4.5 Article

Resource utilization and health care charges associated with the most frequent ED users

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 10, 页码 1215-1219

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.07.013

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objective: Emergency department (ED) visits have continued to rise, and frequent ED users account for up to 8% of all ED visits. Reducing visits by frequent ED users may be one way to help reduce health care costs. We hypothesize that frequent users have unique ED utilization patterns resulting in differences in health care charges. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical records from an urban community teaching hospital for the year 2012 comparing the top 108 frequent ED users (>12 visits/year) to a randomly selected group of 108 nonfrequent users (<4 visits/year). We compared demographic characteristics, distance lived from the hospital, medical and psychiatric history, substance abuse history, diagnostic testing, disposition, and amount charged to the patient for each visit. We compared data using chi(2) for proportions and t test or Wilcoxon rank sum based on normality of the data. Results: The top 108 frequent ED users accounted for 1922 visits (2.9%), whereas the 108 nonfrequent users accounted for 150 visits (0.2%), in 2012 (all ED visits n = 65,398). Frequent users were more often unemployed, have public insurance, have mental health conditions, use tobacco, have a greater number of allergies to medications, and live closer to the hospital (P < .01). Disposition and median charge per visit did not differ between frequent and nonfrequent users ($1220 vs $1280). The total charges of the frequent ED users' visits were $10,465,216.07 versus $1,012,610.21 for nonfrequent users. Conclusions: Frequent users have unique medical and social characteristics; however, disposition and visit charges did not differ from nonfrequent users. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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