Estimating the Proportion of Telehealth-Able United States Emergency Department Visits.

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
K Noelle Tune,Kori S Zachrison,Jesse M Pines,Hui Zheng,Emily M Hayden
{"title":"Estimating the Proportion of Telehealth-Able United States Emergency Department Visits.","authors":"K Noelle Tune,Kori S Zachrison,Jesse M Pines,Hui Zheng,Emily M Hayden","doi":"10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"STUDY OBJECTIVE\r\nWe use national emergency department (ED) data to identify the proportion of \"telehealth-able\" ED visits, defined as potentially conductible by Video Only or Video Plus (with limited outpatient testing).\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe used ED visits by patients 4 years of age and older from the 2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and applied survey weighting for national representativeness. Two raters categorized patient-described Reasons for Visit (RFV) as telehealth-able (yes, no, uncertain) for both Video Only and Video Plus visits. This categorization was stratified by age (4 to 17 years old, 18 to 35, 36 to 64, and 65 and older). Visit characteristics that were used to remove further nontelehealth-able visits included admission, procedures, diagnostic testing, acuity level, and pain score.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOur sample included 133.6 million United States ED visits in 2019 for patients aged 4 years or older. Of those, between 3.4% and 8.8% of visits were telehealth-able by Video Only and between 5.0% and 9.7% by Video Plus, considering only the first RFV. Visits by younger patients were more often telehealth-able, with the proportion of telehealth-able visits decreasing with advancing age. Considering all RFVs, between 0% to 6.6% of ED visits were telehealth-able with Video Only and 0.02% to 7.6% with Video Plus.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nBetween 3% and 10% of United States ED visits may be potentially telehealth-able for patients aged 4 years and older, considering the first listed RFV and ED visit characteristics. Fewer visits may be telehealth-able when all reasons for visits are considered.","PeriodicalId":8236,"journal":{"name":"Annals of emergency medicine","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of emergency medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.12.003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE We use national emergency department (ED) data to identify the proportion of "telehealth-able" ED visits, defined as potentially conductible by Video Only or Video Plus (with limited outpatient testing). METHODS We used ED visits by patients 4 years of age and older from the 2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and applied survey weighting for national representativeness. Two raters categorized patient-described Reasons for Visit (RFV) as telehealth-able (yes, no, uncertain) for both Video Only and Video Plus visits. This categorization was stratified by age (4 to 17 years old, 18 to 35, 36 to 64, and 65 and older). Visit characteristics that were used to remove further nontelehealth-able visits included admission, procedures, diagnostic testing, acuity level, and pain score. RESULTS Our sample included 133.6 million United States ED visits in 2019 for patients aged 4 years or older. Of those, between 3.4% and 8.8% of visits were telehealth-able by Video Only and between 5.0% and 9.7% by Video Plus, considering only the first RFV. Visits by younger patients were more often telehealth-able, with the proportion of telehealth-able visits decreasing with advancing age. Considering all RFVs, between 0% to 6.6% of ED visits were telehealth-able with Video Only and 0.02% to 7.6% with Video Plus. CONCLUSION Between 3% and 10% of United States ED visits may be potentially telehealth-able for patients aged 4 years and older, considering the first listed RFV and ED visit characteristics. Fewer visits may be telehealth-able when all reasons for visits are considered.
估计美国急诊部门可远程医疗的比例。
研究目的:我们使用国家急诊科(ED)数据来确定“远程医疗”急诊科就诊的比例,定义为可能通过视频或视频附加(有限的门诊测试)进行。方法:我们使用2019年全国医院门诊医疗调查中4岁及以上患者的急诊就诊数据,并应用调查加权法进行全国代表性。两名评分者将患者描述的就诊原因(RFV)归类为可远程医疗(是,否,不确定),包括仅视频就诊和视频附加就诊。这种分类按年龄分层(4至17岁,18至35岁,36至64岁,65岁及以上)。用于排除进一步非远程医疗访问的访问特征包括入院、程序、诊断测试、视力水平和疼痛评分。我们的样本包括2019年美国4岁及以上患者的1.336亿次急诊就诊。其中,仅通过视频进行远程医疗的占3.4%至8.8%,通过视频+进行远程医疗的占5.0%至9.7%,仅考虑第一个RFV。年轻患者的远程医疗访问次数更多,随着年龄的增长,远程医疗访问的比例下降。考虑到所有rfv,只有视频的急诊科就诊人数为0%至6.6%,有视频辅助的为0.02%至7.6%。考虑到第一个列出的RFV和ED就诊特征,美国4岁及以上患者的ED就诊中有3%至10%可能是远程医疗的。考虑到所有的就诊原因,远程医疗可能会减少。
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
Annals of emergency medicine
Annals of emergency medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
819
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Emergency Medicine, the official journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians, is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to improving the quality of care by publishing the highest quality science for emergency medicine and related medical specialties. Annals publishes original research, clinical reports, opinion, and educational information related to the practice, teaching, and research of emergency medicine. In addition to general emergency medicine topics, Annals regularly publishes articles on out-of-hospital emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, injury and disease prevention, health policy and ethics, disaster management, toxicology, and related topics.
×
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