Frequent users of emergency departments (FUED; ≥ 5 ED visits/year) commonly cumulate medical, social, and substance use problems requiring complex and sustained care coordination often unavailable in ED. This study aimed to explore ED healthcare providers’ challenges related to FUED care to gain insight into the support and resources required to address FUED complex needs. An online survey was sent to all general adult emergency services within Switzerland (N = 106). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived that FUED represented a problem and to describe the main challenges encountered. In total, 208 physicians and nurses from 75 EDs (70.7%) completed the survey. Among the 208 participants, 134 (64%) reported that FUED represented a challenge and 133 described 1 to 5 challenges encountered. A conventional content analysis yielded 4 main categories of perceived challenges. Negative consequences in the ED secondary to FUED’s presence (eg, ED overcrowding, staff helplessness, and fatigue) was the most frequently reported challenge, followed by challenges related to FUEDs’ characteristics (eg, mental health and social problems) leading to healthcare complexity. The third most frequently encountered challenge was related to the ED inappropriateness and inefficiency to address FUEDs’ needs. Finally, challenges related to the lack of FUED healthcare network were the least often mentioned. ED healthcare providers experience a wide range of challenges related to FUED care. These findings suggest that currently EDs nor their staff are equipped to address FUEDs’ complex needs.
Background Frequent users of emergency department (FUEDs; ≥ 5 ED visits/ year) are often vulnerable individuals cumulating medical, social and substance use problems. FUEDs often require complex and sustained care coordination generally unavailable in ED and are commonly considered contributing to ED crowding. In view of supporting ED health-care providers through specific training and interventions tailored to FUEDs, this study aimed to explore ED healthcare providers’ perceptions of difficulties related to FUEDs. Methods Participants (N = 208) were ED healthcare providers (i.e., nurses, physicians) from 75 university and community hospitals in Switzerland (71% of all EDs) who answered a questionnaire on FUEDs. They were asked to indicate the extent to which FUEDs represent a problem in their ED. Perceived difficulties related to FUEDs were elicited by an open-ended question. Conventional content analysis was used to extract common categories and themes. Results Among the 208 participants, 134 (64%) reported that FUEDs represent a problem. Of those, 132 provided 1 to 5 answers to the open-ended question. Twenty-eight categories were identified and organized in 4 themes. First, participants reported difficulties related to FUEDs’ characteristics themselves (e.g., problem’s chronicity; behavioural difficulties) leading to healthcare complexity. Second, participants perceived negative consequences related to the presence of FUEDs in the ED (e.g., work overload, staff helplessness and fatigue). Third, ED healthcare offer was considered inappropriate and inefficient to respond to FUEDs needs and fourth collaborating with FUEDs’ existing healthcare network was perceived as difficult. Conclusions ED healthcare providers experience a wide range of difficulties related to the management of FUEDs. Providing training and implementing a case management intervention tailored to FUEDs might support ED health-care providers and contribute to address FUEDs’ complex needs. Key messages ED healthcare providers perceive FUEDs to represent a problem. Perceived difficulties might decrease through training and case management support might contribute to better address FUEDs complex needs.
Objective Frequent users of emergency departments (FUED) account for a disproportionate number of emergency department (ED) visits and contribute to a wide range of challenges for ED staff. While several research has documented that case management (CM) tailored to FUED leads to a reduction in ED visits and a better quality of life (QoL) among FUED, whether there is added value for ED staff remains to be explored. This study aimed to compare, among staff in two academic EDs in Switzerland (one with and one without CM), the FUED-related knowledge, perceptions of the extent of the FUED issue, FUED-related work challenges and FUEDs’ legitimacy to use ED. Method Mixed methods were employed. First, ED physicians and nurses (N = 253) of the two EDs completed an online survey assessing their knowledge and perceptions of FUEDs. Results between healthcare providers working in an ED with CM to those working in an ED without CM were compared using independent two-sided T-tests. Next, a sample of participants (n = 16) took part in a qualitative assessment via one-to-one interviews (n = 6) or focus groups (n = 10). Results Both quantitative and qualitative results documented that the FUED-related knowledge, the extent FUED were perceived as an issue and perceived FUEDs’ legitimacy to use ED were not different between groups. The level of perceived FUED-related challenges was also similar between groups. Quantitative results showed that nurses with CM experienced more challenges related to FUED. Qualitative exploration revealed that lack of psychiatric staff within the emergency team and lack of communication between ED staff and CM team were some of the explanations behind these counterintuitive findings. Conclusion Despite promising results on FUEDs’ QoL and frequency of ED visits, these preliminary findings suggest that CM may provide limited support to ED staff in its current form. Given the high burden of FUED-related challenges encountered by ED staff, improved communication and FUED-related knowledge transfer between ED staff and the CM team should be prioritized to increase the value of a FUED CM intervention for ED staff.
Background Frequent users of emergency departments (FUED; 5 ED visits during the preceding 12 months) account for a disproportionate part of ED visits, causing a wide range of work difficulties to ED staff potentially leading to FUED discrimination. Whereas case management (CM) tailored to FUED leads to a reduction in ED visits, CM impact on ED staff has not been explored yet. This study aimed to compare ED staff perceptions of FUED with and without dedicated CM support. Methods Participants (N = 253) were ED staff (81 physicians; 172 nurses/assistant nurses) of two Swiss university hospitals, one with CM and one without CM support. Perceptions regarding FUED (i.e., knowledge and awareness of the issue extent; related work difficulties; FUEDs’ legitimate use of ED resources) were measured with a 25-item online survey (4 to 10-level Likert scales). Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to 1) explore the associations between CM implementation and FUED perceptions, and 2) test the moderating effect of profession (physician or nurse/nurse assistant) on these associations. All analyses were adjusted by gender and years of practical experience. Results Physicians with CM considered FUED as a less important problem (=.375, R2=.11, p <.05) and rated their knowledge of FUED issue higher (=.245, R2=.077, p <.05) compared to those without CM. In contrast, nurses without CM perceived fewer FUED-related work difficulties (i.e., feeling of failure and helplessness) than nurses with CM. (=-1.01, R2=.06, p <.05) No significant difference was found regarding ED staff’s perceptions of FUEDs’ legitimate use of ED resources and frequentation, nor on nurses’ knowledge of the issue. Conclusions These results suggest that CM intervention for FUED is a potential source of support for ED physicians working with FUED. Further qualitative research is needed to explore why nurses without CM support reported feeling less failure and helplessness regarding FUED. Key messages By highlighting a different impact of CM on nurses’ perception, this study illustrates where CM intervention might be improved. This study supports CM as a promising intervention for FUED by potentially having a positive impact on ED physicians’ perception besides the one previously proved on FUEDs’ number of visits and QOL.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.