BackgroundHospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) conditions are established indicators for the availability and quality of ambulatory care. We aimed to assess the differences between asylum-seeking children and children of the general population in a German city with respect to (i) the prevalence of ACS hospitalizations, and (ii) the utilization of emergency outpatient services for ACS conditions.MethodsUsing anonymous account data, all children admitted to the University Hospital Heidelberg in 2015 were included in our study. A unique cost unit distinguished asylum seekers residing in a nearby reception center (exposed) from the children of the general population. We adapted international lists of ACS conditions and calculated the prevalence of ACS hospitalizations and the utilization of emergency outpatient services for ACS conditions, attributable fractions among the exposed (Afe) and the population attributable fraction among total admissions (PAF) for each outcome. Differences in the prevalence of each outcome between exposed and controls were analyzed in logistic regression models adjusted for sex, age group and quarterly admission.ResultsOf the 32,015 admissions in 2015, 19.9% (6287) were from inpatient and 80.1% (25,638) from outpatient care. In inpatient care, 9.8% (622) of all admissions were hospitalizations for ACS conditions. The Afe of ACS hospitalizations was 46.57%, the PAF was 1.12%. Emergency service use for ACS conditions could be identified in 8.3% (3088) of all admissions (Afe: 79.57%, PAF: 5.08%). The odds ratio (OR) of asylum-seeking children being hospitalized for ACS conditions in comparison to the control group was 1.81 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.02; 3.2]. The OR of the asylumseeking population compared to the general population for the utilization of emergency service use for ACS conditions was 4.93 [95% CI: 4.11; 5.91].ConclusionsAsylum-seeking children had significantly higher odds of ACS hospitalization and of utilization of emergency outpatient services for ACS conditions. Using the concept of ACS conditions allowed measuring the strength of primary care provided to this local asylum-seeking population. This approach could help to compare the strength of primary care provision in different locations, and allow an objective.

IntroductionThere is an increasing number of forced migrants globally, including refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons and undocumented migrants. According to international law, forced migrants should enjoy access to health services free of discrimination equivalent to the host population, but they face barriers to healthcare worldwide. This may lead to a delay in care and result in preventable hospital treatment, referred to as potentially preventable hospitalisation (PPH) or ambulatory care sensitive hospitalisation (ACSH). There is as yet no overview of the prevalence of PPH in different countries and groups of forced migrants, and it is unknown whether the concept has been used among these migrant groups. We aim to systematically review the evidence (1) on the prevalence of PPH among forced migrants and (2) on differences in the prevalence of PPH between forced migrants and the general host population.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted searching databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science/Knowledge, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar) and the internet (Google). Inclusion criteria: observational studies on forced migrants reporting PPH or ACSH with or without comparison groups published in the English or German language. Exclusion criteria: studies on general migrant groups or hospitalisations without clear reference to avoidability. Study selection: titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened in duplicate for eligibility. Data on the prevalence of PPH/ACSH among forced migrants, as well as any reported prevalence differences between host populations, will be systematically extracted. Quality appraisal will be performed using standardised checklists. The evidence will be synthesised in tabular form and by means of forest plots. A meta-analysis will be performed only among homogeneous studies (in terms of design and population).Ethics and disseminationEthical clearance is not necessary (secondary research). The results will be disseminated via publication in open access journals, conferences and public media.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016037081.

ObjectiveMeasuring the effect of introducing a walk-in clinic on ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) hospitalisations among asylum seekers in a large state reception- and registration centre.Design and settingPre–post intervention study using anonymous account data from a university hospital functioning as referral facility for a state reception- and registration centre in the third largest German federal state.ParticipantsWe included all asylum seekers residing in the reception centre and admitted to the referral hospital between 2015 to 2017.InterventionsEstablishment of an interdisciplinary walk-in clinic in the reception centre (02/2016).Main outcome measuresInternational lists for ACS conditions for both adults and children were adapted and used to calculate the prevalence of ACS conditions among the population (primary outcome measure). The impact of the intervention on the outcome was analysed using a segmented Poisson regression to calculate incidence-rate ratios with respective 95% CIs, adjusted for age, sex and admission.ResultsThe prevalence of ACS hospitalisations changed over time, as did the effect of age, sex and quarter of admission. Introducing the walk-in clinic reduced the prevalence of ACS hospitalisations among asylum seekers compared with the period before establishment of the clinic (incidence-rate ratios (IRR)=0.80 (0.65 to 1.00), p=0.054), but the effect was attenuated after adjustment for time trends. The average difference in prevalence of ACS hospitalisations compared with the period before establishment of the clinic, corrected for pre-existing time trends, age and sex of asylum seekers was IRR=1.03 ((0.69 to 1.55), p=0.876).ConclusionsA walk-in clinic in reception centres may be effective to reduce ACS hospitalisations, but our study could not prove evidence for a measurable effect after full adjustment for time trends. Further research, ideally with parallel control groups, is required to establish evidence for the effectiveness of walk-in clinics in reception centres on reducing ACS hospitalisations.