Dataset Information

Are patients who call a primary care office referred to the emergency department by non-healthcare personnel without the input of a physician?

ABSTRACT: Objective. We hypothesized that a significant percentage of patients who are referred to the Emergency Department (ED) after calling their primary care physician's (PCP) office receive such instructions without the input of a physician. Methods. We enrolled a convenience sample of stable adults at an inner-city ED. Patients provided written answers to structured questions regarding PCP contact prior to the ED visit. Continuous data are presented as means ± standard deviation; categorical data as frequency of occurrence. 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results. The study group of 660 patients had a mean age of 41.7 ± 14.7 years and 72.6% had income below $20,000/year. 472 patients (71.51%; 67.9%-74.8%) indicated that they had a PCP. A total of 155 patients (23.0%; 19.9%-26.4%) called to contact their PCP prior to ED visit. For patients who called their PCP office and were directed by phone to the ED, the referral pattern was observed as follows: 31/98 (31.63%; 23.2%-41.4%) by a non-health care provider without physician input, 11/98 (11.2%; 6.2%-19.1%) by a non-healthcare provider after consultation with a physician, 12/98 (12.3%; 7.7%-20.3%) by a nurse without physician input, and 14/98 (14.3%; 8.6%-22.7%) by a nurse after consultation with physician. An additional 11/98, 11.2%; 6.2-19.1%) only listened to a recorded message and felt the message was directing them to the ED. Conclusion. A relatively small percentage of patients were referred to the ED without the consultation of a physician in our overall population. However, over half of those that contacted their PCP's office felt directed to the ED by non-health care staff.

SUBMITTER: Hill R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4824903 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are patients who call a primary care office referred to the emergency department by non-healthcare personnel without the input of a physician?

Hill Russell R Gest Albert A Smith Cynthia C Guardiola Jose H JH Apolinario Michael M Ha Joann J Gonzalez Jose R JR Richman Peter B PB

PeerJ 20160328

Objective. We hypothesized that a significant percentage of patients who are referred to the Emergency Department (ED) after calling their primary care physician's (PCP) office receive such instructions without the input of a physician. Methods. We enrolled a convenience sample of stable adults at an inner-city ED. Patients provided written answers to structured questions regarding PCP contact prior to the ED visit. Continuous data are presented as means ± standard deviation; categorical data as ...[more]

PMID: 27069780

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHealthcare personnel are at high risk for exposure to influenza by direct and indirect contact, droplets and aerosols, and by aerosol generating procedures. Information on air and surface influenza contamination is needed to assist in developing guidance for proper prevention and control strategies. To understand the vulnerabilities of healthcare personnel, we measured influenza in the breathing zone of healthcare personnel, in air and on surfaces within a healthcare setting, and on filtering facepiece respirators worn by healthcare personnel when conducting patient care.MethodsThirty participants were recruited from an adult emergency department during the 2015 influenza season. Participants wore personal bioaerosol samplers for six hours of their work shift, submitted used filtering facepiece respirators and medical masks and completed questionnaires to assess frequency and types of interactions with potentially infected patients. Room air samples were collected using bioaerosol samplers, and surface swabs were collected from high-contact surfaces within the adult emergency department. Personal and room bioaerosol samples, surface swabs, and filtering facepiece respirators were analyzed for influenza A by polymerase chain reaction.ResultsInfluenza was identified in 42% (53/125) of personal bioaerosol samples, 43% (28/ 96) of room bioaerosol samples, 76% (23/30) of pooled surface samples, and 25% (3/12) of the filtering facepiece respirators analyzed. Influenza copy numbers were greater in personal bioaerosol samples (17 to 631 copies) compared to room bioaerosol samples (16 to 323 copies). Regression analysis suggested that the amount of influenza in personal samples was approximately 2.3 times the amount in room samples (Wald χ2 = 16.21, p<0.001).ConclusionsHealthcare personnel may encounter increased concentrations of influenza virus when in close proximity to patients. Occupations that require contact with patients are at an increased risk for influenza exposure, which may occur throughout the influenza season. Filtering facepiece respirators may become contaminated with influenza when used during patient care.

Project description:BackgroundComprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is difficult to perform in the emergency department (ED) environment and performance of screening tools in identifying vulnerable older ED patients who are best candidates for a geriatric consultation remain questionable.AimTo determine the characteristics of older patients referred for a geriatric consultation by ED staff and to investigate these patients' subsequent healthcare utilization.MethodsSecondary analysis of data previously collected for a prospective observational study of patients aged 75 + years visiting the ED of an academic hospital in Switzerland over four months (Michalski-Monnerat et al., J Am Geriatr Soc 68(12):2914-20, 2020). Socio-demographic, health, functional (basic activities of daily living; BADL), cognitive, and affective status data were collected at admission by a research nurse using a standardized brief geriatric assessment. Information on geriatric consultations, hospitalization, discharge destination, and 30-day readmission were retrieved from hospital database. Bivariable and multivariable analyses were performed using this data set collected previously.ResultsThirty-two (15.8%) of the 202 enrolled patients were referred for a geriatric consultation. Compared to the others, they were older (84.9 ± 5.4 vs 82.9 ± 5.4 years, p = .03), more impaired in BADL (4.8 ± 1.6 vs 5.5 ± 1.0, p = .01), with more comorbid conditions (5.3 ± 1.5 vs 4.5 ± 1.9, p = .03), more frequently admitted after a fall (43.7% vs 19.4%, p = .01), and hospitalized over the previous 6-month period (53.1% vs 30.6%, p = .02). Multivariable analyses that adjusted for variables significantly associated with outcomes in bivariable analysis found that being admitted after a fall (AdjOR 4.0, 95%CI 1.7-9.4, p < .01) and previously hospitalized (AdjOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.2, p = .02) remained associated with increased odds of consultation, whereas the inverse association with BADL performance remained (AdjOR 0.7, 95%CI 0.5-0.9, p = .01). Patients referred for geriatric consultation had higher odds of hospitalization (84.4% vs 49.4%; AdjOR 5.9, 95%CI 2.1-16.8, p < .01), but similar odds of home discharge when admitted, and of 30-day readmission.ConclusionAbout one in six older ED patients were referred for a geriatric consultation who appeared to be those most vulnerable, as suggested by their increased hospitalization rate. Alternative strategies are needed to enhance access to geriatric consultation in the ED.

Project description:ObjectivesPatients with acute symptoms present not only to general practitioners (GPs), but also frequently to emergency departments (EDs). Patients' decision processes leading up to an ED self-referral are complex and supposed to result from a multitude of determinants. While they are key providers in primary care, little is known about GPs' perception of such patients. This qualitative study explores the GPs' view regarding motives and competences of patients self-referring to EDs, and also GPs' rationale for or against physician-initiated ED referrals.DesignQualitative study with semi-structured, face-to-face interviews; qualitative content analysis.SettingGP practices in Berlin, Germany.Participants15 GPs (female/male: 9/6; mean age 53.6 years).ResultsThe interviewed GPs related a wide spectrum of factors potentially influencing their patients' decision to visit an ED, and also their own decision-making in potential referrals. Considerations go beyond medical urgency. Statements concerning patients' surmised rationale corresponded to GPs' reasoning in a variety of important areas. For one thing, the timely availability of an extended spectrum of diagnostic and therapeutic options may make ED services attractive to both. Access difficulties in the ambulatory setting were mentioned as additional triggers for an ED visit initiated by a patient or a GP. Key patient factors like severity of symptoms and anxiety also play a major role; a desire for reassurance may lead to both self-referred and physician-initiated ED visits. Patients' health competence was prevailingly depicted as limited, with the internet as an important influencing factor. Counselling efforts by GP were described as crucial for improving health literacy.ConclusionsHealth education could hold promise when aiming to reduce non-urgent ED consultations. Primary care providers are in a key position here. Amelioration of organisational shortages in ambulatory care, for example, limited consultation hours, might also make an important impact, as these trigger both self-referrals and GP-initiated ED referrals.Trial registration numberDRKS00011930.

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.ResultsOver 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.ConclusionsAmong unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Project description:ObjectiveTo map the physician approach when determining disposition for a patient who presents without the level of definite medical acuity that would generally warrant hospitalisation.Data sources/study settingSince 2018, our US academic county hospital/trauma centre has maintained a database in which hospitalists ('triage physicians') document the rationale and outcomes of requests for admission to the acute care medical ward during each shift.Study designNarrative text from the database was analysed using a grounded theory approach to identify major themes and subthemes, and a conceptual model of the admission decision-making process was constructed.ParticipantsDatabase entries were included (n=300) if the admission call originated from the emergency department and if the triage physician characterised the request as potentially inappropriate because the patient did not have definite medical acuity.ResultsAdmission decision making occurs in three main phases: evaluation of unmet needs, assessment of risk and re-evaluation. Importantly, admission decision making is not solely based on medical acuity or clinical algorithms, and patients without a definite medical need for admission are hospitalised when physicians believe a potential issue exists if discharged. In this way, factors such as homelessness, substance use disorder, frailty, etc, contribute to admission because they raise concern about patient safety and/or barriers to appropriate treatment. Physician decision making can be altered by activities such as care coordination, advocacy by the patient or surrogate, interactions with other physicians or a change in clinical trajectory.ConclusionsThe decision to admit ultimately remains a clinical determination constructed between physician and patient. Physicians use a holistic process that incorporates broad consideration of the patient's medical and social needs with emphasis on risk assessment; thus, any analysis of hospitalisation trends or efforts to impact such should seek to understand this individual-level decision making.

Project description:IntroductionLaw enforcement officers (LEO) interact with patients and clinicians in the emergency department (ED) for many reasons. There is no current consensus on what should comprise, or how to best enact, guidelines that ideally balance LEO activities in the service of public safety with patient health, autonomy, and privacy. The purpose of this study was to explore how a national sample of emergency physicians (EP) perceives activities of LEOs during the delivery of emergency medical care.MethodsMembers of the Emergency Medicine Practice Research Network (EMPRN) were recruited via an email-delivered, anonymous survey that elicited experiences, perceptions, and knowledge of policies that guide interactions with LEOs in the ED. The survey included multiple-choice items, which we analyzed descriptively, and open-ended questions, which we analyzed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsOf 765 EPs in the EMPRN, 141 (18.4%) completed the survey. Respondents represented diverse locations and years in practice. A total of 113 (82%) respondents were White, and 114 (81%) were male. Over a third reported LEO presence in the ED on a daily basis. A majority (62%) perceived LEO presence as helpful for clinicians and clinical practice. When asked about the factors deemed highly important in allowing LEOs to access patients during care, 75% reported patients' potential as a threat to public safety. A small minority of respondents (12%) considered the patients' consent or preference to interact with LEOs. While 86% of EPs felt that information-gathering by LEO was appropriate in the ED setting, only 13% were aware of policy to guide these decisions. Perceived barriers to implementation of policy in this area included: issues of enforcement; leadership; education; operational challenges; and potential negative consequences.ConclusionFuture research is warranted to explore how policies and practices that guide intersections between emergency medical care and law enforcement impact patients, clinicians, and the communities that health systems serve.

Dataset Information

Are patients who call a primary care office referred to the emergency department by non-healthcare personnel without the input of a physician?

Publications

Are patients who call a primary care office referred to the emergency department by non-healthcare personnel without the input of a physician?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets