Diversion of hospital admissions from the emergency department using an interprofessional team: a propensity score analysis.

IF 2.4
CJEM Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1007/s43678-024-00760-x
Ivy Cheng, Alex Kiss, Natalie Coyle, Aikta Verma, Kaif Pardhan, Justin N Hall, Belinda Wagner, Will Thomas-Boaz, Steven Shadowitz, Clare Atzema
{"title":"Diversion of hospital admissions from the emergency department using an interprofessional team: a propensity score analysis.","authors":"Ivy Cheng, Alex Kiss, Natalie Coyle, Aikta Verma, Kaif Pardhan, Justin N Hall, Belinda Wagner, Will Thomas-Boaz, Steven Shadowitz, Clare Atzema","doi":"10.1007/s43678-024-00760-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine if an ED interprofessional team (\"ED1Team\") could safely decrease hospital admissions among older persons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective, propensity score matched study was performed at a single ED during a control (December 2/2018-March 31/2019) and intervention (December 2/2019-March 31/2020) period. The intervention was assessed by the ED1Team, which could include an occupational therapist, physiotherapist, and social worker. We compared admission rates between period in persons age ≥ 70 years. Next, we compared visits attended by the ED1Team to (a) control period visits, and (b) intervention period visits without ED1Team attendance.</p><p><strong>Secondary outcomes: </strong>ED length-of-stay, 7-day subsequent hospital admission and mortality in discharged patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 5496 and 4876 eligible ED visits during the control and intervention periods, respectively. In the latter group, 556 (11.4%) received ED1Team assessment. After matching, there was an absolute 2.3% (p = 0.07) reduction in the admission rate between control and intervention periods. After matching the 556 ED1Team attended visits to control period visits, and to intervention period visits without the intervention, admission rates decreased by 10.0% (p = 0.006) and 13.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. For discharged patients, median ED length-of-stay decreased by 1.0 h (p < 0.001) between control and intervention periods and increased by 2.3 h (p < 0.001) compared to intervention period without the intervention. For patients discharged by the ED1Team, subsequent readmissions after 7 days were slightly higher, but mortality was not significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ED1Team consultation was associated with a decreased hospital admission rate in older ED patients. It was associated with a slightly longer ED length-of-stay and subsequent early hospitalizations. Given that even a small increase in freed hospital beds would release some of the pressure on an overextended healthcare system, these results suggest that upscaling of the intervention might procure systems-wide benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":"732-740"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-024-00760-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To examine if an ED interprofessional team ("ED1Team") could safely decrease hospital admissions among older persons.

Methods: This single-center, retrospective, propensity score matched study was performed at a single ED during a control (December 2/2018-March 31/2019) and intervention (December 2/2019-March 31/2020) period. The intervention was assessed by the ED1Team, which could include an occupational therapist, physiotherapist, and social worker. We compared admission rates between period in persons age ≥ 70 years. Next, we compared visits attended by the ED1Team to (a) control period visits, and (b) intervention period visits without ED1Team attendance.

Secondary outcomes: ED length-of-stay, 7-day subsequent hospital admission and mortality in discharged patients.

Results: There were 5496 and 4876 eligible ED visits during the control and intervention periods, respectively. In the latter group, 556 (11.4%) received ED1Team assessment. After matching, there was an absolute 2.3% (p = 0.07) reduction in the admission rate between control and intervention periods. After matching the 556 ED1Team attended visits to control period visits, and to intervention period visits without the intervention, admission rates decreased by 10.0% (p = 0.006) and 13.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. For discharged patients, median ED length-of-stay decreased by 1.0 h (p < 0.001) between control and intervention periods and increased by 2.3 h (p < 0.001) compared to intervention period without the intervention. For patients discharged by the ED1Team, subsequent readmissions after 7 days were slightly higher, but mortality was not significantly different.

Conclusion: ED1Team consultation was associated with a decreased hospital admission rate in older ED patients. It was associated with a slightly longer ED length-of-stay and subsequent early hospitalizations. Given that even a small increase in freed hospital beds would release some of the pressure on an overextended healthcare system, these results suggest that upscaling of the intervention might procure systems-wide benefits.

Abstract Image

利用跨专业团队从急诊科分流住院病人:倾向得分分析。
目的:研究急诊室跨专业团队("ED1Team")能否安全地减少老年人的入院率:在对照期(2018 年 12 月 2 日至 2019 年 3 月 31 日)和干预期(2019 年 12 月 2 日至 2020 年 3 月 31 日),在单个急诊室开展了这项单中心、回顾性、倾向得分匹配研究。干预措施由 ED1 团队评估,该团队可能包括一名职业治疗师、一名物理治疗师和一名社会工作者。我们比较了不同时期年龄≥ 70 岁者的入院率。然后,我们比较了由 ED1Team 提供服务的就诊情况与 (a) 对照期就诊情况,以及 (b) 干预期没有 ED1Team 提供服务的就诊情况:次要结果:急诊室停留时间、7 天后入院情况和出院患者死亡率:在对照组和干预组期间,符合条件的急诊室就诊人数分别为 5496 人次和 4876 人次。在干预组中,556 人(11.4%)接受了 ED1Team 评估。经过匹配后,对照组和干预组的入院率绝对降低了 2.3% (p = 0.07)。将接受 ED1Team 评估的 556 人次与对照期的人次以及未接受干预的干预期的人次进行匹配后,入院率分别下降了 10.0% (p = 0.006) 和 13.5% (p 结论:ED1Team 咨询与入院率相关:ED1Team 咨询与老年急诊室患者入院率的降低有关。它与急诊室停留时间略长和随后的早期住院有关。考虑到即使只增加少量空余病床也能缓解过度扩张的医疗系统的部分压力,这些结果表明,扩大干预措施的规模可能会为整个系统带来益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信