Limited evidence that emergency department care is more costly than other outpatient settings for low-acuity conditions: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Caring for patients with low-acuity conditions in Emergency Departments (ED) is often thought to cost more than treating those patients in other ambulatory settings. Understanding the relative cost of care between settings has critical implications for healthcare policy and system design. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of papers comparing the cost of care for low-acuity and ambulatory care sensitive conditions in ED and other outpatient settings. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science for peer reviewed papers, plus Google for grey literature. We conducted duplicate screening and data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies using an adapted SIGN checklist for economic studies. We calculated an unweighted mean charge ratio across studies and summarized our findings in narrative and tabular format. RESULTS: We identified one study comparing costs. 18 studies assessed physician or facility charges, conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, including cohort analyses (5), charge analyses (5), survey (1), and database searches (5) assessing populations ranging from 370 participants to 60 million. Charge ratios ranged from 0.60 to 13.45 with an unweighted mean of 4.20. Most (12) studies were of acceptable quality. CONCLUSION: No studies since 2001 assess the comparative costs of ED versus non-ED care for low-acuity ambulatory conditions. Physician and facility charges for ED care are higher than in other ambulatory settings for low-acuity conditions. Empirical evidence is lacking to support that ED care is more costly than similar care in other ambulatory settings.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: La prise en charge des patients souffrant d'affections de faible gravité dans les services d'urgence est souvent considérée comme plus coûteuse que la prise en charge de ces mêmes patients dans d'autres structures ambulatoires. Comprendre le coût relatif des soins entre les différents environnements a des implications cruciales pour la politique des soins de santé et la conception des systèmes. MéTHODES: Nous avons procédé à un examen systématique des documents comparant le coût des soins pour les affections à faible gravité et les affections sensibles aux soins ambulatoires dans les services d'urgence et dans d'autres établissements de soins ambulatoires. Nous avons effectué des recherches dans PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL et Web of Science pour les articles évalués par des pairs, ainsi que dans Google pour la littérature grise. Nous avons procédé à une double sélection et à une extraction des données, ainsi qu'à une évaluation de la qualité des études incluses à l'aide d'une liste de contrôle SIGN adaptée aux études économiques. Nous avons calculé un ratio moyen non pondéré pour l'ensemble des études et avons résumé nos conclusions sous forme de texte et de tableau. RéSULTATS: Nous avons identifié une étude comparant les coûts. 18 études ont évalué les frais des médecins ou des établissements, menées aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni et au Canada, y compris des analyses de cohortes (5), des analyses de frais (5), des enquêtes (1) et des recherches dans des bases de données (5) évaluant des populations allant de 370 participants à 60 millions de personnes. Les taux d'imputation allaient de 0,60 à 13,45, avec une moyenne non pondérée de 4,20. La plupart des études (12) étaient de qualité acceptable. CONCLUSION: Depuis 2001, aucune étude n'a évalué les coûts comparatifs des soins aux urgences par rapport aux soins hors urgences pour les affections ambulatoires de faible gravité. Les honoraires des médecins et des établissements pour les soins aux urgences sont plus élevés que dans d'autres structures ambulatoires pour les affections de faible gravité. Il n'existe pas de données empiriques permettant d'affirmer que les soins aux urgences sont plus coûteux que des soins similaires dispensés dans d'autres structures ambulatoires.

"She knows me best": a qualitative study of patient and caregiver views on the role of the primary care physician follow-up post-hospital discharge in individuals admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and congestive heart failure (CHF) are at high-risk of readmission after hospital discharge. There is conflicting evidence however on whether timely follow-up with a primary care provider reduces that risk. The objective of this study is to understand the perspectives of patients with COPD and CHF, and their caregivers, on the role of primary care provider follow-up after hospital discharge. METHODS: A qualitative study design with semi-structured interviews was conducted among patients or their family caregivers admitted with COPD or CHF who were enrolled in a randomized controlled study at three acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Participants were interviewed between December 2017 to January 2019, the majority discharged from hospital at least 30 days prior to their interview. Interviews were analyzed independently by three authors using a deductive directed content analysis, with the fourth author cross-comparing themes. RESULTS: Interviews with 16 participants (eight patients and eight caregivers) revealed four main themes. First, participants valued visiting their primary care provider after discharge to build upon their longitudinal relationship. Second, primary care providers played a key role in coordinating care. Third, there were mixed views on the ideal time for follow-up, with many participants expressing a desire to delay follow-up to stabilize following their acute hospitalization. Fourth, the link between the post-discharge visit and preventing hospital readmissions was unclear to participants, who often self-triaged based on their symptoms when deciding on the need for emergency care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers valued in-person follow-up with their primary care provider following discharge from hospital because of the trust established through pre-existing longitudinal relationships. Our results suggest policy makers should focus on improving rates of primary care provider attachment and systems supporting informational continuity.

'I think this medicine actually killed my wife': patient and family perspectives on shared decision-making to optimize medications and safety.

BACKGROUND: This study explored the perspectives and experiences from patients and families around how patient/family preferences and priorities are considered in medication-related discussions and decisions within the healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using focus groups with residents of Southern Ontario and British Columbia (N = 16). Three focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured focus group guide. The audiotaped focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis, using inductive coding, was completed. RESULTS: A total of three main themes [and several sub-themes (and sub-sub-themes)] emerged from the data: patient and family expertise [lived experience, information expert, and perceived expert roles (patient/family, healthcare provider)], perceived patient-centredness (relationship qualities of healthcare provider and assumptions about patients), and system (time, coordination and communication, and culture). Stories told by participants helped to clarify the relationships between the themes and sub-themes, leading to, what we understand as shared decision-making around medications and subsequent health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that shared decision-making resulted from both recognition and integration of the personal expertise of the patient and family in medications, and perceived patient-centredness. This is broadly consistent with the current conceptualization of evidence-based medicine. The stories told highlight the complex, dynamic, and nonlinear nature of shared decision-making for medications, and that patient priorities are not as integrated into shared decision-making about medications as we would hope. This suggests the need for developing a systematic process to elicit, record, and integrate patient preferences and priorities about medications to create space for a more patient-centred conversation.

Making patient values visible in healthcare: a systematic review of tools to assess patient treatment priorities and preferences in the context of multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVES: To identify studies of existing instruments available for clinicians to record overall patient preferences and priorities for care, suitable for use in routine primary care practice in patients with multimorbidity. To examine the data for all identified tools with respect to validity, acceptability and effect on health outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic Review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, each with a predefined search strategy. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Citations were included if they reported a tool used to record patient priorities or preferences for treatment, and quantitative or qualitative results following administration of the tool. RESULTS: Our search identified 189 potential studies of which 6 original studies and 2 discussion papers were included after screening for relevance. 5 of 6 studies (83%) were of cross-sectional design and of moderate quality. All studies reported on the usability of a tool in order to elicit patient preferences. No studies reported on changes to patient-specific healthcare outcomes as a consequence of recording preferences and priorities. 1 of 6 studies reported on eliciting patient preference in the context of multimorbidity. No studies incorporated patient preferences into an electronic medical record. CONCLUSIONS: Given the importance of eliciting patient priorities and preferences in providing patient-centred care in the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy, we found surprisingly few relevant tools. Some aspects of the tools used for single-disease contexts may also be useful in the context of multimorbidity. There is an urgent need to develop ways to make patient priorities explicitly visible in the clinical record and medical decision-making and to test the effect on patient-relevant outcomes.