4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

National Study of Emergency Department Observation Services

Journal

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages 959-965

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01151.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The objective was to describe patient and facility characteristics of emergency department (ED) observation services in the United States. Methods: The authors analyzed the 2007 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHA-MCS). Characteristics of EDs with observation units (OUs) were compared to those without, and patients with a disposition of ED observation were compared to those with a short-stay (< 48 hour) hospital admission. Results are descriptive and without formal statistical comparisons for this observational analysis. Results: An estimated 1,746 U. S. EDs (36%) reported having OUs, of which 56% are administratively managed by ED staff. Fifty-two percent of hospitals with ED-managed OUs are in an urban location, and 89% report ED boarding, compared to 29 and 65% of those that do not have an OU. The admission rate is 38% at those with ED-managed OUs and 15% at those without OUs. Of the 15.1% of all ED patients who are kept in the hospital following an ED visit, one-quarter are kept for either a short-stay admission (1.8%) or an ED observation admission (2.1%). Most (82%) ED observation patients were discharged from the ED. ED observation patients were similar to short-stay admission patients in terms of age (median = 52 years for both, interquartile range = 36 to 70 years), self-pay (12% vs. 10%), ambulance arrival (37% vs. 36%), urgent/emergent triage acuity (77% vs. 74%), use of >= 1 ED medication (64% vs. 76%), and the most common primary chief complaints and primary diagnoses. Conclusions: Over one-third of U.S. EDs have an OU. Short-stay admission patients have similar characteristics as ED observation patients and may represent an opportunity for the growth of OUs. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2011; 18: 959-965 (C) 2011 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available