Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care May 2010
Relationship of Asthma Control to Asthma Exacerbations Using Surrogate Markers Within a Managed Care Database
Michael Schatz, MD, MS; Robert S. Zeiger, MD, PhD; Su-Jau T. Yang, PhD; Wansu Chen, MS; William W. Crawford, MD; Shiva G. Sajjan, PhD; and Felicia Allen-Ramey, PhD
Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Among Patients Cared for in Large Integrated Health Plans
Reina Haque, PhD; Ninah S. Achacoso, MS; Suzanne W. Fletcher, MD, MSc; Larissa Nekhlyudov, MD, MPH; Laura C. Collins, MBBS; Stuart J. Schnitt, MD; Charles P. Quesenberry Jr, PhD; and Laurel A. Habel, PhD
The Effect of a Cardiovascular Educational Intervention on Healthcare Utilization and Costs
Amar C. Nawathe, MD, MHA; Sherry A. Glied, PhD; William S. Weintraub, MD; and Lori J. Mosca, MD, PhD
Currently Reading
Physician Assessment of Appropriate Healthcare Level Among Nonurgent Patients
Ann-Sofie Backman, MD; Paul Blomqvist, MD, PhD; Magdalena Lagerlund, PhD; and Johanna Adami, MD, MPH, PhD
Correction Statements
Neumann PJ, et al and Sankaranarayanan J, et al.
Cost Burden of Treatment Resistance in Patients With Depression
Teresa B. Gibson, PhD; Yonghua Jing, PhD; Ginger Smith Carls, PhD; Edward Kim, MD, MBA; J. Erin Bagalman, MSW; Wayne N. Burton, MD; Quynh-Van Tran, PharmD; Andrei Pikalov, MD, PhD; and Ron Z. Goetzel, PhD
Impact of Predictive Model-Directed End-of-Life Counseling for Medicare Beneficiaries
Karen S. Hamlet, MA; Adam Hobgood, MS; Guy Brent Hamar, DDS, MPH; Angela C. Dobbs, MA; Elizabeth Y. Rula, PhD; and James E. Pope, MD
Clinical Process Variation: Effect on Quality and Cost of Care
Charles L. Moore, MBA; Michael J. McMullen, BA; Samuel W. Woolford, PhD; and Barry M. Berger, MD
Clinical Consequences of Disseminating the Rosiglitazone FDA Safety Warning
Kathleen B. Orrico, PharmD, BCPS; Joyce K. Lin, PharmD; Amy Wei, PharmD; and Henry Yue, PharmD
Preliminary Treatment Considerations Among Men With Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer
Steven B. Zeliadt, PhD, MPH; Carol M. Moinpour, PhD; David K. Blough, PhD; David F. Penson, MD, MPH; Ingrid J. Hall, PhD, MPH; Judith Lee Smith, PhD; Donatus U. Ekwueme, PhD; Ian M. Thompson, MD; Thomas E. Keane, MB, ChB, FRCSI; and Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD
Comparative Effectiveness Research: Challenges for Medical Journals
Harold C. Sox, MD; Mark Helfand, MD, MPH; Jeremy Grimshaw, MBChB, PhD, FRCGP; Kay Dickersin, PhD; the PLoS Medicine Editors*; David Tovey, FRCGP; J. Andre Knottnerus, MD, PhD; and Peter Tugwell, MD
Medicare Part D Policy Update and Implications for 2010
Ronnie J. DePue, Jr, PharmD; JoAnn Stubbings, MHCA; and David C. Baker, PharmD

Physician Assessment of Appropriate Healthcare Level Among Nonurgent Patients

Ann-Sofie Backman, MD; Paul Blomqvist, MD, PhD; Magdalena Lagerlund, PhD; and Johanna Adami, MD, MPH, PhD

Physicians at an emergency department and in primary care evaluated the appropriateness of complaints among nonurgent patients. Low regular previous healthcare use correlated with inappropriateness.

Objectives: To analyze the appropriateness of healthcare level chosen by nonurgent patients in an emergency department (ED) compared with unscheduled primary care (PC) patients and the factors influencing physician consideration of appropriate care level.

 

Study Design: Cross-sectional study.

 

Methods: This study used structured face-to-face interviews with nonurgent patients at an urban ED and with unscheduled PC patients from a defined catchment area, concomitant with a questionnaire to the treating physician.

 

Results: General practitioners considered to a higher extent than their ED colleagues that patients chose an appropriate level of care. General practitioners were older and had longer clinical experience than physicians at the ED. Patients considered at an appropriate care level were distinguished by their symptom presentation, shorter duration of symptoms, and more regular previous healthcare use. Men with little regular previous healthcare use were more likely to present with symptoms assessed as inappropriate for the ED (P <.001).

 

Conclusions: Patients with disorders that ED physicians considered inappropriate for the setting had little regular previous healthcare use but were also managed by less experienced physicians compared with patients in PC. General practitioners agreed with the choice of healthcare level among their patients to a large extent. It is important to meet patient demands and concerns in a professional way and to develop organizational ways to manage patient needs that are suitable for the setting.

 

(Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(5):361-368)

Information concerning appropriate use of urgent healthcare should be directed to healthy populations that inappropriately seek care in the emergency department (ED). Closer collaboration between primary care (PC) and EDs should be encouraged for sustainable development.

  •  In particular, men with little regular previous healthcare use were assessed as having symptoms inappropriate for the ED.

  •  Compared with ED physicians, general practitioners were older, had longer experience, and agreed with the choice of healthcare level among their patients to a greater extent.

  •  In this setting, the ED was staffed by less experienced physicians compared with PC. The clinical effect of this is unknown.
At the emergency department (ED), some patients are perceived as having inappropriate symptoms for the setting and as being more suitable for medical attention in primary care (PC).1-4 Assessment of patient urgency has been found to differ among medical disciplines irrespective of patient condition, even when the same criteria of urgency and appropriateness are applied.5-8 Assessment is also found to change with physician experience.9 Moreover, many patients perceive their symptoms as being more urgent than does the physician.1,10 This discrepancy has been found to be stable over the past decades, despite large constraints in hospital ED services and expansion of PC.11,12 These organizational changes have led to overcrowding at EDs worldwide, but it is unclear whether and how this may have influenced physician perception of appropriate level of care among patients in PC and at the ED.13,14 To our knowledge, such an investigation has not previously been reported.

The specific aims of our study were (1) to analyze physician assessment of urgency and appropriate level of care among nonurgent patients attending the ED and among unscheduled patients presenting in PC, (2) to explore the sociodemographic characteristics of patients assessed by the physician as inappropriately presenting at the ED, and (3) to examine whether physician age, sex, discipline, or clinical experience influenced assessment of appropriate care level.

Among other factors, these aspects might influence workflow at an ED.15 Knowledge about physician perception and about patient behavior at different levels of emergency care is important to consider when managing and optimizing ED organization, medical education, and public information.

METHODS

Study Design


We conducted a cross-sectional interview-based study among patients from a defined catchment area, together with a concomitant questionnaire addressed to the treating physician. An overview of the study design is shown in the Figure. The methods concerning the patient interview have been presented in detail elsewhere.16

Setting

Healthcare delivery in Sweden is organized by county councils, and all residents are covered by the national health insurance system, primarily financed by taxes. All physicians receive a monthly salary and are not compensated for the number of patients they see. Primary care is provided at healthcare centers, each serving the population of a defined geographic catchment area. In the capital of Sweden, the county of Stockholm, there are about 200 PC centers and 5 hospitals with EDs open 24 hours, serving 1.9 million inhabitants.

The study was performed in the catchment area of Stockholm Söder Hospital. The hospital is a public general hospital with a catchment population of about 500,000 and 505 beds. The ED of this hospital has a mean of 90,000 visits per year by patients 15 years and older. During the study period, physicians from internal

medicine, cardiology, surgery, emergency medicine, and orthopedics were on call at the ED around the clock. Forty PC centers are located within the same catchment area and are open during office hours. All PC centers are responsible for performing a medical examination of any patient in the catchment area the day he or she presents with an urgent complaint. A patient with an urgent symptom occurring during regular office hours is expected to contact the PC center but may also attend a hospital ED without a referral.

The patient copayments at the time of the study were US $20 in PC and US $38 at the ED. An ED visit was free of charge if the patient was referred from PC. There was also a high-cost ceiling unrelated to patient income. A patient who had paid a total of US $160 in patient fees was entitled to a “free care card” (ie, free medical care for the rest of the 12-month period, calculated from the date of the first consultation).

Selection of Participants

PC Centers. The 40 PC centers in the catchment area of Stockholm Söder Hospital were randomly approached one by one. The first 9 centers that agreed to participate were included in the study, each with a catchment area of more than 9000 inhabitants, creating a study population of approximately 100,000 inhabitants representing urban and rural areas. Four centers refused participation because of reorganization or lack of interview space.

Patient Inclusion Criteria. Inclusion criteria for patients were the same at the PC and ED sites. Only inhabitants in the catchment areas of the 9 PC centers were eligible for inclusion in the study. Eligible patients had to have contacted 1 of the 9 PC centers within the preceding 24 hours or had to have gone directly to the ED without written referral from a general practitioner in the catchment area. Other criteria for inclusion were age between 20 and 80 years, ability to understand Swedish, physical and mental capability of being interviewed, and absence of dementia or influence of alcohol or drugs. Patients had to be able to wait for physician evaluation for at least 1

hour without medical risk (ie, triage level 4) and had to have arrived at the healthcare facility by their own transportation. Triage was performed before study inclusion by ordinary personnel at the different sites. The inclusion criteria were set to identify the population with the lowest level of medical risk. Informed verbal consent was obtained from each participant.

Physician Inclusion Criterion. The physician who examined the patient was requested to complete a questionnaire after the consultation. Physicians included consultants and residents.

Data Collection

Structured Interview of Patients. Nineteen interviewers were recruited and trained by the research team. The patient interview was conducted just before examination by the physician. The interviews were performed during a 9-week period from March to May 2002, Monday through Friday, between 8 am and 4 pm, at the ED of Stockholm Söder Hospital and at the 9 PC centers. The structured interview comprised 80 items concerning patient demographics, duration of symptoms, perception of symptoms as indicated by being anxious or troubled, and healthcare experiences.

Physician Questionnaire. After examining the patient, the physician was requested to complete a self-administered questionnaire assessing the suitability of the level of care chosen by the patient and the medical risk of any delay before examination. The specific items are listed in Table 1. The physician was also asked for information about sex, age, professional experience, and affiliation.

Data Analysis

Patient and physician questionnaires were linked by a unique identification number. Descriptive analyses of patient characteristics (age, sex, country of birth, marital status with children, education level, regular monitoring of chronic disease, regular medication status, receipt of a free care card, previous hospitalization, and perception of symptoms as indicated by being anxious or troubled [measured by the visual analog scale])17 were obtained, along with physician characteristics and assessments. Subsequently, a detailed analysis of ED patients was performed. Each potential predictor of being considered appropriate or inappropriate in the setting was first assessed in univariate models (χ2 test for categorical variables and t test for continuous variables), expressed as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). P <.05 was considered significant. Univariate predictors, including a composite variable of regular previous healthcare use (regular monitoring of chronic disease, regular medication status, previous hospitalization, and receipt of a free care card [eAppendix A available at www. ajmc.com]), were subsequently assessed in a stepwise multivariate logistic regression model to determine their independent effect. An interaction analysis was also performed. Data were entered into EpiData 4.0 (EpiData Association, Odense, Denmark). Descriptive and univariate analyses were performed in STATISTICA release 7 (Stat- Soft, Inc, Tulsa, OK). Multivariate analyses were conducted using SAS (SAS Inc, Cary,

NC).

A total of 736 of 924 patients (80%) gave informed consent to follow-up and provided their nantional identification number (Figure). Physician questionnaires were completed for 560 patients (76%), 428 (79%) at PC centers and 132 (68%) at the ED. The study received approval by the regional research

ethics committee at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden (Dnr: 442/01).

RESULTS

Patient Characteristics

At PC centers, the proportion of male patients was 37% compared with 52% at the ED (P <.01) (Table 2). No differences were found between PC and ED patients regarding age, country of birth, marital status with children, education level, or employment status. A larger proportion of ED patients underwent previous hospitalization (35% vs 21%, P <.001), had a free care card (34% vs 25%, P <.04), were more anxious (55% vs 37%, P <.001), and had symptom duration of 24 hours or less (42% vs 20%, P <.001). The ED and PC patients received regular monitoring of chronic disease and took regular medication to the same extent.

Physician Characteristics

At PC centers, the proportions of male and female physicians were similar, whereas there was a predominance of male physicians (71%) at the ED (Table 3). General practitioners were older than ED physicians (median age, 50 vs 36 years) and were more experienced, with 75% being consultants compared with 27% at the ED.

Physician Assessment

In Table 1, the specific questions asked to physicians are listed. At PC centers, 25% of unscheduled patients were considered to need an evaluation within 24 hours compared with 46% of nonurgent ED patients (P <.001). Concerning appropriateness of the healthcare level sought, 97% of PC patients were considered suitable for the healthcare level by their physicians compared with 47% of ED patients (P <.001). Because of this result, we did not explore the PC patients further.

Detailed Analyses of ED Patients

A total of 132 ED patients were included in more detailed analyses. Of those, we identified 60 ED patients who were considered to need medical treatment within 24 hours (high risk) and 70 ED patients who could have waited longer than 24 hours (low risk). Two patients had missing data: Moreover, we identified 62 ED patients who were considered to have chosen the appropriate level of care and 69 ED patients who were considered more suitable for PC.

To further analyze 130 ED patients with complete data, we categorized them in 2 groups. First, appropriate ED users were those assessed as either attending the right level or having high risk (78 patients [60%]). Second, inappropriate ED users were those assessed as both attending the wrong level and having low risk (52 patients [40%]).

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2019 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up