No abstract

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has critically affected healthcare delivery in the United States. Little is known on its impact on the utilization of emergency department (ED) services, particularly for conditions that might be medically urgent. The objective of this study was to explore trends in the number of outpatient (treat and release) ED visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective study of outpatient emergency department visits from January 1, 2019 to August 31, 2020 using data from a large, urban, academic hospital system in Utah. Using weekly counts and trend analyses, we explored changes in overall ED visits, by patients' area of residence, by medical urgency, and by specific medical conditions. Results While outpatient ED visits were higher (+6.0%) in the first trimester of 2020 relative to the same period in 2019, the overall volume between January and August of 2020 was lower (−8.1%) than in 2019. The largest decrease occurred in April 2020 (−30.4%), followed by the May to August period (−12.8%). The largest declines were observed for visits by out-of-state residents, visits classified as non-emergent, primary care treatable or preventable, and for patients diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes, headaches and migraines, mood and personality disorders, fluid and electrolyte disorders, and abdominal pain. Outpatient ED visits for emergent conditions, such as palpitations and tachycardia, open wounds, syncope and collapse remained relatively unchanged, while lower respiratory disease-related visits were 67.5% higher in 2020 relative to 2019, particularly from March to April 2020. However, almost all types of outpatient ED visits bounced back after May 2020. Conclusions Overall outpatient ED visits declined from mid-March to August 2020, particularly for non-medically urgent conditions which can be treated in other more appropriate care settings. Our findings also have implications for insurers, policymakers, and other stakeholders seeking to assist patients in choosing more appropriate setting for their care during and after the pandemic.

Study objective:We conducted a systematic literature review to identify and to update patient characteristics and contextual factors for adult frequent emergency department users (FEDUs) compared with non-FEDU in an era where the US health care system underwent substantial changes. Methods:We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE to identify all relevant articles after 2010 through July 2018 that describe FEDU. We included US studies on adult FEDU only and excluded studies on specific subgroups of FEDU. We included demographic, clinical, and health care utilization information, and two reviewers independently evaluated the studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Results:The 11 studies included in the review indicated that FEDU were 4% to 16% of total ED users but accounted for 14% to 47% of ED visits, with six to nine visits per year on average. The majority of FEDU were young or middle-aged adults, females, of low socioeconomic status and high school or less education, with public insurance, multiple primary care provider visits, and chronic conditions. Fair or poor self-perceived health status, unemployment, unmet needs from primary care providers (PCPs), mental health, and substance abuse were predictors of FEDU. Conclusion:FEDUs are disproportionally sicker and are also heavy users of non-ED health care service providers. The limited data for non-ED health services use in facility-specific studies of FEDU may contribute to findings in such studies that complex and unmet needs from PCPs contributed to ED visits. This suggests the need for more comprehensive data analysis beyond a few sites that can inform systemic management approaches.

Background: There is insufficient information about risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis and adverse outcomes from low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Objectives: We estimated the association between patients characteristics and COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization and adverse outcome in Mexico. Methods: This retrospective case series used a publicly available nation-level dataset released on May 31, 2020 by the Mexican Ministry of Health, with patients classified as suspected cases of viral respiratory disease. Patients with COVID-19 were laboratory-confirmed. Their profile was stratified by COVID-19 diagnosis or not. Differences among COVID-19 patients based on two separate clinical endpoints, hospitalization and adverse outcome, were examined. Multivariate logistic regressions examined the associations between patient characteristics and hospitalization and adverse outcome. Results: Overall, 236,439 patients were included, with 89,756 (38.0%) being diagnosed with COVID-19. COVID-19 patients were disproportionately older, males and with increased prevalence of one or more comorbidities, particularly diabetes, obesity, and hypertension. Age, male gender, diabetes, obesity and having one or more comorbidities were independently associated with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Current smokers were 23% less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 compared to non-smokers. Of all COVID-19 patients, 34.8% were hospitalized and 13.0% experienced an adverse outcome. Male gender, older age, having one or more comorbidities, and chronic renal disease, diabetes, obesity, COPD, immunosuppression and hypertension were associated with hospitalization and adverse outcome. Current smoking was not associated with adverse outcome. Conclusion: This largest ever case series of COVID-19 patients identified risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization and adverse outcome. The findings could provide insight for the priorities the need to be set, especially by LMICs, to tackle the pandemic.

No abstract