4.3 Article

Practice Characteristics That Influence Nonurgent Pediatric Emergency Department Utilization

期刊

ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 70-74

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2009.10.001

关键词

access to care; pediatric emergency department; primary care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective.-The goal of this study was to determine what characteristics of a primary care pediatric practice are associated with nonurgent use of the pediatric emergency department (FED). Methods.-Primary care practice characteristics were prospectively collected from 33 practices. Nonurgent and urgent visits to the PED for patients from these practices were analyzed retrospectively. A discriminant analysis classification model was used to identify practice characteristics that were associated with nonurgent versus urgent utilization of the FED. Results.-Patients in the network of 33 practices accounted for 31 076 visits to the FED during the 12-month study period, 47% of which were classified as nonurgent. Based on the discriminant analysis classification model, discriminant patterns that predict the frequency of nonurgent utilization included the percentage of patients with Medicaid, total available sick slots to see patients per physician, closer distance to the PED, whether or not the nurse triage line notified all on-call physicians of disposition to the PED, whether it is practice policy to accept all walk-in sick visits, and ability of practice to have same-day turnaround of laboratory tests. Conclusions.-Nonurgent utilization of the PED by patients in a specific primary care practice can be predicted based on discriminant practice characteristics, several of which may be modifiable. Use of these predictive rules can be used to optimize pediatric services and policy to help mitigate the high volume of FED nonurgent visitation. Focused interventions on practice characteristics of significance may help reduce FED overcrowding and improve continuity of care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据