scholarly journals Emergency department visits by patients with venous thromboembolism, 1998-2009

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hussain Yusuf ◽  
James Tsai ◽  
Azfar-E-Alam Siddiqi ◽  
Sheree Boulet ◽  
J. Michael Soucie
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Care Survey ◽  
Outpatient Settings ◽  
Ambulatory Medical Care

Background: Substantial morbidity and mortality may result from venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Many VTE cases are diagnosed in outpatient settings, such as emergency departments. The purpose of this study was to estimate and characterize emergency department visits by patients with a primary diagnosis of VTE. Methods: Data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) for the years 1998-2009 were analyzed.  NHAMCS uses a complex multistage design to sample non-federal short-term care hospitals across the United States.  Emergency department visits with a primary diagnosis of VTE were identified using ICD-9-CM codes indicating a primary diagnosis of DVT or PE. Results: Between 2006-2009, an annual average of 201,000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 152,000-251,000) emergency department visits were made in the U.S. by patients with a primary diagnosis of VTE as per the criteria used in this study, which was a rate of approximately 67 (95% CI 50-83) per 100,000 population.  The rates during 1998-2001 and 2002-2005 were 31 (95% CI 21-40) and 46 (95% CI 35-57), respectively. The rate of visits with a primary diagnosis of VTE was higher among patients >61 years of age, when compared to younger patients.  Among visits between 1998-2009, selected characteristics that differed between visits by patents with  and without a primary diagnosis of VTE included the patient having been discharged from a hospital in the past seven days (11.7%, vs. 2.1%, p<0.01). Conclusion: A substantial number of emergency department visits are made by patients with a primary diagnosis of VTE. Groups with higher likelihood of VTE related visits may include older adults and those recently discharged from a hospital.

scholarly journals 1099. Antibiotic Prescriptions for Acute Gastroenteritis during Office and Emergency Department Visits–United States, 2006–2015

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S330-S330
Author(s):  
Jennifer P Collins ◽  
Louise Francois Watkins ◽  
Laura M King ◽  
Monina Bartoces ◽  
Katherine Fleming-Dutra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Acute Gastroenteritis ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Care Survey ◽  
Ambulatory Medical Care

Abstract Background Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is a major cause of office and emergency department (ED) visits in the United States. Most patients can be managed with supportive care alone, although some require antibiotics. Limiting unnecessary antibiotic use can minimize side effects and the development of resistance. We used national data to assess antibiotic prescribing for AGE to target areas for stewardship efforts. Methods We used the 2006–2015 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey of EDs and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to describe antibiotic prescribing for AGE. An AGE visit was defined as one with a new problem (&lt;3 months) as the main visit indication and an ICD-9 code for bacterial or viral gastrointestinal infection or AGE symptoms (nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea). We excluded visits with ICD-9 codes for Clostridium difficile or an infection usually requiring antibiotics (e.g., pneumonia). We calculated national annual percentage estimates based on weights of sampled visits and used an α level of 0.01, recommended for these data. Results Of the 12,191 sampled AGE visits, 13% (99% CI: 11–15%) resulted in antibiotic prescriptions, equating to an estimated 1.3 million AGE visits with antibiotic prescriptions annually. Antibiotics were more likely to be prescribed in office AGE visits (16%, 99% CI: 12–20%) compared with ED AGE visits (11%, 99% CI: 9–12%; P &lt; 0.01). Among AGE visits with antibiotic prescriptions, the most frequently prescribed were fluoroquinolones (29%, 99% CI: 21–36%), metronidazole (18%, 99% CI: 13–24%), and penicillins (18%, 99% CI: 11–24%). Antibiotics were prescribed for 25% (99% CI: 8–42%) of visits for bacterial AGE, 16% (99% CI: 12–21%) for diarrhea without nausea or vomiting, and 11% (99% CI: 8–15%) for nausea, vomiting, or both without diarrhea. Among AGE visits with fever (T ≥ 100.9oF) at the visit, 21% (99% CI: 11–31%) resulted in antibiotic prescriptions. Conclusion Patients treated for AGE in office settings were significantly more likely to receive prescriptions for antibiotics compared with those seen in an ED, despite likely lower acuity. Antibiotic prescribing was also high for visits for nausea or vomiting, conditions that usually do not require antibiotics. Antimicrobial stewardship for AGE is needed, especially in office settings. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Analysis of Emergency Department Visits for All Reasons by Adults with Depression in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler Hill ◽  
Yun Jiang ◽  
Christopher Friese ◽  
Lynae Darbes ◽  
Christopher K. Blazes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Care ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Admission Rates ◽  
Representative Study ◽  
Care Survey ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Ambulatory Medical Care

Abstract Background : We aimed to characterize Emergency Department (ED) utilization and outcomes of patients with depression seeking emergency care for all reasons. Methods : Using 2014–2016 ED data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, we investigated demographics, ED resource utilization, clinical characteristics, and disposition of patients with depression versus those without depression. Results : Approximately 10,626,184 (11.4%) out of 92,899,685 annual ED visits were by patients with depression. ED patients with depression were mostly non-Hispanic White (74.0%) and were less likely to be male than patients without depression (aOR: 0.56; [95%] CI: 0.56–0.56). ED patients with depression were more likely to be admitted to the hospital (aOR: 1.56; CI: 1.55–1.56) and intensive care unit (ICU) (aOR: 1.28; CI: 1.27–1.28) than patients without depression. Among ED patients with depression, males were more likely than females to be seeking emergency care for psychiatric reasons (aOR: 2.04; CI: 2.03–2.05) and to present with overdose/poisoning (aOR: 1.35; CI: 1.34–1.36). Conclusions : We described the unique demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics of ED patients with depression, using the most comprehensive, nationally representative study to date. We revealed notable gender disparities in rates and reasons for admissions. The higher hospital and ICU admission rates of ED patients with depression suggests this population requires a higher level of emergency care, for reasons that remain poorly understood.

scholarly journals Emergency Department Visits for Mental Health Conditions Among US Children, 2001-2011

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (14) ◽  
pp. 1359-1366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan E. Simon ◽  
Kenneth C. Schoendorf
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
White Children ◽  
Mental Health Issues ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Care Survey ◽  
Ambulatory Medical Care ◽  
Us Children

We examined mental health–related visits to emergency departments (EDs) among children from 2001 to 2011. We used the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey—Emergency Department, 2001-2011 to identify visits of children 6 to 20 years old with a reason-for-visit code or ICD-9-CM diagnosis code reflecting mental health issues. National percentages of total visits, visit counts, and population rates were calculated, overall and by race, age, and sex. Emergency department visits for mental health issues increased from 4.4% of all visits in 2001 to 7.2% in 2011. Counts increased 55 000 visits per year and rates increased from 13.6 visits/1000 population in 2001 to 25.3 visits/1000 in 2011 ( P < .01 for all trends). Black children (all ages) had higher visit rates than white children and 13- to 20-year-olds had higher visit rates than children 6 to 12 years old ( P < .01 for all comparisons). Differences between groups did not decline over time.

scholarly journals Emergency Department Visits and Trends Related to Cocaine, Psychostimulants, and Opioids in the United States, 2008-2018

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie W. Suen ◽  
Thibaut Davy-Mendez ◽  
Kathy T. LeSaint ◽  
Elise D. Riley ◽  
Phillip Coffin
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Drug Toxicity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Stimulant Use ◽  
Care Survey ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Psychiatric Complications

Abstract Background Drug-related emergency department (ED) visits are escalating, especially for stimulant use (i.e., cocaine and psychostimulants such as methamphetamine). We sought to characterize rates, presentation, and management of US ED visits related to cocaine and psychostimulant use, compared to opioid use. Methods We used 2008–2018 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data to identify a nationally representative sample of ED visits related to cocaine and psychostimulant use, with opioids as the comparator. We excluded visits related to ≥2 of the three possible drug categories. We estimated annual rate trends using unadjusted Poisson regression; described demographics, presenting concerns, and management; and determined associations between drug-type and presenting concerns (categorized as psychiatric, neurologic, cardiopulmonary, and drug toxicity/withdrawal) using logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and homelessness. Results Cocaine-related ED visits did not significantly increase, while psychostimulant-related ED visits increased from 2008 to 2018 (2.2 visits per 10,000 population to 12.9 visits per 10,000 population; p < 0.001). Cocaine-related ED visits had higher usage of cardiac testing, while psychostimulant-related ED visits had higher usage of chemical restraints than opioid-related ED visits. Cocaine- and psychostimulant-related ED visits had greater odds of presenting with cardiopulmonary concerns (cocaine adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.95, 95% CI 1.70–5.13; psychostimulant aOR 2.46, 95% CI 1.42–4.26), while psychostimulant-related visits had greater odds of presenting with psychiatric concerns (aOR 2.69; 95% CI 1.83–3.95) and lower odds of presenting with drug toxicity/withdrawal concerns (aOR 0.47, 95%CI 0.30–0.73) compared to opioid-related ED visits. Conclusion Presentations for stimulant-related ED visits differ from opioid-related ED visits: compared to opioids, ED presentations related to cocaine and psychostimulants are less often identified as related to drug toxicity/withdrawal and more often require interventions to address acute cardiopulmonary and psychiatric complications.

Current management of migraine in US emergency departments: An analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

Cephalalgia ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin W Friedman ◽  
Jason West ◽  
David R Vinson ◽  
Mia T Minen ◽  
Andrew Restivo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
National Hospital ◽  
Frequency Of Use ◽  
Care Survey ◽  
Ambulatory Medical Care

Background Published data from 1998 revealed that most patients treated for migraine in an emergency department received opioids. Over the intervening years, a large body of evidence has emerged demonstrating the efficacy and safety of non-opioid alternatives. Expert opinion during these years has cautioned against use of opioids for migraine. Our objectives were to compare current frequency of use of various medications for acute migraine in US emergency departments with use of these same medications in 1998 and to identify factors independently associated with opioid use. Methods We analyzed National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 2010, the most current dataset available. The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey is a public dataset collected and distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a multi-stage probability sample from randomly selected emergency departments across the country, designed to be representative of all US emergency department visits. We included in our analysis all patients with the ICD9 emergency department discharge diagnosis of migraine. We tabulated frequency of use of specific medications in 2010 and compared these results with the 1998 data. Using a logistic regression model, into which all of the following variables were entered, we explored the independent association between any opioid use in 2010 and sex, age, race/ethnicity, geographic region, type of hospital, triage pain score and history of emergency department use within the previous 12 months. Results In 2010, there were 1.2 (95% confidence interval 0.9, 1.4) million migraine visits to US emergency departments. Including opioid-containing oral analgesic combinations, opioids were administered in 59% of visits (95% confidence interval 51, 67). The most commonly used parenteral agent, hydromorphone, was used in 25% (95% confidence interval 19, 33) of visits in 2010 versus less than 1% (95% confidence interval 0, 3) in 1998. Conversely, use of meperidine had decreased markedly over the same timeframe. In 2010, it was used in just 7% (95% confidence interval 4, 12) of visits compared to 37% (95% confidence interval 29, 45) in 1998. Metoclopramide, the most commonly used anti-dopaminergic, was administered in 17% (95% confidence interval 12, 23) of visits in 2010 and 3% (95% confidence interval 1, 6) of visits in 1998. Use of any triptan was relatively uncommon in 2010 (7% (95% confidence interval 4, 11) of visits) and in 1998 (10% (95% confidence interval 6, 15) of visits). Of the predictor variables listed above, only emergency department use within the previous 12 months was associated with opioid administration (adjusted odds ratio: 2.87 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 7.97)). Conclusions In spite of recommendations to the contrary, opioids are still used in more than half of all emergency department visits for migraine. Though use of meperidine has decreased markedly between 1998 and 2010, it has largely been replaced by hydromorphone. Opioid use in migraine visits is independently associated with prior visits to the same emergency department in the previous 12 months.

Abstract 204: Emergency Department Visits for Heart Failure and Subsequent Hospitalization or Observation Unit Admission

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saul Blecker ◽  
Joseph Ladapo ◽  
Kelly Doran ◽  
Keith Goldfeld ◽  
Stuart Katz
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Prevalence Ratio ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Observation Unit ◽  
Discharge Disposition ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Care Survey ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
Ambulatory Medical Care

Background: Although the majority of hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) originate in the emergency department (ED), many of these patients might be adequately treated and released in the ED or managed for a short period in an observation unit. Both ED and observation management have been shown to reduce costs and avoid the penalties related to rehospitalization. The purpose of this study was to examine trends in ED visits for HF and disposition following these visits. Because of increasing policy pressure to reduce rehospitalization for HF, we hypothesized that the number of HF patients hospitalized by ED providers decreased over time with a concurrent increase in admissions to the observation unit. We further hypothesized that the overall number of ED visits for HF decreased as a result of improved therapy for HF the last two decades. Methods: We used the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) to estimate rates and characteristics of ED visits for HF between 2002 and 2010. The primary outcome was the discharge disposition from the ED. Regression models were fit to estimate trends and predictors of hospitalization and admission to an observation unit. Results: The number of ED visits for HF remained stable over the period, from 914,739 in 2002 to 848,634 in 2010 (annual change -0.7%; 95% CI -3.7% - +2.5%). Of these visits, 74.2% led to hospitalization while 3.1% led to observation unit admission (Figure). The likelihood of hospitalization did not change during the period (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01 for each additional year) while admission to observation increased annually (aPR 1.11; 95% CI 1.00-1.23). We observed significant regional differences: as compared to other regions, patients in the Northeast were more likely to be hospitalized (aPR 1.15; 95% CI 1.07-1.22) but less likely to be admitted to an observation unit (aPR 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-1.02). Conclusions: The number of ED visits for HF has remained stable in the last decade. Although observation unit admissions increased during this period, they constituted a relatively small number of dispositions and did not appear to attenuate the substantial number of ED visits that resulted in hospitalization. Opportunities may exist to reduce hospitalizations by increasing short term management of HF in the observation unit.

scholarly journals Justification for Collecting Urgent Care Data to Broaden Syndromic Surveillance

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David J Swenson ◽  
Em Stephens ◽  
Samuel P Prahlow ◽  
Adejare Atanda
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Syndromic Surveillance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Relative Standard ◽  
Ambulatory Medical Care

Objective: Provide justification for the collection and reporting of urgent care (UC) data for public health syndromic surveillance.Introduction: While UC does not have a standard definition, it can generally be described as the delivery of ambulatory medical care outside of a hospital emergency department (ED) on a walk-in basis, without a scheduled appointment, available at extended hours, and providing an array of services comparable to typical primary care offices.1 UC facilities represent a growing sector of the United States healthcare industry, doubling in size between 2008 and 2011.1 The Urgent Care Association of America (UCAOA) estimates that UC facilities had 160 million patient encounters in 2013.2 This compares to 130.4 million patient encounters in EDs in 2013, as reported by the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.3 Public Health (PH) is actively working to broaden syndromic surveillance to include urgent care data as more individuals use these services.4 PH needs justification when reaching out to healthcare partners to get buy-in for collecting and reporting UC data.Description: The International Society for Disease Surveillance (ISDS) Community of Practice (CoP) platform was used to host a webinar introducing the topic of urgent care participation in syndromic surveillance. This webinar provided a valuable opportunity to obtain insight from jurisdictions pursuing and using UC data. A workgroup was formed to create documentation justifying the collection and reporting of UC data. Using this forum, the workgroup brought together partners from various jurisdictions working with UC data to participate in a literature review of SCOPUS, PubMed, and the Online Journal of Public Health Informatics publications and to share their experiences. These two main sources of information – previous literature and jurisdictional experience – were combined and condensed to provide tangible justifications for the collection and use of UC data.While the workgroup found little in the literature to justify the collection of UC data as a part of syndromic surveillance, the shared experiences of the CoP jurisdictions working to onboard UC facilities provided valuable insight. From this collaborative response, three main reasons to collect UC data were identified.1) Healthcare reform is directing patients away from EDs and toward UC facilities. UC represents reduced cost and more efficient patient processing, thus easing the burden on both patient and healthcare system (according to a 2016 American Academy of Pediatrics article entitled “Urgent Care and Emergency Department Visits in the Pediatric Medicaid Population”). If syndromic surveillance does not adapt to include UC data, the potential exists to lose significant patient populations, which may lead to decreased situational awareness.2) According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Stage 3 guidance, Meaningful Use (MU) will change the relationship between eligible professionals (EPs) and syndromic surveillance by restricting EPs to those who practice in a UC facility. This approach to EP participation simplifies the syndromic surveillance MU objective, thereby making it easier for PH jurisdictions to onboard UC facilities.3) Patients with certain conditions that are acute but non-emergent may report more frequently to an UC facility than to an ED. Broadening syndromic surveillance to include UC facilities may increase reporting of “rare event” encounters, which will lower the relative standard error for statistical calculation. Surveillance efforts for conditions like influenza-like illness and Zika virus may improve substantially with a larger data pool.How the Moderator Intends to Engage the Audience in Discussions on the Topic: The moderator will begin discussion with a brief presentation from the literature review and jurisdictional experience, highlighting three justifications for collecting and reporting UC data. The audience will be divided into 3 groups to discuss and validate 3 additional topics: creation of syndromic surveillance talking points to share with UC facility management, creation of jurisdictional UC facility listings, and UC onboarding best practices. Feedback from the 3 groups will be shared with the whole group, followed by a brief summary of the discussion and recommendations for next steps.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document