Engorgement des centres d'urgences: une raison légitime de refuser l'accès aux patients non urgents [Emergency department overcrowding: a legitimate reason to refuse access to urgent care for non-urgent patients?].

Non-urgent cases represent 30-40% of all ED consults; they contribute to overcrowding of emergency departments (ED), which could be reduced if they were denied emergency care. However, no triage instrument has demonstrated a high enough degree of accuracy to safely rule out serious medical conditions: patients suffering from life-threatening emergencies have been inappropriately denied care. Insurance companies have instituted financial penalties to discourage the use of ED as a source of non-urgent care, but this practice mainly restricts access for the underprivileged. More recent data suggest that in fact most patients consult for appropriate urgent reasons, or have no alternate access to urgent care. The safe reduction of overcrowding requires a reform of the healthcare system based on patients' needs rather than access barriers.

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.

Trends and characteristics of attendance at the emergency department of a Swiss university hospital: 2002-2012.

BACKGROUND: The numbers of people attending emergency departments (EDs) at hospitals are increasing. We aimed to analyse trends in ED attendance at a Swiss university hospital between 2002 and 2012, focussing on age-related differences and hospital admission criteria. METHODS: We used hospital administrative data for all patients aged ≥16 years who attended the ED (n = 298,306) at this university hospital between 1 January 2002, and 31 December 2012. We descriptively analysed the numbers of ED visits according to the admission year and stratified by age (≥65 vs <65 years). RESULTS: People attending the ED were on average 46.6 years old (standard deviation 20 years, maximum range 16‒99 years). The annual number of ED attendances grew by n = 6,639 (27.6%) from 24,080 in 2002 to 30,719 in 2012. In the subgroup of patients aged ≥65 the relative increase was 42.3%, which is significantly higher (Pearson's χ2 = 350.046, df = 10; p = 0.000) than the relative increase of 23.4% among patients <65 years. The subgroup of patients ≥65 years attended the ED more often because of diseases (n = 56,307; 85%) than accidents (n = 9,844; 14.9%). This subgroup (patients ≥65 years) was also more often admitted to hospital (Pearson's χ2 = 23,377.190; df = 1; p = 0.000) than patients <65 years. CONCLUSIONS: ED attendance of patients ≥65 years increased in absolute and relative terms. The study findings suggest that staff of this ED may want to assess the needs of patients ≥65 years and, if necessary, adjust the services (e.g., adapted triage scales, adapted geriatric screenings, and adapted hospital admission criteria).