Pereira Laurent, Choquet Christophe, Perozziello Anne, Wargon Mathias, Juillien Gaelle, Colosi Luisa, Hellmann Romain, Ranaivoson Michel, Casalino Enrique
Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Hospital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Emergency Department, Paris, France; Study Group for Efficiency and Quality of Emergency Departments and Non-Scheduled Activities Departments, Paris, France.
Study Group for Efficiency and Quality of Emergency Departments and Non-Scheduled Activities Departments, Paris, France; Medical Information Systems Program (PMSI), University Hospital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Paris, France.
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 8;10(4):e0123803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123803. eCollection 2015.
Predictors of unscheduled return visits (URV), best time-frame to evaluate URV rate and clinical relationship between both visits have not yet been determined for the elderly following an ED visit.
We conducted a prospective-observational study including 11,521 patients aged ≥75-years and discharged from ED (5,368 patients (53.5%)) or hospitalized after ED visit (6,153 patients). Logistic Regression and time-to-failure analyses including Cox proportional model were performed.
Mean time to URV was 17 days; 72-hour, 30-day and 90-day URV rates were 1.8%, 6.1% and 10% respectively. Multivariate analysis indicates that care-pathway and final disposition decisions were significantly associated with a 30-day URV. Thus, we evaluated predictors of 30-day URV rates among non-admitted and hospitalized patient groups. By using the Cox model we found that, for non-admitted patients, triage acuity and diagnostic category and, for hospitalized patients, that visit time (day, night) and diagnostic categories were significant predictors (p<0.001). For URV, we found that 25% were due to closely related-clinical conditions. Time lapses between both visits constituted the strongest predictor of closely related-clinical conditions.
Our study shows that a decision of non-admission in emergency departments is linked with an accrued risk of URV, and that some diagnostic categories are also related for non-admitted and hospitalized subjects alike. Our study also demonstrates that the best time frame to evaluate the URV rate after an ED visit is 30 days, because this is the time period during which most URVs and cases with close clinical relationships between two visits are concentrated. Our results suggest that URV can be used as an indicator or quality.
对于急诊就诊后的老年人,非计划复诊(URV)的预测因素、评估URV率的最佳时间范围以及两次就诊之间的临床关系尚未确定。
我们进行了一项前瞻性观察研究,纳入了11521名年龄≥75岁且从急诊出院的患者(5368例患者(53.5%))或急诊就诊后住院的患者(6153例患者)。进行了逻辑回归分析和包括Cox比例模型的生存分析。
URV的平均时间为17天;72小时、30天和90天的URV率分别为1.8%、6.1%和10%。多因素分析表明,护理路径和最终处置决定与30天URV显著相关。因此,我们评估了非入院和住院患者组中30天URV率的预测因素。通过使用Cox模型,我们发现,对于非入院患者,分诊 acuity和诊断类别,对于住院患者,就诊时间(白天、晚上)和诊断类别是显著的预测因素(p<0.001)。对于URV,我们发现25%是由于密切相关的临床情况。两次就诊之间的时间间隔是密切相关临床情况的最强预测因素。
我们的研究表明,急诊科的非入院决定与URV风险增加有关,并且一些诊断类别对于非入院和住院患者同样相关。我们的研究还表明,评估急诊就诊后URV率的最佳时间范围是30天,因为这是大多数URV和两次就诊之间临床关系密切的病例集中的时间段。我们的结果表明,URV可以用作质量指标。