Self-referrals in the emergency department: reasons why patients attend the emergency department without consulting a general practitioner first-a questionnaire study

Contains fulltext : 152707.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: To influence self-referral, it is crucial to know a patient's motives to directly visit the emergency department (ED). The goal of this study is to examine motives for self-referral to the ED and compare these motives in relation to appropriateness. METHODS: All self-referred patients visiting the ED of a Dutch hospital over four separate months in a 1-year period were included. Patients were handed questionnaires that included questions on their reasons to visit the ED directly and where they would seek medical help next time. Additionally, the motives of patients that either appropriately or inappropriately visited the ED were compared. In a previous study on the same patient cohort, the appropriateness of the ED visits was determined using predefined criteria. RESULTS: A total of 3196 self-referred patients were included, and 48.9 % completed the questionnaires. The majority of patients (28.0 %) attended the ED without a referral because they thought they would get help faster; the next reason was the easier access to radiologic and laboratory investigations (answered by 23.8 %); and the third was the symptoms were considered too severe to visit a general practitioner (GP) (answered by 22.7 %). The majority (78.5 %) would attend the ED the next time they are faced with similar symptoms. Appropriate visits were significantly more seen in females, elderly, and patients in higher triage categories. Patients who expect investigations are necessary, think their symptoms are too severe to visit a GP, or would return to the ED next time were more often appropriately visiting the ED. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of patients to self-refer to an ED is often an explicate decision. Patients are looking for specialist help and want fast and easy access to radiologic and laboratory investigations. Even though the primary care network is well developed in the Netherlands, the reasons for self-referral are similar to the reasons found in previous literature based in other countries. Patients who visit the ED because of health concerns visit the ED more often appropriately than patients visiting for practical reasons

Motives for self-referral to the emergency department: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND: In several western countries patients' use of Emergency Departments (EDs) is increasing. A substantial number of patients is self-referred, but does not need emergency care. In order to have more influence on unnecessary self-referral, it is essential to know why patients visit the ED without referral. The goal of this systematic review therefore is to explore what motivates self-referred patients in those countries to visit the ED. METHODS: Recommendations from the PRISMA were used to search and analyze the literature. The following databases; PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from inception up to the first of February 2015. The reference lists of the included articles were screened for additional relevant articles. All studies that reported on the motives of self-referred patients to visit an ED were selected. The reasons for self-referral were categorized into seven main themes: health concerns, expected investigations; convenience of the ED; lesser accessibility of primary care; no confidence in general practitioner/primary care; advice from others and financial considerations. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thirty publications were identified from the literature studied. The most reported themes for self-referral were 'health concerns' and 'expected investigations': 36% (95% Confidence Interval 23-50%) and 35% (95% CI 20-51%) respectively. Financial considerations most often played a role in the United States with a reported percentage of 33% versus 4% in other countries (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Worldwide, the most important reasons to self-refer to an ED are health concerns and expected investigations. Financial considerations mainly play a role in the United States

Introducing copayments in the emergency department would deter appropriate visits in the Netherlands

Item does not contain fulltex

Self-referrals in a Dutch Emergency Department: how appropriate are they?

OBJECTIVE: Self-referred visits account for an average of 30% of all Emergency Department (ED) visits in the Netherlands. Some of these are considered inappropriate, because patients receive care that a GP can provide. Worldwide, studies have used various methods to determine the proportion of inappropriate visits by self-referred patients, resulting in diverging percentages. The aim of this study was to find a reliable percentage of appropriate visits to the ED by self-referred patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: This observational, prospective study was performed in the ED of a hospital in the Netherlands. Data were collected on all self-referred patients in four separate months over 1 year. The appropriateness of an ED visit was determined at two time points: first, after primary assessment of the patient, using predefined criteria, and second the moment the patient left the ED, on the basis of the diagnosis and treatment received. Finally, the perspective of the patients was taken into account using a questionnaire. RESULTS: In 4 months 3196 self-referred patients were included. In all, 1862 (58.8%) visits were classified as appropriate according to the predefined criteria. When the second time point was taken into consideration, 48.1% of the patients had a secondary care diagnosis and/or needed secondary care treatment, classifying their visits as appropriate. According to the opinion of the patients 76.7% classified their visit as appropriate. CONCLUSION: The percentage of appropriate ED visits by self-referred patients in the Netherlands ranges from 48.1 to 58.8%, as determined using two different methods

The most commonly used disease severity scores are inappropriate for risk stratification of older emergency department sepsis patients: an observational multi-centre study

Background Sepsis recognition in older emergency department (ED) patients is difficult due to atypical symptom presentation. We therefore investigated whether the prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores were appropriate for risk stratification of older ED sepsis patients (≥70 years) compared to a younger control group (<70 years). Methods This was an observational multi-centre study using an existing database in which ED patients who were hospitalized with a suspected infection were prospectively included. Patients were stratified by age < 70 and ≥70 years. We assessed the association with in-hospital mortality (primary outcome) and the area under the curve (AUC) with receiver operator characteristics of the Predisposition, Infection, Response, Organ dysfunction (PIRO), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Mortality in ED Sepsis (MEDS), and the Modified and National Early Warning (MEWS and NEWS) scores. Results In-hospital mortality was 9.5% ((95%-CI); 7.4–11.5) in the 783 included older patients, and 4.6% (3.6–5.7) in the 1497 included younger patients. In contrast to younger patients, disease severity scores in older patients associated poorly with mortality. The AUCs of all disease severity scores were poor and ranged from 0.56 to 0.64 in older patients, significantly lower than the good AUC range from 0.72 to 0.86 in younger patients. The MEDS had the best AUC (0.64 (0.57–0.71)) in older patients. In older and younger patients, the newly proposed qSOFA score (Sepsis 3.0) had a lower AUC than the PIRO score (sepsis 2.0). Conclusion The prognostic and discriminative performance of the five most commonly used disease severity scores was poor and less useful for risk stratification of older ED sepsis patients

Why patients self-refer to the Emergency Department: A qualitative interview study

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: There have been multiple studies investigating reasons for patients to self-refer to the Emergency Department (ED). The majority made use of questionnaires and excluded patients with urgent conditions. The goal of this qualitative study is to explore what motives patients have to self-refer to an ED, also including patients in urgent triage categories. METHODS: In a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands, a qualitative interview study focusing on reasons for self-referring to the ED was performed. Self-referred patients were included until no new reasons for attending the ED were found. Exclusion criteria were as follows: not mentally able to be interviewed or not speaking Dutch. Patients who were in need of urgent care were treated first, before being asked to participate. Interviews followed a predefined topic guide. Practicing cyclic analysis, the interview topic guide was modified during the inclusion period. Interviews were recorded on an audio recorder, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized. Two investigators independently coded the information and combined the codes into meaningful clusters. Subsequently, these were categorized into themes to build a framework of reasons for self-referral to the ED. Characteristic quotes were used to illustrate the acquired theoretical framework. RESULTS: Thirty self-referred patients were interviewed. Most of the participants were male (63%), with a mean age of 46 years. Two main themes emerged from the interviews that are pertinent to the patients' decisions to attend the ED: (1) health concerns and (2) practical issues. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that there are 2 clearly distinctive reasons for self-referral to the ED: health concerns or practical motives. Self-referral because of practical motives is probably most suitable for strategies that aim to reduce inappropriate ED visits

Development and validation of an admission prediction tool for emergency departments in the Netherlands

Item does not contain fulltex

Inclusion of emergency department patients in early stages of sepsis in a quality improvement programme has the potential to improve survival: a prospective dual-centre study

Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc

The association between time to antibiotics and relevant clinical outcomes in emergency department patients with various stages of sepsis: a prospective multi-center study

Introduction: In early sepsis stages, optimal treatment could contribute to prevention of progression to severe sepsis. Therefore, we investigated if there was an association between time to antibiotics and relevant clinical outcomes in hospitalized emergency department (ED) patients with mild to severe sepsis stages. Methods: This is a prospective multicenter study in three Dutch EDs. Patients were stratified into three categories of illness severity, as assessed by the predisposition, infection, response, and organ failure (PIRO) score: PIRO score 1 to 7, 8 to 14 and >14 points, reflected low, intermediate, and high illness severity, respectively. Consecutive hospitalized ED patients with a suspected infection who were treated with intravenous antibiotics were eligible to participate in the study. The primary outcome measure was the number of surviving days outside the hospital at day 28 which was used as an inverse measure of hospital length of stay (LOS). The secondary outcome measure was 28-day mortality, taking into account the time to mortality. Results: Of the 1,168 included patients, 112 died (10%), while 85% and 95% received antibiotics within three and six hours, respectively. No association between time to antibiotics and surviving days outside the hospital or mortality was found. Only in PIRO group 1 to 7 was delayed administration of antibiotics (>3 hours) associated with an increase in surviving days outside the hospital at day 28 (hazard ratio: 1.46, 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 2.02 after correction for potential confounders). Conclusions: In ED patients with mild to severe sepsis who received antibiotics within six hours after ED presentation, a reduction in time to antibiotics was not found to be associated with an improvement in relevant clinical outcomes

New clinical prediction model for early recognition of sepsis in adult primary care patients: a prospective diagnostic cohort study of development and external validation

BACKGROUND: Recognising patients who need immediate hospital treatment for sepsis while simultaneously limiting unnecessary referrals is challenging for GPs. AIM: To develop and validate a sepsis prediction model for adult patients in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective cohort study in four out-of-hours primary care services in the Netherlands, conducted between June 2018 and March 2020. METHOD: Adult patients who were acutely ill and received home visits were included. A total of nine clinical variables were selected as candidate predictors, next to the biomarkers C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate. The primary endpoint was sepsis within 72 hours of inclusion, as established by an expert panel. Multivariable logistic regression with backwards selection was used to design an optimal model with continuous clinical variables. The added value of the biomarkers was evaluated. Subsequently, a simple model using single cut-off points of continuous variables was developed and externally validated in two emergency department populations. RESULTS: A total of 357 patients were included with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range 71-86), of which 151 (42%) were diagnosed with sepsis. A model based on a simple count of one point for each of six variables (aged >65 years; temperature >38°C; systolic blood pressure ≤110 mmHg; heart rate >110/min; saturation ≤95%; and altered mental status) had good discrimination and calibration (C-statistic of 0.80 [95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 0.84]; Brier score 0.175). Biomarkers did not improve the performance of the model and were therefore not included. The model was robust during external validation. CONCLUSION: Based on this study's GP out-of-hours population, a simple model can accurately predict sepsis in acutely ill adult patients using readily available clinical parameters