Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are designed to respond to and manage patients experiencing life-threatening emergencies; however, not all emergency calls are necessarily emergent and of high acuity. Emergency responses to low-acuity patients affect not only EMS, but other areas of the health care system. However, definitions of low-acuity calls are vague and subjective; therefore, it was necessary to provide a clear description of the low-acuity patient in EMS.

The goal of this study was to develop descriptors for “low-acuity EMS patients” through expert consensus within the EMS environment.

A Modified Delphi survey was used to develop call-out categories and descriptors of low acuity through expert opinion of practitioners within EMS. Purposive, snowball sampling was used to recruit 60 participants, of which 29 completed all three rounds. An online survey tool was used and offered both binary and free-text options to participants. Consensus of 75% was accepted on the binary options while free text offered further proposals for consideration during the survey.

On completion of round two, consensus was obtained on 45% (70/155) of the descriptors, and a further 30% (46/155) consensus was obtained in round three. Experts felt that respiratory distress, unconsciousness, chest pain, and severe hemorrhage cannot be considered low acuity. For other emergency response categories, specific descriptors were offered to denote a case as low acuity.

Descriptors of low acuity in EMS are provided in both medical and trauma cases. These descriptors may not only assist in the reduction of unnecessary response and transport of patients, but also assist in identifying the most appropriate response of EMS resources to call-outs. Further development and validation are required of these descriptors in order to improve accuracy and effectiveness within the EMS dispatch environment.

The primary aim of this study was to determine the characteristics and develop a predictive model describing low acuity users of the emergency department (ED) by patients followed by a family health team (FHT). The secondary aim was to contrast this information with characteristics of high acuity users. We also sought to determine what factors were predictive of leaving without being seen (LWBS).

This retrospective descriptive correlational study explored characteristics and factors predictive of low acuity ED utilization. The sample included all FHT patients with ED visits in 2011. The last ED record was chosen for review. Sex, age, Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), presenting complaint(s), time of day, day of week, number of visits, and diagnosis were recorded.

Of 1580 patients who visited the ED in 2011, 56% were CTAS 1–3 visits, 24% CTAS 4–5 and 20% had no CTAS recorded. Patients who were older than age 65 were approximately half as likely to have a CTAS level of 4–5 compared to younger patients (OR=0.605, CI=0.441,0.829). Patients older than age 65 were 1.75 times more likely to be CTAS level 1–2 (OR=1.745, CI=1.277, 2.383). Patients who went to the ED during the day were less likely to LWBS compared to night visits (OR=0.697, CI=0.532, 0.912).

Most low acuity ED utilization is by patients under the age of 65, while high acuity ED utilization is more common among patients older than age 65. Patients are more likely to LWBS during late evening and overnight periods (9 pm–7 am).

For a variety of reasons, many emergency department (ED) visits are classified as less- or nonurgent (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale [CTAS] level IV and V). A recent survey in a tertiary care ED identified some of these reasons. The purpose of our study was to determine if these same reasons applied to patients presenting with problems triaged at a similar level at a low-volume rural ED.

A 9-question survey tool was administered to 141 CTAS level IV and V patients who attended the South Huron Hospital ED, in Exeter, Ontario, over a 2-week period in December 2006.

Of the 141 eligible patients, 137 (97.2%) completed the study. One hundred and twenty-two patients (89.1%) reported having a family physician (FP) and 53 (38.7%) had already seen an FP before presenting to the ED. Just over one-half of all patients (51.1%) had their problem for more than 48 hours, and 42 (30.7%) stated that they were referred to the ED for care. Fifty-three (38.7%) of the respondents felt they needed treatment as soon as possible. Many patients reported coming to the ED because: 1) their FP office was closed (21.9%); 2) they could not get a timely appointment (16.8%); or 3) the walk-in clinic was closed (24.8%). Only 6 patients (4.4%) specifically stated that they came to the ED because they had no FP. One-third of patients attended the ED because they believed it offered specialized services.

In this rural setting, most less- or nonurgent ED patients had an FP yet they went to the ED because they did not have access to primary care, because they perceived their problem to be urgent or because they were referred for or sought specific services.