Prior Frequent Emergency Department Use as a Predictor of Emergency Department Visits After a New Cancer Diagnosis

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00889
Author(s):  
Arthur S. Hong ◽  
Danh Q. Nguyen ◽  
Simon Craddock Lee ◽  
D. Mark Courtney ◽  
John W. Sweetenham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Safety Net Hospital ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
After Cancer

PURPOSE: To determine whether emergency department (ED) visit history prior to cancer diagnosis is associated with ED visit volume after cancer diagnosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥ 18 years) with an incident cancer diagnosis (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers or leukemia) at an academic medical center between 2008 and 2018 and a safety-net hospital between 2012 and 2016. Our primary outcome was the number of ED visits in the first 6 months after cancer diagnosis, modeled using a multivariable negative binomial regression accounting for ED visit history in the 6-12 months preceding cancer diagnosis, electronic health record proxy social determinants of health, and clinical cancer-related characteristics. RESULTS: Among 35,090 patients with cancer (49% female and 50% non-White), 57% had ≥ 1 ED visit in the 6 months immediately following cancer diagnosis and 20% had ≥ 1 ED visit in the 6-12 months prior to cancer diagnosis. The strongest predictor of postdiagnosis ED visits was frequent (≥ 4) prediagnosis ED visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 3.68; 95% CI, 3.36 to 4.02). Other covariates associated with greater postdiagnosis ED use included having 1-3 prediagnosis ED visits (aIRR: 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.36), Hispanic (aIRR: 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.17) and Black (aIRR: 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.25) race, homelessness (aIRR: 1.95; 95% CI, 1.73 to 2.20), advanced-stage cancer (aIRR: 1.30; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.35), and treatment regimens including chemotherapy (aIRR: 1.44; 95% CI, 1.40 to 1.48). CONCLUSION: The strongest independent predictor for ED use after a new cancer diagnosis was frequent ED visits before cancer diagnosis. Efforts to reduce potentially avoidable ED visits among patients with cancer should consider educational initiatives that target heavy prior ED users and offer them alternative ways to seek urgent medical care.

scholarly journals Emergency Department Visits for Opioid Overdoses Among Patients With Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 112 (9) ◽  
pp. 938-943 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikram Jairam ◽  
Daniel X Yang ◽  
James B Yu ◽  
Henry S Park
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Temporal Trends ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Opioid Overdose ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Ed Visits

Abstract Background Patients with cancer may be at risk of high opioid use due to physical and psychosocial factors, although little data exist to inform providers and policymakers. Our aim is to examine overdoses from opioids leading to emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer in the United States. Methods The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample was queried for all adult cancer-related patient visits with a primary diagnosis of opioid overdose between 2006 and 2015. Temporal trends and baseline differences between patients with and without opioid-related ED visits were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with opioid overdose. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Between 2006 and 2015, there were a weighted total of 35 339 opioid-related ED visits among patients with cancer. During this time frame, the incidence of opioid-related ED visits for overdose increased twofold (P < .001). On multivariable regression (P < .001), comorbid diagnoses of chronic pain (odds ratio [OR] 4.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.13 to 4.93), substance use disorder (OR = 3.54, 95% CI = 3.28 to 3.82), and mood disorder (OR = 3.40, 95% CI = 3.16 to 3.65) were strongly associated with an opioid-related visit. Patients with head and neck cancer (OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.82 to 2.28) and multiple myeloma (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.32 to 2.26) were also at risk for overdose. Conclusions Over the study period, the incidence of opioid-related ED visits in patients with cancer increased approximately twofold. Comorbid diagnoses and primary disease site may predict risk for opioid overdose.

Relationship of emergency department use pre- and post-cancer diagnosis in safety-net adults.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6626-6626
Author(s):  
Arthur Hong ◽  
Navid Sadeghi ◽  
John Vernon Cox ◽  
Simon Craddock Lee ◽  
Ethan Halm
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Advanced Stage ◽  
Seeking Behavior ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
Advanced Stage Cancer

6626 Background: Safety-net adults generate a high rate of emergency department (ED) visits within the 180 days after a new cancer diagnosis, many of which could be alternatively triaged to an urgent care clinic. It is unclear how much of this ED use is attributable to the cancer and treatment vs. ED-seeking behavior. To identify patients at risk of frequent ED use, we explored whether a patient’s pre-cancer ED visit use predicted ED use after diagnosis. Methods: We identifiably linked adults from the tumor registry in the Dallas County safety-net health system to a regional hospital database with claims-like data for all patients from 98% of non-federal hospitals in North Texas. We applied a mixed-effects multivariate logit model, using frequent ED use (≥4 visits) in the 6-12 months or 12-18 months before diagnosis to predict frequent ED use after diagnosis, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities; cancer type, stage, initial treatment modalities; and grouping visits at the patient level. Results: Of 8,610 adults diagnosed from 2012-2016, 76.2% had Medicaid or were uninsured, 30.9% had lung, breast, or colorectal cancer, and 25.9% had advanced-stage cancer at diagnosis. In the 180 days after diagnosis, 42.5% of patients had zero ED visits, 45.7% had 1-3 visits, and 11.8% were frequent ED users (≥4). In multivariate analysis, patients with frequent ED use in the 6-12 months before a cancer diagnosis had 6.7 higher odds (95% CI: 4.8, 9.3) of having frequent ED use after diagnosis, compared to patients who had zero ED visits prior to diagnosis. This compared to 1.3 higher odds (95% CI: 1.1, 1.5) of frequent ED use if the patient had advanced-stage cancer, and 2.1 higher odds (95% CI: 1.8, 2.4) if chemotherapy was part of initial treatment. Although most post-diagnosis frequent ED users generated zero visits (62.2%) or 1-3 visits (30.7%) in the 6-12 months prior to diagnosis, 38% of patients with frequent ED use pre-diagnosis continued frequent ED visits after diagnosis. Results were similar for ED use 12-18 months prior to diagnosis. Conclusions: Among safety-net adults, prior ED-seeking behavior strongly predicted ED use after a new cancer diagnosis. This may represent a high-risk group that might benefit from care delivery innovation.

Emergency department visits for prescription and synthetic opioid overdoses among patients with cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6579-6579
Author(s):  
Vikram Jairam ◽  
Daniel X. Yang ◽  
James B. Yu ◽  
Henry S. Park
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Cancer Site ◽  
Opioid Overdose ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Rate Of Increase ◽  
Ed Visits

6579 Background: Patients with cancer may be at high risk of opioid dependence due to physical and psychosocial factors, although little data exists to inform providers and policymakers. Our aim is to examine overdoses from prescription and synthetic opiates leading to emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer in the United States. Methods: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (HCUP-NEDS) was queried for all patient visits with a primary diagnosis of prescription or synthetic opioid overdose between 2006 and 2015. Baseline differences between patients with and without cancer were assessed using chi-square and ANOVA testing. Overdose rates by primary cancer site were normalized using prevalence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Weighted frequencies were used to create national estimates for all data analyses. Results: There were 682,820 weighted ED visits for synthetic opioid overdose, among which 34,547 (5.1%) visits were also associated with a diagnosis of cancer. During this timeframe, ED visits for opioid overdose among patients with cancer increased 2.5-fold, compared to 1.7-fold among those without cancer. 16.5% of patients with cancer had metastatic disease. Patients with cancer presenting for opioid overdose had higher risk of hospital admission (74.8% vs 49.6%), respiratory intubation (13.2% vs 12.2%), mortality (2.1% vs 1.1%), and cost-of-hospital-stay ($32,665 vs $31,824) compared to their non-cancer counterparts (all P < 0.05). Primary cancers with the highest normalized overdose rates (ED visits per 10,000 patients) were esophagus (134), liver & intrahepatic bile duct (124), and cervical cancer (124). Other common cancers had the following normalized overdose rates: lung (105), head and neck (70), and breast (26). Conclusions: Approximately 5% of all ED visits due to prescription and synthetic opioid overdose are among patients with cancer. The rate of increase in ED visits due to opioid overdose from cancer patients was nearly 50% higher than that from non-cancer patients over the 10-year study period. Patients with esophageal, liver, and cervical cancer may be at highest risk.

Patterns and Results of Triage Advice Before Emergency Department Visits Made by Patients With Cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00617
Author(s):  
Arthur S. Hong ◽  
Hannah Chang ◽  
D. Mark Courtney ◽  
Hannah Fullington ◽  
Simon J. Craddock Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Telephone Triage ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
The University

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer undergoing treatment frequently visit the emergency department (ED) for commonly anticipated complaints (eg, pain, nausea, and vomiting). Nearly all Medicare Oncology Care Model (OCM) participants prioritized ED use reduction, and the OCM requires that patients have 24-hour telephone access to a clinician, but actual reductions in ED visits have been mixed. Little is known about the use of telephone triage for acute care. METHODS: We identified adults aged 18+ years newly diagnosed with cancer, linked to ED visits from a single institution within 6 months after diagnosis, and then analyzed the telephone and secure electronic messages in the preceding 24 hours. We coded interactions to classify the reason for the call, the main ED referrer, and other attempted management. We compared the acuity of patient self-referred versus clinician-referred ED visits by modeling hospitalization and ED visit severity. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2018, 3,247 adults made 5,371 ED visits to the university hospital and self-referred to the ED 58.5% of the time. Clinicians referred to outpatient or oncology urgent care for 10.3% of calls but referred to the ED for 61.3%. Patient self-referred ED visits were likely to be hospitalized (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], 0.89, 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.22) and were not more severe (aOR, 0.75, 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02) than clinician referred. CONCLUSION: Although patients self-referred for six of every 10 ED visits, self-referred visits were not more severe. When patients called for advice, clinicians regularly recommended the ED. More should be done to understand barriers that patients and clinicians experience when trying to access non-ED acute care.

Palliative home care and emergency department visits in the last 30 and 90 days of life: a retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2021-002889
Author(s):  
Jennifer Mracek ◽  
Madalene Earp ◽  
Aynharan Sinnarajah
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Home Care ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Palliative Home Care ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Diagnosis Of Cancer ◽  
Ed Visits

ObjectivesEvaluate the association of specialist palliative home care (HC) on emergency department (ED) visits in the 30 and 90 days prior to death.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study using administrative data identified 6976 adults deceased from cancer between 2008 and 2015, living ≥180 days after diagnosis of cancer, and residing in the urban Calgary Zone of Alberta Health Services. All palliative HC and generalist HC services were examined. Regression analyses examined the relationships of HC type to ED visits in the last 30 or 90 days of life.ResultsIn the last 30 days of life, compared with patients receiving palliative HC, patients receiving only generalist HC, or no HC, were more likely to visit the ED (OR)generalist-HC 1.19; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34; ORno-HC 1.54; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.82). In the last 90 days of life, compared with patients receiving palliative HC, those receiving generalist HC (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.32 to 1.67) and no HC (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.39 to 1.99) had increased odds of visiting the ED.ConclusionsReceiving generalist HC and no HC was associated with increased odds of visiting the ED in the last 30 and 90 days of life, when compared with patients receiving palliative HC. Improving access to palliative HC for patients at high risk of visiting the ED may reduce ED visits and acute care costs and improve quality of life in the last 90 days of life.

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.

scholarly journals Younger Dual-Eligibles Who Use Federally Qualified Health Centers Have More Preventable Emergency Department Visits, but Some Have Fewer Hospitalizations

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Potter ◽  
Amal N. Trivedi ◽  
Brad Wright
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Care Service ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Federally Qualified Health Centers ◽  
Dual Eligibles ◽  
Ed Visits

Objective: To determine whether younger dual-eligibles receiving care at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have lower rates of ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits. Data Sources: We used the 100% Medicare Part A and Part B institutional claims from 2007 to 2010 for dual-eligibles younger than 65 years, enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare, who received care at an FQHC or lived in a primary care service area with an FQHC. Methods: Our cross-sectional analysis used negative binomial regressions to model ACS hospitalizations and ED visits as a function of prior year FQHC use. The model adjusted for beneficiary age, gender, race, and chronic diseases, as well as county fixed effects, time trends, and race-FQHC use interactions. Results: FQHC use is associated with a decrease in ACS hospitalization rates for whites (2.8 per 1000 persons), but an increase among blacks (2.5 per 1000 persons). FQHC use is also associated with an increase in ACS ED visits, from 27 to 33 more visits per 1000 persons per year, depending on patient race. Conclusions: ACS hospital use is higher for FQHC users than nonusers, but white FQHC users have fewer ACS hospitalizations. More research is needed to understand how this relationship varies within and between centers.

Emergency department visits during the 4/20 cannabis celebration

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 187-192
Author(s):  
John A Staples ◽  
Ketki Merchant ◽  
Shannon Erdelyi ◽  
Adam Lund ◽  
Jeffrey R Brubacher
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Care Service ◽  
Negative Binomial Regression ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Service Planning ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Adjusted Relative Risk ◽  
Ed Visits

BackgroundAnnual ‘4/20’ cannabis festivals occur around the world on April 20 and often feature synchronised consumption of cannabis at 4:20 pm. The relationship between these events and demand for emergency medical services has not been systematically studied.MethodsWe conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study in Vancouver, Canada, using 10 consecutive years of data (2009–2018) from six regional hospitals. The number of emergency department (ED) visits between 4:20 pm and 11:59 pm on April 20 were compared with the number of visits during identical time intervals on control days 1 week earlier and 1 week later (ie, April 13 and April 27) using negative binomial regression.ResultsA total of 3468 ED visits occurred on April 20 and 6524 ED visits occurred on control days. A non-significant increase in all-cause ED visits was observed on April 20 (adjusted relative risk: 1.06; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12). April 20 was associated with a significant increase in ED visits among prespecified subgroups including a 5-fold increase in visits for substance misuse and a 10-fold increase in visits for intoxication. The hospital closest to the festival site experienced a clinically and statistically significant 17% (95% CI 5.1% to 29.6%) relative increase in ED visits on April 20 compared with control days.InterpretationSubstance use at annual ‘4/20’ festivals may be associated with an increase in ED visits among key subgroups and at nearby hospitals. These findings may inform harm reduction initiatives and festival medical care service planning.

Are ED visits in cancer patients preventable? Care patterns before an ED visit.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2023-2023
Author(s):  
Arthur Hong ◽  
Hannah Fullington ◽  
Navid Sadeghi ◽  
John V. Cox ◽  
Stephanie Clayton Hobbs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Severity Of Illness ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Secure Messaging ◽  
Outpatient Visits ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
After Cancer ◽  
Clinic Visits

2023 Background: Medicare’s Oncology Care Model alternative payment program participation requires 24-hr patient access to clinician phone advice. Many participating practices have established oncology urgent care clinics to reduce the frequent ED visits in the early phase after cancer diagnosis. However, little is known about patients’ use of pre-ED visit clinical advice via phone. We combined EHR data on phone/secure messaging encounters, outpatient visits, and regional ED visits, to assess how often patients visit the ED without prior clinical advice, and to compare ED visit severity between those with and without preceding clinical advice. Methods: We linked adults ages 18+ from Parkland Health and Hospital System (PHHS), the Dallas County public safety net system, and UT Southwestern (UTSW) NACR Gold-certified cancer registry (2012-2018), to their respective EHR, and identifiably linked patients to a regional health information exchange of ED and hospital encounters. Exchange data included hospital name, ED disposition, diagnoses, and ED Severity Of Illness. We tallied ED visits within 6 months (180 days) after cancer diagnosis and EHR clinical contacts for 24 hours prior to ED visit (telephone/secure messaging, outpatient visits). After descriptive statistics, we used mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression clustering at patient level to model ED disposition after a pre-ED clinical contact. Results: We matched 8,289 Parkland (54% female, 78% Medicaid/charity assistance) and 10,817 UTSW patients (50% female, 12% Medicaid), who generated 21,009 and 22,696 ED visits, respectively. Two-thirds of all ED visits occurred without preceding clinical contact (70.2% PHHS, 66.7% UTSW); large shares of ED visits were to 67 other regional hospitals (22.2% PHHS, 69.5% UTSW). Telephone encounters and outpatient visits to any specialty were the most common contact before ED visit (UTSW: 28.2 and 12.4%; PHHS: 8.7 and 16.1%), but while nearly all UTSW clinic visits were to oncology, only 30% of PHHS clinic visits were to oncology. Though ED visit severity was slightly higher for ED visits without preceding clinical contact (46% vs. 43% ≥Major severity, p < 0.01), patients were discharged home more often if clinical contact preceded ED visits (aOR of hospitalization 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74 – 0.90). Conclusions: Two-thirds of ED visits occurred without prior clinical contact, and though these no-contact ED visits had higher severity of illness, they were more often discharged home from the ED. Future work should identify patient-oriented options to optimize the use of clinical care and the ED.

Prospectively assessing risk of acute care utilization for patients with an active cancer diagnosis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 208-208
Author(s):  
Valerie Pracilio Csik ◽  
Adam Binder ◽  
Michael Li ◽  
Nathan Handley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Significant Variable ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Acute Care Utilization ◽  
Active Cancer

208 Background: Acute care utilization (ACU)--emergency department visits or hospitalizations--is common in patients with cancer. As many as 83% of all patients with cancer visit the emergency department annually; nearly three quarters of patients with advanced cancer are hospitalized in the year after diagnosis. Much of this ACU may be preventable. Identifying patients at risk for ACU using model-based approaches has shown potential for risk stratifying certain patient subgroups. However, a model applicable to any patient with an active cancer diagnosis is needed. We developed a real time clinical prediction model to assess risk for acute care utilization in patients with an active cancer diagnosis. Methods: We completed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with an active cancer diagnosis (defined as at least one medical oncology encounter in a 12 month period) at one health system. Clinical factors with potential to impact disease progression and ACU were identified through a clinical review. Significant variables were defined by multivariate logistic regression. Risk of ACU was further characterized through the development of a point scoring system to define the upper decile of patients at highest risk. Results: We included 8,246 patient records in the analysis. Seven variables were determined to be statistically significant: An emergency department visit in the last 90 days, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, low hemoglobin, low albumin, and low absolute neutrophil count. The model produced an overall C-statistic of 0.726 Each significant variable was assigned a score of 0 or 1 (with the exception of ED visits, which were given one point for each visit, with three points maximum). Each patient received a total score, resulting from the summation of the individual variable scores. An evaluation of the distribution of points determined that 10% of the patients achieved a score of 2 or higher and contributed to 46% of ACU in the last 90 days. Patients receiving 0 points were defined as low risk (73% of patients contributing to 30% of ED/admissions). Patients receiving 1 point were deemed intermediate risk (17% of patients contributing to 24% of ED/admissions). Conclusions: Risk of acute care utilization for patients with an active cancer diagnosis can be prospectively assessed. This tool is currently integrated into our clinical practice and is updated every 14 days, or any time the chart is accessed. Assessment of efficacy is ongoing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document