Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:38:02.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergency department use by CTAS Levels IV and V patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Simon Field  and
Andrea Lantz
Simon Field*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Andrea Lantz
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University QE II Health Sciences Centre, 3021 – 1796 Summer St., Halifax NS B3H 3A7

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:

Many emergency department (ED) visits are non-urgent. Postulated reasons for these visits include lack of access to family physicians, convenience and 24/7 access, perceived need for investigations or treatment not available elsewhere, and as a mechanism for expedited referral to other specialists. We conducted a patient survey to determine why non-urgent patients use our tertiary care ED. Our primary objective was to determine how often the lack of a family physician was associated with non-urgent ED use.

Methods:

The survey was administered to Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) Level IV and V patients who attended the ED of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, NS, from March 7 to March 13, 2005.

Results:

Of the 352 eligible patients, 235 completed the survey (response rate, 67%). Fifty-six percent (132/235) had an acute medical problem of less than 48 hours, including 48% (114/235) with a recent injury. Thirty-four percent (82/235) had been referred to the ED, 49% (114/235) believed they required a specific service that was unavailable elsewhere (e.g., radiology, suturing, casting) and 43% (100/235) presented because of self-perceived urgency of their condition. Eighty-four percent (198/235) had a family physician; 23% (55/235) used the ED because of limited access to theirfamily physician and 3% (6/235) used the ED because they did not have a family physician.

Conclusions:

In this setting, most non-urgent ED visits involved patients who required a specific service offered by the ED, patients who believed their condition was urgent, or patients who were referred from the community to the ED. From a patient perspective, relatively few visits would be considered inappropriate. Lack of a family physician was not associated with non-urgent ED use; however, inability to obtain timely access to the FP was a factor in one-quarter of cases.

Keywords

Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity ScaleCTASnon-urgentacuity
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 8 , Issue 5 , September 2006 , pp. 317 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2006

References

1.Vertesi, L. Does the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale identify non-urgent patients who can be triaged away from the emergency department? Can J Emerg Med 2004; 6(5):337–42.Google Scholar
2.Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians and the National Emergency Nurses Affiliation. Access to acute care in the setting of emergency department overcrowding [joint position statement]. Can J Emerg Med 2003;5(2):81–6.Google Scholar
3.Young, GP, Wagner, MB, Kellermann, AL, et al. Ambulatory visits to hospital emergency departments. JAMA 1996;276:460–5.Google Scholar
4.Sempere-Selva, T, Peiro, S, Sendra-Pina, P, et al. Inappropriate use of an accident and emergency department: magnitude, associated factors, and reasons — an approach with explicit criteria. Ann Emerg Med 2001;37:568–79.Google Scholar
5.Buesching, DP, Jablonowski, A, Vesta, E, et al. Inappropriate emergency department visits. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:672–6.Google Scholar
6.Lowe, RA, Bindman, AB. Judging who needs emergency department care: a prerequisite for policy-making. Am J Emerg Med 1997;15:133–7.Google Scholar
7.Murphy, AW. ‘Inappropriate’ attenders at accident and emergency departments I: definition, incidence and reasons for attendance [review]. Fam Pract 1998;15(1):23–32.Google Scholar
8.Gill, JM. Nonurgent use of the emergency department: appropriate or not? Ann Emerg Med 1994;24:953–7.Google Scholar
9.Northington, WE, Brice, JH, Zou, B. Use of an emergency department by nonurgent patients. Am J Emerg Med 2005;23:131–7.Google Scholar
10.Richardson, LD, Hwang, U. Access to care: a review of the emergency medicine literature. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:1030–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Derlet, RW, Kinser, D, Ray, L, et al. Prospective identification and triage of nonemergency patients out of an emergency departaient: a 5-year study. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:215–23.Google Scholar
12.Hutchison, B, Ostbye, T, Barnsley, J, et al. Patient satisfaction and quality of care in walk-in clinics, family practices and emergency departments: the Ontario Walk-In Clinic Study. CMAJ 2003;168(8):977–83.Google Scholar
13.Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians and National Emergency Nurses Affiliation. Joint Position Statement on emergency department overcrowding. Can J Emerg Med 2001;3(2):82–8.Google Scholar
14.Boushy, D, Dubinsky, I. Primary care physician and patient factors that result in patients seeking emergency care in a hospital setting: the patient’s perspective. J Emerg Med 1999;17:405–12.Google Scholar
15.Coleman, P, Irons, R, Nicholl, J. Will alternative immediate care services reduce demands for non-urgent treatment at accident and emergency? Emerg Med J 2001;18:482–7.Google Scholar
16.Burnett, MG, Grover, SA. Use of emergency department for nonurgent care during regular business hours. CMAJ 1996; 154:1345–51.Google Scholar
17.Petersen, LA, Burstin, HR, O’Neil, AC, et al. Nonurgent emergency department visits: the effect of having a regular doctor. Med Care 1998;36:1249–55.Google Scholar
18.Cook, S, Sinclair, D. Emergency department triage: a program assessment using the tools of continuous quality improvement. J Emerg Med 1997;15:889–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Beveridge, R, Clarke, B, Janes, L, et al. Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale: implementation guidelines. Can J Emerg Med 1999;1(3 suppl). Online version available at: http://www.caep.ca (accessed 3 Aug 2006).Google Scholar
20.Murray, M, Bullard, M, Grafstein, E; for the CTAS and CEDIS National Working Groups. Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale Implementation Guidelines. Can J Emerg Med 2004;6(6):421–7.Google Scholar
21.Sarver, JH, Cydulka, RK, Baker, DW. Usual source of care and nonurgent emergency department use. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9:916–23.Google Scholar
22.Murphy, AW. ‘Inappropriate’ attenders at accident and emergency departments II: health service responses [review]. Fam Pract 1998;15(1):33–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Williams, RM. The costs of visits to emergency departments. N Engl J Med 1996;334:642–6.Google Scholar
24.Washington, DL, Stevens, CD, Skekelle, PG, et al. Safely directing patients to appropriate levels of care: guideline-driven triage in the emergency service. Ann Emerg Med 2000;36:15–22.Google Scholar
25.Siminski, P, Cragg, S, Middleton, R, et al. Primary care patients’ views on why they present to Emergency Departments: Inappropriate attendances or inappropriate policy? Austr J Primary Health 2005;11:87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Afilalo, M, Guttman, A, Colacone, A, et al. Emergency department use and misuse. J Emerg Med 1995;13:259–64.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Gifford, MJ, Franaszek, JB, Gibson, G. Emergency physicians’ and patients’ assessments: urgency of need for medical care. Ann Emerg Med 1980;9(10):502–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed