Emergency department visits for non-life-threatening conditions : evolution over 13 years in a Swiss urban teaching hospital

INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of visits to our Emergency Department (ED) are for non-life-threatening conditions. We investigated whether patients' characteristics and reasons for consultation had changed over 13 years. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with non-life-threatening conditions at triage were included in the spring of 2000 and in the summer of 2013. In both years patients completed a similar questionnaire, which addressed their reasons for consultation and any previous consultation with a general practitioner (GP). RESULTS: We included 581 patients in 2013 vs 516 in 2000, with a mean age of 44.5 years vs 46.4 years (p=0.128). Of these patients, 54.0% vs 57.0% were male (p=0.329), 55.5% vs 58.7% were Swiss (p=0.282), 76.4% were registered with a GP in both periods, but self-referral increased from 52.0% to 68.8% (p<0.001); 57.7% vs., 58.3% consulted during out-of- hours (p=0.821). Trauma-related visits decreased from 34.2% to 23.7% (p<0.001). Consultations within 12 hours of onset of symptoms dropped from 54.5% to 30.9%, and delays of ≥1 week increased from 14.3% to 26.9% (p<0.001). The primary motive for self-referral remained unawareness of an alternative, followed in 2013 by dissatisfaction with the GP's treatment or appointment. Patients who believed that their health problem would not require hospitalisation increased from 52.8% to 74.2% and those who were actually hospitalised decreased from 24.9% to 13.9% (all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The number of visits for non-life-threatening consultations continue to increase. Our ED is used by a large proportion of patients as a convenient alternative source of primary care.

Case management for frequent users of the emergency department: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We devised a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an intervention based on case management care for frequent emergency department users. The aim of the intervention is to reduce such patients' emergency department use, to improve their quality of life, and to reduce costs consequent on frequent use. The intervention consists of a combination of comprehensive case management care and standard emergency care. It uses a clinical case management model that is patient-identified, patient-directed, and developed to provide high intensity services. It provides a continuum of hospital- and community-based patient services, which include clinical assessment, outreach referral, and coordination and communication with other service providers. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to recruit, during the first year of the study, 250 patients who visit the emergency department of the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland. Eligible patients will have visited the emergency department 5 or more times during the previous 12 months. Randomisation of the participants to the intervention or control groups will be computer generated and concealed. The statistician and each patient will be blinded to the patient's allocation. Participants in the intervention group (N = 125), additionally to standard emergency care, will receive case management from a team, 1 (ambulatory care) to 3 (hospitalization) times during their stay and after 1, 3, and 5 months, at their residence, in the hospital or in the ambulatory care setting. In between the consultations provided, the patients will have the opportunity to contact, at any moment, the case management team. Participants in the control group (N = 125) will receive standard emergency care only. Data will be collected at baseline and 2, 5.5, 9, and 12 months later, including: number of emergency department visits, quality of life (EuroQOL and WHOQOL), health services use, and relevant costs. Data on feelings of discrimination and patient's satisfaction will also be collected at the baseline and 12 months later. DISCUSSION: Our study will help to clarify knowledge gaps regarding the positive outcomes (emergency department visits, quality of life, efficiency, and cost-utility) of an intervention based on case management care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01934322.

Frequent users of the emergency department in a universal health coverage system : a randomized controlled trial of a case-management intervention

BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department users represent a small number of patients but account for a large number of emergency department visits. They should be a focus because they are often vulnerable patients with many risk factors affecting their quality of life (QoL). Case management interventions have resulted in a significant decrease in emergency department visits, but association with QoL has not been assessed. One aim of our study was to examine to what extent an interdisciplinary case management intervention, compared to standard emergency care, improved frequent emergency department users' QoL. METHODS: Data are part of a randomized, controlled trial designed to improve frequent emergency department users' QoL and use of health-care resources at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. In total, 250 frequent emergency department users (≥5 attendances during the previous 12 months; ≥ 18 years of age) were interviewed between May 2012 and July 2013. Following an assessment focused on social characteristics; social, mental, and somatic determinants of health; risk behaviors; health care use; and QoL, participants were randomly assigned to the control or the intervention group (n=125 in each group). The final sample included 194 participants (20 deaths, 36 dropouts, n=96 in the intervention group, n=99 in the control group). Participants in the intervention group received a case management intervention by an interdisciplinary, mobile team in addition to standard emergency care. The case management intervention involved four nurses and a physician who provided counseling and assistance concerning social determinants of health, substance-use disorders, and access to the health-care system. The participants' QoL was evaluated by a study nurse using the WHOQOL-BREF five times during the study (at baseline, and at 2, 5.5, 9, and 12 months). Four of the six WHOQOL dimensions of QoL were retained here: physical health, psychological health, social relationship, and environment, with scores ranging from 0 (low QoL) to 100 (high QoL). A linear, mixed-effects model with participants as a random effect was run to analyze the change in QoL over time. The effects of time, participants' group, and the interaction between time and group were tested. These effects were controlled for sociodemographic characteristics and health-related variables (i.e., age, gender, education, citizenship, marital status, type of financial resources, proficiency in French, somatic and mental health problems, and behaviors at risk).

Impact of case management on frequent users quality of life : a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department users represent a small number of patients but account for a large number of emergency department visits. They should be a focus because they are often vulnerable patients with many risk factors affecting their quality of life (QoL). Case management interventions have resulted in a significant decrease in emergency department visits, but association with QoL has not been assessed. One aim of our study was to examine to what extent an interdisciplinary case management intervention, compared to standard emergency care, improved frequent emergency department users' QoL. METHODS: Data are part of a randomized, controlled trial designed to improve frequent emergency department users' QoL and use of health-care resources at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. In total, 250 frequent emergency department users (≥5 attendances during the previous 12 months; ≥ 18 years of age) were interviewed between May 2012 and July 2013. Following an assessment focused on social characteristics; social, mental, and somatic determinants of health; risk behaviors; health care use; and QoL, participants were randomly assigned to the control or the intervention group (n=125 in each group). The final sample included 194 participants (20 deaths, 36 dropouts, n=96 in the intervention group, n=99 in the control group). Participants in the intervention group received a case management intervention by an interdisciplinary, mobile team in addition to standard emergency care. The case management intervention involved four nurses and a physician who provided counseling and assistance concerning social determinants of health, substance-use disorders, and access to the health-care system.

Emergency department use by oldest-old patients from 2005 to 2010 in a Swiss university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Aging of the population in all western countries will challenge Emergency Departments (ED) as old patients visit these health services more frequently and present with special needs. The aim of this study is to describe the trend in ED visits by patients aged 85 years and over between 2005 and 2010, and to compare their service use to that of patients aged 65-84 years during this period and to investigate the evolution of these comparisons over time. METHODS: Data considered were all ED visits to the University of Lausanne Medical Center (CHUV), a tertiary Swiss teaching hospital, between 2005 and 2010 by patients aged 65 years and over (65+ years). ED visit characteristics were described according to age group and year. Incidence rates of ED visits and length of ED stay were calculated. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2010, ED visits by patients aged 65 years and over increased by 26% overall, and by 46% among those aged 85 years and over (85+ years). Estimated ED visit incidence rate for persons aged 85+ years old was twice as high as for persons aged 65-84 years. Compared to patients aged 65-84 years, those aged 85+ years were more likely to be hospitalized and have a longer ED stay. This latter difference increased over time between 2005 and 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Oldest-old patients are increasingly using ED services. These services need to adapt their care delivery processes to meet the needs of a rising number of these complex, multimorbid and vulnerable patients.

Social and medical vulnerability factors of emergency department frequent users in a universal health insurance system.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to identify the social and medical factors associated with emergency department (ED) frequent use and to determine if frequent users were more likely to have a combination of these factors in a universal health insurance system. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review case-control study comparing randomized samples of frequent users and nonfrequent users at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. The authors defined frequent users as patients with four or more ED visits within the previous 12 months. Adult patients who visited the ED between April 2008 and March 2009 (study period) were included, and patients leaving the ED without medical discharge were excluded. For each patient, the first ED electronic record within the study period was considered for data extraction. Along with basic demographics, variables of interest included social (employment or housing status) and medical (ED primary diagnosis) characteristics. Significant social and medical factors were used to construct a logistic regression model, to determine factors associated with frequent ED use. In addition, comparison of the combination of social and medical factors was examined. RESULTS: A total of 359 of 1,591 frequent and 360 of 34,263 nonfrequent users were selected. Frequent users accounted for less than a 20th of all ED patients (4.4%), but for 12.1% of all visits (5,813 of 48,117), with a maximum of 73 ED visits. No difference in terms of age or sex occurred, but more frequent users had a nationality other than Swiss or European (n = 117 [32.6%] vs. n = 83 [23.1%], p = 0.003). Adjusted multivariate analysis showed that social and specific medical vulnerability factors most increased the risk of frequent ED use: being under guardianship (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 15.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7 to 147.3), living closer to the ED (adjusted OR = 4.6; 95% CI = 2.8 to 7.6), being uninsured (adjusted OR = 2.5; 95% CI = 1.1 to 5.8), being unemployed or dependent on government welfare (adjusted OR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.3 to 3.4), the number of psychiatric hospitalizations (adjusted OR = 4.6; 95% CI = 1.5 to 14.1), and the use of five or more clinical departments over 12 months (adjusted OR = 4.5; 95% CI = 2.5 to 8.1). Having two of four social factors increased the odds of frequent ED use (adjusted = OR 5.4; 95% CI = 2.9 to 9.9), and similar results were found for medical factors (adjusted OR = 7.9; 95% CI = 4.6 to 13.4). A combination of social and medical factors was markedly associated with ED frequent use, as frequent users were 10 times more likely to have three of them (on a total of eight factors; 95% CI = 5.1 to 19.6). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent users accounted for a moderate proportion of visits at the Lausanne ED. Social and medical vulnerability factors were associated with frequent ED use. In addition, frequent users were more likely to have both social and medical vulnerabilities than were other patients. Case management strategies might address the vulnerability factors of frequent users to prevent inequities in health care and related costs.

Emergency Department use by patients aged 85 years and over, between 2005 and 2010 in a Swiss university hospital

Introduction: Population ageing challenges Emergency Departments (ED) with a population shift toward higher age groups. People over 65 years are heterogenous with respect to polymorbidity and functional capacity. Complex situations become more prevalent among patients aged 85+, the fastest growing segment of the elderly population (+72% between 2010 and 2030). Objectives: To identify the trend of ED admission rates for patients aged 85+ and to compare the characteristics of their ED visits with the one of patients aged 65-84. Method: Retrospective analysis of 56162 ED admissions of patients aged 65+ at the University of Lausanne Medical Center (CHUV), from 2005 to 2010. All visits of patients aged 65+ at the time of admission were considered. Analyses focus on demographic characteristics, living arrangement, hospital admission, and median Length of Stay (LOS) in the ED. Data from 2010 were examined for the degree of emergency (DE), the main reason for visiting the ED (Swiss triage scale) and readmission at 30 days. Results: Between 2005 and 2010, ED visits of patients aged 65 years and over increased from 8228 to 10390/year (with a slight decrease of women from 56% to 54%). This is an increment of +26% i.e. 5.9 patients/day more. Patients aged 85+ increased by +46% vs +20% for the 65-84. ED visits of people aged 18-64 years raised by +20%. Among patients over 65 years, the proportion of patients aged 85 and more increased from 23% in 2005 to 27% in 2010. In 2010, 85+ patients were more likely than 65-84 patients to come from a NH setting (13% vs 4%), to be hospitalised (70% vs 59%) and to stay longer in the ED (median LOS 9 hours vs 7 hours). Readmission to ED within 30 days after discharge did not differ (85+: 14% vs 65-84: 12%) (similar proportions in 2005). In 2010, the first reason for patients 85+ to visit ED was fall/injury (27% vs 18% by 65-84), whereas the main cause for patients aged 65-84 years was a cardiovascular disorder (18% vs 16% by 85+). The part of high emergency cases was similar for patients 85+ and 65-84 (42%). Conclusion: Among aged patients those aged 85 and over are the fastest growing group admitted to ED. Compared to their younger counterparts, their reason to visit ED and their pattern of health services utilization differ due to specific epidemiological conditions. ED addressing specific needs of geriatric patients would improve their care and lead to a better use of available resources.

Support services for vulnerable patients by a multidisciplinary team in an emergency department

Introduction: Individuals with poor social determinants of health aremore likely to receive improper healthcare. Frequent Users (FUs) ofEmergency Departments (ED) (defined as >4 visits in the previous12 months) represent a subgroup of vulnerable patients presentingwith specific medical and social needs. They usually account for highhealthcare costs by overusing the healthcare system. In 2008-2009,FUs accounted for 4% of our ED patients but 17% of all our ED visits.Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort of patients admitted toour ED with vulnerabilities in ≥3 specific domains (somatic or mentaldiseases, risk behaviors, social determinants of health, and healthcareuse). Patients were either directly identified by a multidisciplinary team(two nurses, one social worker, one physician) or referred to that teamby the ED staff during opening hours from July 1st 2010 to April 30th2011.Results: 127 patients were included (67% males), aged 43 years (SD15); 65% were migrants. They had a median of 6 ED visits (interquartilerange (IQR) 8-1) in the previous 12 months, representing a total of 697visits. The most frequently affected domains during the index visit were:71% somatic, 61% psychiatric, 75% risk behaviors, 97% social and84% healthcare use issues. Each case required a median of 234minutes (IQR 300-90) dedicated to assess their outpatient network(99% of the patients), to set up an ambulatory medical follow-up (43%)or a meeting with social services (40%).Conclusions: Vulnerability affected ED patients in more than onedomain. Vulnerable patients have complex needs that were difficult toaddress in the time-pressured ED setting. Although ED consultationoffers immediate access to medical care, EDs are dedicated more foracute short-term somatic care. Caring for a growing number ofvulnerable patients requires a different type of management. Limitedevidence shows that multidisciplinary case-management interventionshave demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of reducing ED useand costs, and improvement of patient's medical and social outcomes.A randomized trial of case-management is underway to confirm theresults of observational studies.

Emergency Department Use by oldest-old Patients Between 2005 And 2010 in a Swiss University Hospital

Introduction: Population ageing challenges Emergency Departments (ED) with a population shift toward higher age groups. Patients aged 85+, represent the fastest growing segment, leading to more prevalent complex situations within ED. Method: Retrospective analysis of 56'162 ED visits of patients at the University of Lausanne Medical Center (CHUV), from 2005 to 2010. Results: ED visits of 65+ patients increased from 8'228 to 10'390/year, representing 6 patients/day more (+26%). 85+ Patients increased by +46% vs +20% for the 65-84 (+20% ED visits of people 18-64y). Median age of the 65+ ED patients increased from 78.7 to 79.3 years. 85+ patients were more likely than 65-84y patients to come from a NH setting (13% vs 4%) and to be hospitalised (70% vs 59%). Median length of stay difference between both age groups extended from 2 hours 08 min in 2005 to 2 hours 45 min in 2010. First reason to visit ED was fall/injury for 85+ patients (27%; 65-84: 18%) and a cardiovascular disorder for patients aged 65-84y (18%; 85+: 16%). Part of high degree of emergency cases (42%) and readmission to ED within 30 days (8%) were similar for both age classes (similar proportions in 2005 and 2010 for these 3 issues). Conclusion: Patients aged 85+ are the fastest growing group admitted to ED. Compared to younger counterparts, they use more ED ressources and the differences are increaseing overtime. ED addressing specific needs of geriatric patients would improve their care and lead to a better use of available resources.

Social and medical vulnerability factors of frequent users at the emergency department: a case-control study

BACKGROUND: Up to 5% of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) four or more times within a 12 month period represent 21% of total ED visits. In this study we sought to characterize social and medical vulnerability factors of ED frequent users (FUs) and to explore if these factors hold simultaneously. METHODS: We performed a case-control study at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Patients over 18 years presenting to the ED at least once within the study period (April 2008 toMarch 2009) were included. FUs were defined as patients with four or more ED visits within the previous 12 months. Outcome data were extracted from medical records of the first ED attendance within the study period. Outcomes included basic demographics and social variables, ED admission diagnosis, somatic and psychiatric days hospitalized over 12 months, and having a primary care physician.We calculated the percentage of FUs and non-FUs having at least one social and one medical vulnerability factor. The four chosen social factors included: unemployed and/or dependence on government welfare, institutionalized and/or without fixed residence, either separated, divorced or widowed, and under guardianship. The fourmedical vulnerability factors were: ≥6 somatic days hospitalized, ≥1 psychiatric days hospitalized, ≥5 clinical departments used (all three factors measured over 12 months), and ED admission diagnosis of alcohol and/or drug abuse. Univariate and multivariate logistical regression analyses allowed comparison of two JGIM ABSTRACTS S391 random samples of 354 FUs and 354 non-FUs (statistical power 0.9, alpha 0.05 for all outcomes except gender, country of birth, and insurance type). RESULTS: FUs accounted for 7.7% of ED patients and 24.9% of ED visits. Univariate logistic regression showed that FUs were older (mean age 49.8 vs. 45.2 yrs, p=0.003),more often separated and/or divorced (17.5%vs. 13.9%, p=0.029) or widowed (13.8% vs. 8.8%, p=0.029), and either unemployed or dependent on government welfare (31.3% vs. 13.3%, p<0.001), compared to non-FUs. FUs cumulated more days hospitalized over 12 months (mean number of somatic days per patient 1.0 vs. 0.3, p<0.001; mean number of psychiatric days per patient 0.12 vs. 0.03, p<0.001). The two groups were similar regarding gender distribution (females 51.7% vs. 48.3%). The multivariate linear regression model was based on the six most significant factors identified by univariate analysis The model showed that FUs had more social problems, as they were more likely to be institutionalized or not have a fixed residence (OR 4.62; 95% CI, 1.65 to 12.93), and to be unemployed or dependent on government welfare (OR 2.03; 95% CI, 1.31 to 3.14) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to need medical care, as indicated by involvement of≥5 clinical departments over 12 months (OR 6.2; 95%CI, 3.74 to 10.15), having an ED admission diagnosis of substance abuse (OR 3.23; 95% CI, 1.23 to 8.46) and having a primary care physician (OR 1.70;95%CI, 1.13 to 2.56); however, they were less likely to present with an admission diagnosis of injury (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.00) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to combine at least one social with one medical vulnerability factor (38.4% vs. 12.1%, OR 7.74; 95% CI 5.03 to 11.93). CONCLUSIONS: FUs were more likely than non-FUs to have social and medical vulnerability factors and to have multiple factors in combination.

Potential health-care service utilization substitution effects induced by case management for emergency department frequent users

BACKGROUND: In most of the emergency departments (ED) in developed countries, a subset of patients visits the ED frequently. Despite their small numbers, these patients are the source of a disproportionally high number of all ED visits, and use a significant proportion of healthcare resources. They place a heavy economic burden on hospital and healthcare systems budgets overall. Several interventions have been carried out to improve the management of these ED frequent users. Case management has been shown in some North American studies to reduce ED utilization and costs. In these studies, cost analyses have been carried out from the hospital perspective without examining the costs induced by healthcare consumed in the community. However, case management might reduce ED visits and costs from the hospital's perspective, but induce substitution effects, and increase health service utilization outside the hospital. This study examined if an interdisciplinary case-management intervention-compared to standard ED care -reduced costs generated by frequent ED users not only from the hospital perspective, but also from the healthcare system perspective-that is, from a broader perspective taking into account the costs of healthcare services used outside the hospital. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 250 adult frequent emergency department users (5 or more visits during the previous 12 months) who visited the ED of the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland, between May 2012 and July 2013 were allocated to one of two groups: case management intervention (CM) or standard ED care (SC), and followed up for 12 months. Depending on the perspective of the analysis, costs were evaluated differently. For the analysis from the hospital's perspective, the true value of resources used to provide services was used as a cost estimate. These data were obtained from the hospital's analytical accounting system. For the analysis from the health-care system perspective, all health-care services consumed by users and charged were used as an estimate of costs. These data were obtained from health insurance providers for a subsample of participants. To allow comparisons in a same time period, individual monthly average costs were calculated. Multivariate linear models including a fixed effect "group" were run using socio-demographic characteristics and health-related variables as controlling variables (age, gender, educational level, citizenship, marital status, somatic and mental health problems, and risk behaviors).

Case management for emergency department frequent users : a randomized controlled trial

Background: Emergency department frequent users (EDFUs) account for a disproportionally high number of emergency department (ED) visits, contributing to overcrowding and high health-care costs. At the Lausanne University Hospital, EDFUs account for only 4.4% of ED patients, but 12.1% of all ED visits. Our study tested the hypothesis that an interdisciplinary case management intervention red. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, we allocated adult EDFUs (5 or more visits in the previous 12 months) who visited the ED of the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland between May 2012 and July 2013 either to an intervention (N=125) or a standard emergency care (N=125) group and monitored them for 12 months. Randomization was computer generated and concealed, and patients and research staff were blinded to the allocation. Participants in the intervention group, in addition to standard emergency care, received case management from an interdisciplinary team at baseline, and at 1, 3, and 5 months, in the hospital, in the ambulatory care setting, or at their homes. A generalized, linear, mixed-effects model for count data (Poisson distribution) was applied to compare participants' numbers of visits to the ED during the 12 months (Period 1, P1) preceding recruitment to the numbers of visits during the 12 months monitored (Period 2, P2).

Impact on costs of a case management intervention for emergency department frequent users

Background: In most of the emergency departments (ED) in developed countries, a subset of patients visits the ED frequently. Despite their small numbers, these patients are the source of a disproportionally high number of all ED visits, and use a significant proportion of healthcare resources. They place a heavy economic burden on hospital and healthcare system budgets overall. In order to improve the management of these patients, the University hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland implemented a case management intervention (CM) between May 2012 and July 2013. In this randomized controlled trial, 250 frequent ED users (visits>5 during previous 12 months) were allocated to either the CM group or the standard ED care (SC) group and followed up for 12 months. The first result of the CM was to reduce significantly the ED visits. The present study examined whether the CM intervention also reduced the costs generated by the ED frequent users not only from the hospital perspective, but also from the healthcare system perspective. Methods: Cost data were obtained from the hospital's analytical accounting system and from health insurances. Multivariate linear models including a fixed effect "group" and socio-demographic characteristics and health-related variables were run.

Characterizing the vulnerability of frequent emergency department users by applying a conceptual framework: a controlled, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department (ED) users meet several of the criteria of vulnerability, but this needs to be further examined taking into consideration all vulnerability's different dimensions. This study aimed to characterize frequent ED users and to define risk factors of frequent ED use within a universal health care coverage system, applying a conceptual framework of vulnerability. METHODS: A controlled, cross-sectional study comparing frequent ED users to a control group of non-frequent users was conducted at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Frequent users were defined as patients with five or more visits to the ED in the previous 12 months. The two groups were compared using validated scales for each one of the five dimensions of an innovative conceptual framework: socio-demographic characteristics; somatic, mental, and risk-behavior indicators; and use of health care services. Independent t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Pearson's Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were used for the comparison. To examine the -related to vulnerability- risk factors for being a frequent ED user, univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: We compared 226 frequent users and 173 controls. Frequent users had more vulnerabilities in all five dimensions of the conceptual framework. They were younger, and more often immigrants from low/middle-income countries or unemployed, had more somatic and psychiatric comorbidities, were more often tobacco users, and had more primary care physician (PCP) visits. The most significant frequent ED use risk factors were a history of more than three hospital admissions in the previous 12 months (adj OR:23.2, 95%CI = 9.1-59.2), the absence of a PCP (adj OR:8.4, 95%CI = 2.1-32.7), living less than 5 km from an ED (adj OR:4.4, 95%CI = 2.1-9.0), and household income lower than USD 2,800/month (adj OR:4.3, 95%CI = 2.0-9.2). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent ED users within a universal health coverage system form a highly vulnerable population, when taking into account all five dimensions of a conceptual framework of vulnerability. The predictive factors identified could be useful in the early detection of future frequent users, in order to address their specific needs and decrease vulnerability, a key priority for health care policy makers. Application of the conceptual framework in future research is warranted.

Screening of mental health and substance users in frequent users of a general Swiss emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to determine the proportions of psychiatric and substance use disorders suffered by emergency departments' (EDs') frequent users compared to the mainstream ED population, to evaluate how effectively these disorders were diagnosed in both groups of patients by ED physicians, and to determine if these disorders were predictive of a frequent use of ED services. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional study with concurrent and retrospective data collection. Between November 2009 and June 2010, patients' mental health and substance use disorders were identified prospectively in face-to-face research interviews using a screening questionnaire (i.e. researcher screening). These data were compared to the data obtained from a retrospective medical chart review performed in August 2011, searching for mental health and substance use disorders diagnosed by ED physicians and recorded in the patients' ED medical files (i.e. ED physician diagnosis). The sample consisted of 399 eligible adult patients (≥18 years old) admitted to the urban, general ED of a University Hospital. Among them, 389 patients completed the researcher screening. Two hundred and twenty frequent users defined by >4 ED visits in the previous twelve months were included and compared to 169 patients with ≤4 ED visits in the same period (control group). RESULTS: Researcher screening showed that ED frequent users were more likely than members of the control group to have an anxiety, depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or suffer from alcohol, illicit drug abuse/addiction. Reviewing the ED physician diagnosis, we found that the proportions of mental health and substance use disorders diagnosed by ED physicians were low both among ED frequent users and in the control group. Using multiple logistic regression analyses to predict frequent ED use, we found that ED patients who screened positive for psychiatric disorders only and those who screened positive for both psychiatric and substance use disorders were more likely to be ED frequent users compared to ED patients with no disorder. CONCLUSIONS: This study found high proportions of screened mental health and/or substance use disorders in ED frequent users, but it showed low rates of detection of such disorders in day-to-day ED activities which can be a cause for concern. Active screening for these disorders in this population, followed by an intervention and/or a referral for treatment by a case-management team may constitute a relevant intervention for integration into a general ED setting.