Frequent users of emergency departments present very high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, which are largely underdiagnosed by clinicians

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if mental health and substance use diagnoses were equally detected in frequent users (FUs) compared to infrequent users (IUs) of emergency departments (EDs). Methods: In a sample of 399 adult patients (>= 18 years old) admitted to a teaching hospital ED, we compared the mental health and substance use disorders diagnoses established clinically and consigned in the medical files by the ED physicians to data obtained in face-to-face research interviews using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Between November 2009 and June 2010, 226 FUs (>4 visits within a year) who attended the ED were included, and 173 IUs (<= 4 visits within a year) were randomly selected from a pool of identified patients to comprise the comparison group. Results: For mental health disorders identified by the PRIME-MD, FUs were more likely than IUs to have an anxiety (34 vs. 16%, Chi2(1) = 16.74, p <0.001), depressive (47 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 19.11, p <0.001) or posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder (11 vs. 5%, Chi2(1) = 4.87, p = 0.027). Only 3/76 FUs (4%) with an anxiety disorder, 16/104 FUs (15%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 24 FUs with PTSD were detected by the ED medical staff. None of the 27 IUs with an anxiety disorder, 6/43 IUs (14%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 8 IUs with PTSD were detected. For substance use disorders identified by the ASSIST, FUs were more at risk than IUs for alcohol (24 vs. 7%, Chi2(1) = 21.12, p <0.001) and drug abuse/dependence (36 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 5.52, p = 0.019). Of the FUs, 14/54 (26%) using alcohol and 8/81 (10%) using drugs were detected by the ED physicians. Of the IUs, 5/12 (41%) using alcohol and none of the 43 using drugs were detected. Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of detection of mental health and substance use disorders between FUs and IUs (Fisher's Exact Test: anxiety, p = 0.567; depression, p = 1.000; PTSD, p = 1.000; alcohol, p = 0.517; and drugs, p = 0.053). Conclusions: While the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders was higher among FUs, the rates of detection were not significantly different for FUs vs. IUs. However, it may be that drug disorders among FUs were more likely to be detected.

Effectiveness of interventions targeting frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review

L'article publié de le cadre de cette thèse est intitulé "Effectiveness of interventions targeting frequent users of emergency departments: A systematic review." Il a été publié par les "Annals of Emergency Medicine (AEM)" en juillet 2011. Le titre en français pourrait être: "Efficacité des interventions ciblant les utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence: Une revue systématique." Le titre du journal américain pourrait être: "Annales de Médecine d'Urgence". Il s'agit du journal du "Collège Américain des Médecins d'Urgence", en anglais "American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP)". L'article a été soumis à l'AEM en raison de l'intérêt que ses rédacteurs en chef portent pour le sujet des utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence, démontré depuis plus de dix ans par la publication de nombreux articles dans ce domaine. Le facteur d'impact de l'AEM est de surcroît le plus important des journaux d'urgence, assurant ainsi une large diffusion des articles publiés. Lors de sa publication, l'article a été accompagné d'un éditorial signé par le Docteur Maria C. Raven, médecin au Centre Hospitalier de Bellevue à New York, Etats-Unis.¦Contexte et enjeux¦La Direction Générale du Centre Hospitalier Vaudois (CHUV) finance, dans le cadre du plan stratégique 2009-2013, un axe "populations vulnérables". Cet axe est porté en grande partie par des projets développés au sein de la Policinlique Médicale Universitaire et l'Unité des Populations Vulnérables qui prend en charge, enseigne la prise en charge et s'interroge sur la prise en charge des personnes les plus vulnérables. C'est dans ce contexte que nous avons été amenés à réfléchir à l'existence éventuelle de marqueurs de vulnérabilité; l'utilisation fréquente des services d'urgence par certains individus constitue à n'en pas douter l'un de ces marqueurs. Il existe une importante littérature décrivant en détail ces utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence, raison pour laquelle nous avons décidé de faire un pas supplémentaire et de nous interroger sur l'efficacité des interventions (quelle qu'elles soient) ciblant cette population particulière. Nous avons ainsi entrepris une revue systématique de la littérature scientifique médicale et sociale pour approfondir cette question, et c'est précisément le résultat de cette recherche qui constitue ce travail de thèse.¦Conclusions et perspectives¦Les utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence sont des individus particulièrement vulnérables, et ce aussi bien aux Etats-Unis, qu'en Europe ou en Australie: ils présentent par exemple une mortalité supérieure aux autres utilisateurs des urgences; ils sont également plus à risque de présenter une consommation abusive d'alcool ou de drogues, une maladie mentale, ou une maladie chronique. Ils sont plus souvent sans abri, sans assurance et d'un statut socio-économique bas.¦De nombreuses interventions on été développées pour prendre en charge les utilisateurs fréquents des urgences. Le but de ces interventions est d'une part de réduire la consommation des services d'urgence et d'autre part d'améliorer la santé au sens large de ces patients vulnérables. C'est en ces termes (réduction de la fréquence d'utilisation des services d'urgence et amélioration de la santé) que l'efficacité d'une intervention est mesurée.¦Parmi l'ensemble des interventions étudiées, l'une semble particulièrement efficace pour réduire le nombre de visites aux urgences et améliorer un certain nombre de marqueurs sociaux (accès à un logement ou à une assurance-maladie). Cette intervention est appelée "case management" (ou "gestion de cas", difficile tentative de traduction de ce concept en français), et consiste en une approche multidisciplinaire (médecins, infirmiers, assistants sociaux) fournissant un service individualisé, dans le cadre de l'hôpital et souvent également dans la communauté. L'approche consiste à évaluer les besoins précis du patient, à l'accompagner dans son parcours de soin, à l'orienter si nécessaire et à mettre en place autour de lui un réseau communiquant de manière adaptée.¦Le "case management" ayant montré son efficacité dans la prise en charge des utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence, y-compris en termes de coûts, notre conclusion va dans le sens d'encourager les hôpitaux à évaluer l'importance de ce phénomène dans leur propre pratique et à mettre en place des équipes de prise en charge de ces patients, dans le double but de soutenir des patients particulièrement vulnérables et de réduire la consommation des services d'urgence. Suite à la réflexion suscitée par ce travail de thèse, une telle équipe a été mise en place en 2010, dans un cadre de recherche-action, au niveau du CHUV. Ce projet est dirigé par le Dr Patrick Bodenmann, responsable de l'Unité Populations Vulnérables de la Policlinique Médicale Universitaire de Lausanne. Le Dr Bodenmann est également le directeur de cette thèse et le dernier auteur de la revue systématique.

Effectiveness of interventions targeting frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Frequent users of emergency departments (EDs) are a relatively small group of vulnerable patients accounting for a disproportionally high number of ED visits. Our objective is to perform a systematic review of the type and effectiveness of interventions to reduce the number of ED visits by frequent users. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and controlled and noncontrolled before-and-after studies describing interventions targeting adult frequent users of EDs. Primary outcome of interest was the reduction in ED use. We also explored costs analyses and various clinical (alcohol and drug use, psychiatric symptoms, mortality) and social (homelessness, insurance status, social security support) outcomes. RESULTS: We included 11 studies (3 randomized controlled trials, 2 controlled and 6 noncontrolled before-and-after studies). Heterogeneity in both study designs and definitions of frequent users precluded meta-analyses of the results. The most studied intervention was case management (n=7). Only 1 of 3 randomized controlled trials showed a significant reduction in ED use compared with usual care. Six of the 8 before-and-after studies reported a significant reduction in ED use, and 1 study showed a significant increase. ED cost reductions were demonstrated in 3 studies. Social outcomes such as reduction of homelessness were favorable in 3 of 3 studies, and clinical outcomes trended toward positive results in 2 of 3 studies. CONCLUSION: Interventions targeting frequent users may reduce ED use. Case management, the most frequently described intervention, reduced ED costs and seemed to improve social and clinical outcomes. It appears to be beneficial to patients and justifiable for hospitals to implement case management for frequent users in the framework of a clear and consensual definition of frequent users and standardized outcome measures.

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.

Frequent users of emergency departments present very high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, which are largery underdiagnosed by clinicians.

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if mental health and substance use diagnoses were equally detected in frequent users (FUs) compared to infrequent users (IUs) of emergency departments (EDs). Methods: In a sample of 399 adult patients (>= 18 years old) admitted to a teaching hospital ED, we compared the mental health and substance use disorders diagnoses established clinically and consigned in the medical files by the ED physicians to data obtained in face-to-face research interviews using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Between November 2009 and June 2010, 226 FUs (>4 visits within a year) who attended the ED were included, and 173 IUs (<= 4 visits within a year) were randomly selected from a pool of identified patients to comprise the comparison group. Results: For mental health disorders identified by the PRIME-MD, FUs were more likely than IUs to have an anxiety (34 vs. 16%, Chi2(1) = 16.74, p <0.001), depressive (47 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 19.11, p <0.001) or posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder (11 vs. 5%, Chi2(1) = 4.87, p = 0.027). Only 3/76 FUs (4%) with an anxiety disorder, 16/104 FUs (15%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 24 FUs with PTSD were detected by the ED medical staff. None of the 27 IUs with an anxiety disorder, 6/43 IUs (14%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 8 IUs with PTSD were detected. For substance use disorders identified by the ASSIST, FUs were more at risk than IUs for alcohol (24 vs. 7%, Chi2(1) = 21.12, p <0.001) and drug abuse/dependence (36 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 5.52, p = 0.019). Of the FUs, 14/54 (26%) using alcohol and 8/81 (10%) using drugs were detected by the ED physicians. Of the IUs, 5/12 (41%) using alcohol and none of the 43 using drugs were detected. Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of detection of mental health and substance use disorders between FUs and IUs (Fisher's Exact Test: anxiety, p = 0.567; depression, p = 1.000; PTSD, p = 1.000; alcohol, p = 0.517; and drugs, p = 0.053). Conclusions: While the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders was higher among FUs, the rates of detection were not significantly different for FUs vs. IUs. However, it may be that drug disorders among FUs were more likely to be detected.

Effectiveness of interventions targeting frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review

Texte intégral: http://www.springerlink.com/content/3q68180337551r47/fulltext.pdf

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

Objectifs - Identifier les facteurs de vulnérabilité sociaux et médicaux associés au recours multiple aux consultations des urgences. - Déterminer si les patients à recours multiple sont plus à même de combiner ces facteurs dans un système d'assurance universelle. Méthode Il s'agit d'une étude cas-contrôle rétrospective basée sur l'étude de dossiers médico-administratifs comparant des échantillons randomisés de patients à recours multiple à des patients n'appartenant pas à cette catégorie, au sein des urgences du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois et de la Policlinique Médicale Universitaire de Lausanne. Les auteurs ont défini les patients à recours multiple comme comptabilisant au moins quatre consultations aux urgences durant les douze mois précédents. Les patients adultes (>18 ans) ayant consulté les urgences entre avril 2008 et mars 2009 (période d'étude) étaient inclus ; ceux quittant les urgences sans décharge médicale étaient exclus. Pour chaque patient, le premier dossier d'urgence informatisé inclus dans la période d'étude était sélectionné pour l'extraction des données. Outre les variables démographiques de base, les variables d'intérêt comprennent des caractéristiques sociales (emploi, type de résidence) et médicales (diagnostic principal aux urgences). Les facteurs sociaux et médicaux significatifs ont été utilisés dans la construction d'un modèle de régression logistique, afin de déterminer les facteurs associés avec le recours multiple aux urgences. De plus, la combinaison des facteurs sociaux et médicaux a été étudiée. Résultats Au total, 359/Γ591 patients à recours multiple et 360/34'263 contrôles ont été sélectionnés. Les patients à recours multiple représentaient moins d'un vingtième de tous les patients des urgences (4.4%), mais engendraient 12.1% de toutes les consultations (5'813/48'117), avec un record de 73 consultations. Aucune différence en termes d'âge ou de genre n'est apparue, mais davantage de patients à recours multiples étaient d'une nationalité autre que suisse ou européenne (n=117 [32.6%] vs n=83 [23.1%], p=0.003). L'analyse multivariée a montré que les facteurs de vulnérabilité sociaux et médicaux les plus fortement associés au recours multiple aux urgences étaient : être sous tutelle (Odds ratio [OR] ajusté = 15.8; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95% = 1.7 à 147.3), habiter plus proche des urgences (OR ajusté = 4.6; IC95% = 2.8 à 7.6), être non assuré (OR ajusté = 2.5; IC95% = 1.1 à 5.8), être sans emploi ou dépendant de l'aide sociale (OR ajusté = 2.1; IC95% = 1.3 à 3.4), le nombre d'hospitalisations psychiatriques (OR ajusté = 4.6; IC95% = 1.5 à 14.1), ainsi que le recours à au moins cinq départements cliniques différents durant une période de douze mois (OR ajusté = 4.5; IC95% = 2.5 à 8.1). Le fait de comptabiliser deux sur quatre facteurs sociaux augmente la vraisemblance du recours multiple aux urgences (OR ajusté = 5.4; IC95% = 2.9 à 9.9) ; des résultats similaires ont été trouvés pour les facteurs médicaux (OR ajusté = 7.9; IC95% = 4.6 à 13.4). La combinaison de facteurs sociaux et médicaux est fortement associée au recours multiple aux urgences, puisque les patients à recours multiple étaient dix fois plus à même d'en comptabiliser trois d'entre eux (sur un total de huit facteurs, IC95% = 5.1 à 19.6). Conclusion Les patients à recours multiple aux urgences représentent une proportion modérée des consultations aux urgences du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois et de la Policlinique Médicale Universitaire de Lausanne. Les facteurs de vulnérabilité sociaux et médicaux sont associés au recours multiple aux urgences. En outre, les patients à recours multiple sont plus à même de combiner les vulnérabilités sociale et médicale que les autres. Des stratégies basées sur le case management pourraient améliorer la prise en charge des patients à recours multiple avec leurs vulnérabilités afin de prévenir les inégalités dans le système de soins ainsi que les coûts relatifs.

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.

Characteristics of highly frequent users of a Swiss academic emergency department: a retrospective consecutive case series.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the demographic, social and medical characteristics, and healthcare use of highly frequent users of a university hospital emergency department (ED) in Switzerland. METHODS: A retrospective consecutive case series was performed. We included all highly frequent users, defined as patients attending the ED 12 times or more within a calendar year (1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009). We collected their characteristics and calculated a score of accumulation of risk factors of vulnerability. RESULTS: Highly frequent users comprised 0.1% of ED patients, and they accounted for 0.8% of all ED attendances (23 patients, 425 attendances). Of all highly frequent users, 87% had a primary care practitioner, 82.6% were unemployed, 73.9% were socially isolated, and 60.9% had a mental health or substance use primary diagnosis. One-third had attempted suicide during study period, all of them being women. They were often admitted (24.0% of attendances), and only 8.7% were uninsured. On average, they cumulated 3.3 different risk factors of vulnerability (SD 1.4). CONCLUSION: Highly frequent users of a Swiss academic ED are a highly vulnerable population. They are in poor health and accumulate several risk factors of being even in poorer health. The small number of patients and their high level of insurance coverage make it particularly feasible to design a specific intervention to approach their needs, in close collaboration with their primary care practitioner. Elaboration of the intervention should focus on social reinsertion and risk-reduction strategies with regard to substance use, hospital admissions and suicide.

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).

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.