scholarly journals Impact of a Cancer Urgent Care Clinic on Regional Emergency Department Visits

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. e501-e509
Author(s):  
Arthur S. Hong ◽  
Thomas Froehlich ◽  
Stephanie Clayton Hobbs ◽  
Simon J. Craddock Lee ◽  
Ethan A. Halm
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Interrupted Time Series Analysis ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Urgent Care Clinic

PURPOSE: Did the creation of an urgent care clinic specifically for patients with cancer affect emergency department visits among adults newly diagnosed with cancer? PATIENTS AND METHODS: We applied an interrupted time series analysis to adjusted monthly emergency department visits made by adults age 18 years or older who were diagnosed with cancer between 2009 and 2016 at a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer registry patients were linked to a longitudinal regional database of emergency department and hospital visits. Because the urgent care clinic was closed on weekends, we took advantage of the natural experiment by comparing weekend visits as a control group. Our primary outcome was emergency department visits within 180 days after a cancer diagnosis, compiled as adjusted monthly rates of emergency department visits per 1,000 patient-months. We analyzed subsequent hospitalizations as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The rate of weekday emergency department visits was increasing at a rate of 0.43 visits (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.57 visits) per month before May 2012, then fell in half to a rate of 0.19 visits (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.28 visits) per month ( P = .007) after the urgent care clinic was established. In contrast, the weekend visit rate was growing at a rate of 0.08 visits (95% CI, −0.03 to 0.19 visits) per month before May 2012 and 0.05 (95% CI, −0.02 to 0.13 visits; P = .533) afterward. By the end of 2016, there were 15.3 fewer monthly weekday emergency department visits than expected ( P = .005). Trends in weekday hospitalizations were not significantly changed. CONCLUSION: Although only one in eight emergency department–visiting patients also used the urgent care clinic, the growth rate of emergency department visits fell by half after the urgent care clinic was established.

Safety and outcomes of a cancer patient urgent care clinic.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6542-6542
Author(s):  
Jack S Bevins ◽  
Hannah Fullington ◽  
Thomas W. Froehlich ◽  
Stephanie Hobbs ◽  
Ethan Halm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Chief Complaints ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
Urgent Care Clinic ◽  
Advanced Stage Cancer

6542 Background: Several cancer centers describe cancer-patient dedicated urgent care clinic (UCC) that address commonly anticipated complaints of adults with cancer. UCC may be capable of preventing some ED visits, but little is known of the safety and outcomes for patients after a UCC visit. Methods: We identified UCC visits made by adults at our comprehensive cancer center between 2013-2016 and compared the cohort to patients who did not visit the UCC. We linked patients to tumor registry data and their electronic health record from the UCC visit, then tracked ED visits, inpatient and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions occurring within 24 hours of the UCC visit. Results: Between 2013-2016, 551 patients generated 772 UCC visits, compared to 17,496 who did not visit. UCC users had significantly (p<0.001) more advanced-stage cancer than non-UCC users (37.3% vs 18.9%), but there were no significant differences in mean age, race/ethnicity, or death within 180 days of diagnosis. The most common chief complaints accounted for nearly half of all UCC visits: (17.4%), URI symptoms/fever (12.6%), nausea/vomiting/diarrhea (7.8%), and fatigue/weakness (7.6%). After 10.0% of UCC visits, patients had an ED visit, while 12.3% were admitted to the hospital; only 5 UCC visits (0.7%) had an associated ICU stay. Most patients (75.7%) only had a single UCC visit, but patients who visited the UCC more often tended to have higher rates of ED visits and hospitalizations within 24 hours (Table). The mean time from UCC arrival to ED arrival was 3.0 hours, and 6.5 hours from UCC arrival to inpatient arrival. Conclusions: The majority of patients seen in UCC did not require ED or inpatient hospitalization. Patients with subsequent ED or inpatient visits had minimal delays in care. Findings suggest that triaging cancer patients for commonly anticipated complaints to a UCC does not result in high rates of mis-triaging or major delays in care. Patients with ED, Inpatient, or ICU visit after UCC, stratified by UCC visits per patient (2013-2016). [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Syncope: Assessment of risk and an approach to evaluation in the emergency department and urgent care clinic

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baris Akdemir ◽  
Balaji Krishnan ◽  
Tunay Senturk ◽  
David G. Benditt
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Urgent Care Clinic

scholarly journals Characteristics of Emergency Department Visits and Select Predictors of Hospitalization for Adults With Newly Diagnosed Cancer in a Safety-Net Health System

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. e490-e500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur S. Hong ◽  
Navid Sadeghi ◽  
Valorie Harvey ◽  
Simon Craddock Lee ◽  
Ethan A. Halm
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Health System ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Medication Refill ◽  
Urban Safety ◽  
Ed Visits

PURPOSE: There is little description of emergency department (ED) visits and subsequent hospitalizations among a safety-net cancer population. We characterized patterns of ED visits and explored nonclinical predictors of subsequent hospitalization, including time of ED arrival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer (excluding leukemia and nonmelanoma skin cancer) between 2012 and 2016 at a large county urban safety-net health system. We identified ED visits occurring within 180 days after a cancer diagnosis, along with subsequent hospitalizations (observation stay or inpatient admission). We used mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression to model hospitalization at ED disposition, accounting for variability across patients and emergency physicians. RESULTS: The 9,050 adults with cancer were 77.2% nonwhite and 55.0% female. Nearly one-quarter (24.7%) of patients had advanced-stage cancer at diagnosis, and 9.7% died within 180 days of diagnosis. These patients accrued 11,282 ED visits within 180 days of diagnosis. Most patients had at least one ED visit (57.7%); half (49.9%) occurred during business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:59 pm), and half (50.4%) resulted in hospitalization. More than half (57.5%) of ED visits were for complaints that included: pain/headache, nausea/vomiting/dehydration, fever, swelling, shortness of breath/cough, and medication refill. Patients were most often discharged home when they arrived between 8:00 am and 11:59 am (adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84). CONCLUSION: ED visits are common among safety-net patients with newly diagnosed cancer, and hospitalizations may be influenced by nonclinical factors. The majority of ED visits made by adults with newly diagnosed cancer in a safety-net health system could potentially be routed to an alternate site of care, such as a cancer urgent care clinic.

A solution to reducing avoidable emergency department visits: Implementation of an outpatient oncology acute care clinic.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13517-e13517
Author(s):  
Sadaf Charania ◽  
Judy Devlin ◽  
Edie Brucker ◽  
Shayna Simon ◽  
Christine Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Outpatient Basis ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Ed Visits

e13517 Background: Emergency Department (ED) utilization by oncology patients accounts for more than 4.5 million visits in the United States annually, leading to hospitalization four times the rate of the general population.1,2 Many ED visits are the result of symptoms related to cancer or cancer treatment that can be managed on an outpatient basis. Unnecessary admissions lead to possible delays in cancer treatment and increased burden on healthcare resources.3 Simmons Acute Care (SAC), an advanced practice provider (APP)-led clinic, was established in August 2020 to provide an alternative model of oncology care to address these issues. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of key stakeholders was formed to develop an action plan. Institutional data was reviewed to identify the timing and volume of ED visits by oncology patients. Clinic hours were set Monday through Friday, 7:00am – 7:00pm, and referrals were made from primary oncology providers. Evidence-based clinical pathways were developed to standardize patient management, and a data collection plan was implemented to measure outcomes. Internal communications to patients and presentations at staff and faculty meetings occurred to inform patients and clinical staff/providers. Results: From August to December 2020, 165 patient visits were completed in SAC, 141 patients discharged home, 14 patients directly admitted to the hospital, and 10 patients transferred to the ED for a higher level of care. Based on data from 2020, the average cost of an ED visit for an oncology patient was $5,500 and increased to $28,500 if the patient is admitted. Patients with hematologic and gastrointestinal malignancies represented approximately 30% of all visits. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most frequent presenting chief complaint. Conclusions: Supporting oncology patients in the ambulatory setting provided a reduction in admissions and unnecessary ED visits, leading to cost savings/avoidance to the patient and health system. Based on internal cost analyses, there are potential savings of over $2 million to the organization during this 5-month period. Additional studies are underway to assess patient satisfaction, as well as the economic impact for patients. 1. Rui PKK. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2015 emergency department summary tables. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs/web_tables/2015_ed_web_tables.pdf 2. Hong AS, Froehlich T, Clayton Hobbs S, Lee SJC, Halm EA. Impact of a Cancer Urgent Care Clinic on Regional Emergency Department Visits. J Oncol Pract. 2019;15(6):e501-e509. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00743 3. Roy M, Halbert B, Devlin S, Chiu D, Graue R, Zerillo JA. From metrics to practice: identifying preventable emergency department visits for patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. Published online November 7, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05874-3

scholarly journals Patient Perspectives on the Experience of Being Newly Diagnosed with HIV in the Emergency Department/Urgent Care Clinic of a Public Hospital

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e74199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katerina A. Christopoulos ◽  
Amina D. Massey ◽  
Andrea M. Lopez ◽  
C. Bradley Hare ◽  
Mallory O. Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Public Hospital ◽  
Patient Perspectives ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Urgent Care Clinic

scholarly journals Patients who leave the emergency department without being seen by a physician: a control-matched study

CJEM ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (02) ◽  
pp. 107-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Monzon ◽  
Steven Marc Friedman ◽  
Collin Clarke ◽  
Tamara Arenovich
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Wait Time ◽  
Subjective Health ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Medical Attention ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Subjective Health Status ◽  
Care Clinic

ABSTRACTObjective:To describe the socio-demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who leave the emergency department (ED) without being seen by a physician.Methods:This 3-month prospective study was conducted at a downtown Toronto teaching hospital. Patients who left the ED without being seen (LWBS) were matched with controls based on registration time and triage level. Subjects and controls were interviewed by telephone within 1 week after leaving the ED.Results:During the study period, 386 (3.57%) of 10 808 ED patients left without being seen. One-third of these had no fixed address or no telephone, and only 92 (23.8%) consented to a telephone interview. They cited excessive wait time as the most common reason for leaving the ED (in 36.7% of cases). Despite leaving the ED without being seen, they were no more likely than those in the control group to seek follow-up medical attention (70 % in both groups). Among those from both groups who did seek follow-up, the LWBS patients were more likely to do so the same day or the day after leaving the ED. The LWBS patients often lacked a regular physician (39.1% v. 21.7%;p= 0.01) and were more likely to attend an ED or urgent care clinic (34.8% v. 12.0%;p&lt; 0.001). Controls were more likely to follow up with a family physician (37.0% v. 23.9%;p= 0.06). The LWBS and control groups did not differ in subjective health status at 48 hours after leaving the ED, nor in subsequent re-investigation in hospital.Conclusions:Patients who leave the ED without being seen have different socio-demographic features, methods of accessing the health care system, affiliations and expectations than the general ED population. They are often socially disenfranchised, with limited access to traditional primary care. These patients are generally low acuity, but they are at risk of important and avoidable adverse outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document