Bodenmann Patrick, Velonaki Venetia-Sofia, Griffin Judith L, Baggio Stéphanie, Iglesias Katia, Moschetti Karine, Ruggeri Ornella, Burnand Bernard, Wasserfallen Jean-Blaise, Vu Francis, Schupbach Joelle, Hugli Olivier, Daeppen Jean-Bernard
Vulnerable Populations Center, Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare, Department of Community Medicine and Public Health, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J Gen Intern Med. 2017 May;32(5):508-515. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3789-9. Epub 2016 Jul 11.
Frequent emergency department (ED) users account for a disproportionately high number of ED visits. Studies on case management (CM) interventions to reduce frequent ED use have shown mixed results, and few studies have been conducted within a universal health coverage system.
To determine whether a CM intervention-compared to standard emergency care-reduces ED attendance.
Randomized controlled trial.
Two hundred fifty frequent ED users (5 or more visits in the prior 12 months) who visited a public urban ED at the Lausanne University Hospital between May 2012 and July 2013 were allocated to either an intervention (n = 125) or control (n = 125) group, and monitored for 12 months.
An individualized CM intervention consisting of concrete assistance in obtaining income entitlements, referral to primary or specialty medical care, access to mental health care or substance abuse treatment, and counseling on at-risk behaviors and health care utilization (in addition to standard care) at baseline and 1, 3, and 5 months.
We used a generalized linear model for count data (negative binomial distribution) to compare the number of ED visits during the 12-month follow-up between CM and usual care, from an intention-to-treat perspective.
At 12 months, there were 2.71 (±0.23) ED visits in the intervention group versus 3.35 (±0.32) visits among controls (ratio = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.63; 1.02). In the multivariate model, the effect of the CM intervention on the number of ED visits approached statistical significance (b = -0.219, p = 0.075). The presence of poor social determinants of health was a significant predictor of ED use in the multivariate model (b = 0.280, p = 0.048).
CM may reduce ED use by frequent users through an improved orientation to the health care system. Poor social determinants of health significantly increase use of the ED by frequent users.
急诊科频繁就诊者占急诊就诊人数的比例过高。关于减少急诊科频繁就诊的病例管理(CM)干预措施的研究结果不一,且在全民医保体系内开展的此类研究较少。
确定与标准急诊护理相比,CM干预措施能否降低急诊科就诊率。
随机对照试验。
2012年5月至2013年7月期间前往洛桑大学医院城市公立急诊科就诊的250名急诊科频繁就诊者(过去12个月内就诊5次或以上)被随机分为干预组(n = 125)或对照组(n = 125),并接受为期12个月的监测。
一项个性化的CM干预措施,包括在基线期以及第1、3和5个月时,在获取收入权益方面提供具体帮助、转诊至初级或专科医疗护理、提供心理健康护理或药物滥用治疗途径,以及就危险行为和医疗保健利用情况提供咨询(标准护理之外)。
我们从意向性分析的角度,使用计数数据的广义线性模型(负二项分布)来比较CM组和常规护理组在12个月随访期间的急诊科就诊次数。
12个月时,干预组的急诊科就诊次数为2.71(±0.23)次,对照组为3.35(±0.32)次(比值 = 0.81,95%置信区间 = 0.63;1.02)。在多变量模型中,CM干预措施对急诊科就诊次数的影响接近统计学意义(b = -0.219,p = 0.075)。在多变量模型中,不良健康社会决定因素的存在是急诊科就诊的显著预测因素(b = 0.280,p = 0.048)。
CM可能通过改善对医疗保健系统的了解,减少频繁就诊者的急诊科就诊次数。不良健康社会决定因素会显著增加频繁就诊者对急诊科的利用。