ED visits.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of a nationally representative sample of 241,167 ED visits from the 1997 to 2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NHAMCS). Probabilities of ED visits being primary care-treatable were categorized based on the primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code. The association of health insurance type and arrival time was determined with the average probability of the primary diagnosis being primary care-treatable using multivariable linear regression.ResultsCompared to privately insured visits, Medicaid visits had a 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2% to 2.2%) and uninsured visits a 2.4% (95% CI = 1.9% to 3.0%) higher probability of primary care-treatable classification, while Medicare visits had a 1.4% (95% CI = 0.7% to 2.0%) lower probability during the overall study period. Compared to business hours, weekend visits had a 1.5% (95% CI = 1.0% to 2.0%) higher probability of being primary care-treatable during the overall study period. From 1997 to 2009, the overall adjusted probability of ED visits being primary care-treatable increased by 0.19% (95% CI = 0.10 to 0.28) per year. This probability increased at a rate of 0.52% per year for Medicare visits (95% CI = 0.38% to 0.65%), more than double that of Medicaid visits (0.25% per year, 95% CI = 0.13% to 0.37%). By contrast, there was no significant change from 1997 to 2009 in the average probability of ED visits being primary care-treatable by privately insured (0.05% per year, 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.16) or uninsured (0.00% per year, 95% CI = -0.12 to 0.13) individuals.ConclusionsThese findings add to prior work that implicates insurance type and arrival time in the variation of primary care-treatable ED visits. Although primary care-treatable classification of ED visits was most associated with uninsured or Medicaid visits, this classification increased most rapidly among Medicare visits during the study period.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Innovation Center has set the goal for 100% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries to be part of an accountable care relationship by 2030. Barriers to physician participation include lack of substantial financial incentives, intolerable or unpredictable risk, infrastructure costs, and operational complexity. In this article, the authors outline particular challenges that must be addressed to integrate specialty care physicians into accountable care relationships. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Innovation Center (CMMI) has set the goal for 100% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries to be part of an accountable care relationship by 2030. Lack of meaningful financial incentives, intolerable or unpredictable risk, infrastructure costs, patient engagement, voluntary participation, and operational complexity have been noted by the provider and health care delivery community as barriers to participation or reasons for exiting programs. In addition, most piloted and implemented population-based total cost of care (PB-TCOC) payment models have focused on the role of the primary care physician being the accountability (that is, attributable) leader of a patient's multifaceted care team as well as acting as the mayor of the "medical neighborhood," leaving the role of specialty care physicians undefined. Successful provider specialist integration into PB-TCOC models includes meaningful participation of specialists in achieving whole-person, high-value care where all providers are financially motivated to participate; there is unambiguous prospective attribution and clearly defined accountability for each participating party throughout the care journey or episode; there is a known care attribution transition accountability plan; there is actionable, transparent, and timely data available with appropriate data development and basic analytic costs covered; and there is advanced payment to the accountable person or entity for management of the care episode that is part of a longitudinal care plan. Payment models should be created to address the 7 challenges raised here if specialists are to be incented to join TCOC models that achieve CMMI's goal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While increasing evidence shows that hospice and palliative care interventions in the ED can benefit patients and systems, little exists on the feasibility and effectiveness of identifying patients in the ED who might benefit from hospice care. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of a clinical care pathway on the identification of patients who would benefit from hospice in an academic medical center ED setting. We instituted a clinical pathway for ED patients with potential need for or already enrolled in hospice. This pathway was digitally embedded in the electronic health record and made available to ED physicians, APPs and staff in a non-interruptive fashion. Patient and visit characteristics were evaluated for the six months before (05/04/2021–10/4/2021) and after (10/5/2021–05/04/2022) implementation. After pathway implementation, more patients were identified as appropriate for hospice and ED length of stay (LOS) for qualifying patients decreased by a median of 2.9 h. Social work consultation for hospice evaluation increased, and more patients were discharged from the ED with hospice. As more patients were identified with end-of-life care needs, the number of patients admitted to the hospital increased. However, more patients were admitted under observation status, and admission LOS decreased by a median of 18.4 h. This non-interruptive, digitally embedded clinical care pathway provided guidance for ED physicians and APPs to initiate hospice referrals. More patients received social work consultation and were identified as hospice eligible. Those patients admitted to the hospital had a decrease in both ED and hospital admission LOS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There are significantly fewer women than men in leadership roles in health care. Previous studies have shown that, overall, male physicians earn nearly $20,000 more annually than their female physician colleagues after adjusting for confounding factors. However, there has not been a description of physician leadership compensation in relation to gender. Methods: This was a successive cross‐sectional observation study design of 154 emergency departments in the United States from 5 years (2013, 2015–2018) using Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine and Academy of Administrators in Academic EM survey data. The primary variable of interest, leadership role, was attained by recoding the survey responses to assign primary job duty into four main categories: no leadership role, operations leadership, education leadership, and executive leadership. Results: Overall, 8820 responses were included. Across all survey years, the mean (±SD) percentage of women in any leadership role was significantly less than men (44.5% [95% CI: 42.8, 46.2%] vs. 55.3% [95% CI: 54.1, 56.5%]). Women in leadership roles worked more clinical hours than men in the same position (female median = 1008, male median = 960). Women also had significantly lower salaries than men at each of the 5‐year time points that data are reported, with unadjusted mean salary differences of –$54,409 per year for executives, –$27,803 for operational leaders, and –$17,803 for education leaders. Conclusions: Female physicians hold fewer leadership roles in academic emergency medicine (EM), and when they do, they work more clinical hours and are paid less than male physicians. As a specialty, EM should continue to investigate and report on gender achievement disparities as work is done to rectify the system inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]