Frequent use of the hospital emergency department is indicative of high use of other health care services

2001 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 561-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Hansagi ◽  
Mariann Olsson ◽  
Stefan Sjöberg ◽  
Ylva Tomson ◽  
Sara Göransson
Author(s):  
Younghwan Shin ◽  
Sangdo Kim ◽  
Jong-Moon Chung ◽  
Hyun Soo Chung ◽  
Sang Gil Han ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 004947552097594
Author(s):  
Prateek Kumar Panda ◽  
Indar Kumar Sharawat

While the world battles to wrestle with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, regions with endemic dengue fever are confronting the possibility of a double pandemic that could completely overpower health care services administrations. Simultaneous outbreaks of dengue and COVID-19, as well as probable cases of overlapping infections, have already started in Latin America and certain Asian countries. There, the healthcare framework is already overburdened and such a deadly duo may completely overwhelm hospital emergency services quite apart from a country’s economy. Precise epidemiological and contact history-taking joined with due attention to false-positive dengue serology and the chance of co-infections are key devices for frontline doctors to overcome this seemingly insurmountable challenge.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 130-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK R. WICCLAIR

Hospitals sometimes refuse to provide goods and services or honor patients’ decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment for reasons that appear to resemble appeals to conscience. For example, based on the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERD), Catholic hospitals have refused to forgo medically provided nutrition and hydration (MPNH), and Catholic hospitals have refused to provide emergency contraception (EC) and perform abortions or sterilization procedures. I consider whether it is justified to refuse to offer EC to victims of sexual assault who present at the emergency department (ED). A preliminary question, however, is whether a hospital’s refusal to provide services can be conceptualized as conscience based.


Author(s):  
Chadd K. Kraus

Commonly defined as having greater than four emergency department (ED) visits in a year, patients who are frequent users of the ED make up an estimated 3.5% to 10% of all ED visits and have been reported to account for nearly a third of all ED use. Frequent ED users have higher mortality, higher hospital admission rates, and higher use of all health care services, both specialty and primary care, compared to other patients using the ED. These patients should have the autonomy to access ED evaluation and care if he or she believes he or she has a medical emergency. This principle has been codified into both federal and many state laws protecting the “prudent layperson standard.” These patients should not be coerced to not seek ED care if the person believes he or she has an emergent condition.


1980 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gudjon Magnusson

The role of hospital emergency departments has gradually changed, particularly in large urban areas, where these departments have increasingly become outpatient clinics for everyday ailments rather than centres for the treatment of injuries and emergencies. The main objectives for the present study were: (1) to compare the utilization of district general practitioners and the hospital emergency department by a defined population; (2) estimate how many of the visits to the hospital emergency department are general practitioner-type visits. The results demonstrate the pattern of medical care usage in an area with hospital emergency department services which provide a 24-hour availability and open access, while the primary care services are available only during office hours, are understaffed and have limited access. The study is based on a 1/30 sample (1032 individuals) from the population in the catchment area of a health centre in Stockholm. During the study period (15 months) 30% of the population visited the hospital emergency department, while 15% consulted district general practitioners. Of the visits to the hospital emergency department, 17 per cent were for injuries and between 39 and 64% were general practice-type visits, according to the criteria used in the study.


1988 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-595
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Enfield ◽  
David P. Sklar

AbstractAlarm about the adverse effects of transferring emergency patients for economic reasons has resulted in federal legislation aimed at curbing the practice. We review the history of common law hospital liability for denial of emergency care and analyze the federal legislation designed to restrict the transfer of medically indigent patients with emergency problems. We conclude that the currently proposed solutions to patient dumping will have limited effectiveness without more specific incentives for the provision of health care to the medically indigent.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document