Prognostic Factors Associated With Unplanned Return Emergency Department Visits in the United States: Systematic Review.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Seraj Farhat, Michelle A Padley, Joshua C Reynolds, J Adam Oostema
{"title":"Prognostic Factors Associated With Unplanned Return Emergency Department Visits in the United States: Systematic Review.","authors":"Seraj Farhat, Michelle A Padley, Joshua C Reynolds, J Adam Oostema","doi":"10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Unplanned return emergency department (ED) visits (RV) and return ED visits leading to admission (RVA) are common. A comprehensive assessment of prognostic factors associated with RVs and RVAs is required to guide further inquiry into how they might be mitigated. We conducted a prognostic indicator systematic review of factors associated with an emergency department (ED) return visit (RV) and RV with admission (RVA) within 30 days of the index ED visit using PRIMSA guidelines (PROSPERO #CRD42023483802). After searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, two investigators independently screened titles/abstracts, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias using the QUIPS template. In total, six studies were included. Most studies were hampered by risks of bias from study participation and study attrition. We found wide variation in the inclusion or exclusion of patient phenotypes associated with frequent ED utilization in the denominator of patients at risk for RV and RVA. Ultimately, heterogeneity and risk of bias precluded meta-analyses. We tabulated ranges of odds ratios for multiple subject-level, ED-level, and hospital-level prognostic factors. Male patient sex, Medicaid or Medicare insurance, and lower acuity emergency severity index scores were most consistently associated with higher risks of RV and RVA within 30 days.</p>","PeriodicalId":48801,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Healthcare Quality","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Healthcare Quality","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000486","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Unplanned return emergency department (ED) visits (RV) and return ED visits leading to admission (RVA) are common. A comprehensive assessment of prognostic factors associated with RVs and RVAs is required to guide further inquiry into how they might be mitigated. We conducted a prognostic indicator systematic review of factors associated with an emergency department (ED) return visit (RV) and RV with admission (RVA) within 30 days of the index ED visit using PRIMSA guidelines (PROSPERO #CRD42023483802). After searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, two investigators independently screened titles/abstracts, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias using the QUIPS template. In total, six studies were included. Most studies were hampered by risks of bias from study participation and study attrition. We found wide variation in the inclusion or exclusion of patient phenotypes associated with frequent ED utilization in the denominator of patients at risk for RV and RVA. Ultimately, heterogeneity and risk of bias precluded meta-analyses. We tabulated ranges of odds ratios for multiple subject-level, ED-level, and hospital-level prognostic factors. Male patient sex, Medicaid or Medicare insurance, and lower acuity emergency severity index scores were most consistently associated with higher risks of RV and RVA within 30 days.

在美国,与意外回访急诊相关的预后因素:系统回顾。
摘要:意外回访急诊(ED) (RV)和回访导致入院(RVA)是常见的。需要对与RVs和RVAs相关的预后因素进行全面评估,以指导进一步研究如何减轻RVs和RVAs。我们使用PRIMSA指南(PROSPERO #CRD42023483802)对急诊科(ED)复诊(RV)和RV合并入院(RVA) 30天内的相关因素进行了预后指标系统评价。在检索Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL和Cochrane图书馆后,两位研究者独立筛选标题/摘要,提取数据,并使用QUIPS模板评估偏倚风险。总共纳入了6项研究。大多数研究受到研究参与和研究人员流失的偏倚风险的阻碍。我们发现,在RV和RVA风险患者的分母中,与频繁使用ED相关的患者表型的纳入或排除存在很大差异。最终,异质性和偏倚风险排除了meta分析。我们列出了多个受试者水平、ed水平和医院水平预后因素的优势比范围。男性患者性别、医疗补助或医疗保险以及较低的急症严重程度指数评分与30天内RV和RVA的高风险最为一致。
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
Journal for Healthcare Quality
Journal for Healthcare Quality HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: The Journal for Healthcare Quality (JHQ), a peer-reviewed journal, is an official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality. JHQ is a professional forum that continuously advances healthcare quality practice in diverse and changing environments, and is the first choice for creative and scientific solutions in the pursuit of healthcare quality. It has been selected for coverage in Thomson Reuter’s Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index®, and Current Contents®. The Journal publishes scholarly articles that are targeted to leaders of all healthcare settings, leveraging applied research and producing practical, timely and impactful evidence in healthcare system transformation. The journal covers topics such as: Quality Improvement • Patient Safety • Performance Measurement • Best Practices in Clinical and Operational Processes • Innovation • Leadership • Information Technology • Spreading Improvement • Sustaining Improvement • Cost Reduction • Payment Reform
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信