Low-acuity presentations to the emergency department in Canada: exploring the alternative attempts to avoid presentation.

OBJECTIVE: ED visits have been rising year on year worldwide. It has been suggested that some of these visits could be avoided if low-acuity patients had better primary care access. This study explored patients' efforts to avoid ED presentation and alternative care sought prior to presentation. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients presenting to three urban EDs in Edmonton, Canada, completed a questionnaire collecting demographics, actions attempted to avoid presentation and reasons for presentation. Survey data were cross-referenced to a minimal patient dataset containing ED and demographic information. RESULTS: A total of 1402 patients (66.5%) completed the survey. Although 89.3% of the patients felt that the ED was their best care option, the majority of patients (60.1%) sought alternative care or advice prior to presentation. Men, individuals who presented with injury only, and individuals with less than a high school education were all less likely to seek alternative care. Alternative care actions included visiting a physician (54.1%) or an alternative healthcare professional (eg, chiropractor, physiotherapist, etc; 21.2%), calling physician offices (47%) or the regional health information line (13%). Of those who called their physicians, the majority received advice to present to the ED (67.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Most low-acuity patients attempt to avoid ED presentation by seeking alternative care. This analysis identifies groups of individuals in the study region who are less likely to seek alternative care first and may benefit from targeted interventions/education. Other regions may wish to complete a similar profile to determine which patients are less likely to seek alternative care first.

Presentations for hypoglycemia associated with diabetes mellitus to emergency departments in a Canadian province: A database and epidemiological analysis.

AIMS: The prevalence of diabetes mellitus was reportedly 9% in 2014, making it one of the most common global chronic conditions. Hypoglycemia is an important complication of diabetes treatment. The objective of this study was to quantify and characterize hypoglycemia presentations associated with type 1 or 2 diabetes made to emergency departments (EDs) by adults in a Canadian province. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using reliable administrative data from Alberta for a five-year period (2010/11-2014/15). Records of interest were those with an ICD-10-CA diagnosis of diabetes-associated hypoglycemia (e.g., E10.63). A descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Data extraction yielded 7835 presentations by 5884 patients. The majority (56.2%) of presentations were made by males, median patient age was 62, and 60.5% had type 2 diabetes. These episodes constituted 0.08% of presentations to Alberta EDs. The annual rate of presentations decreased by 11.8% during the five-year period. Most presentations (63.4%) involved transportation to ED via ambulance. Median length-of-stay was four hours. For 27.5% of presentations, an X-ray was obtained. Most hypoglycemic episodes (65.2%) were considered to be moderate, while 34.3% were considered to be severe. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes-associated hypoglycemia presentations to Alberta EDs are more commonly made by patients with type 2 diabetes, who are more likely to be transported via ambulance and also admitted. Each year, approximately one percent of Albertans with diabetes presented with a hypoglycemia episode; however, knowledge of the variation across regions can guide a strategy for improved care.

Utilization Criteria for Prehospital Ultrasound in a Canadian Critical Care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service: Determining Who Might Benefit.

Introduction Prehospital ultrasound (PHUS) assessments by physicians and non-physicians are performed on medical and trauma patients with increasing frequency. Prehospital ultrasound has been shown to be of benefit by supporting interventions. Problem Which patients may benefit from PHUS has not been clearly identified. METHODS: A multi-variable logistic regression analysis was performed on a previously created retrospective dataset of five years of physician- and non-physician-performed ultrasound scans in a Canadian critical care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS). For separate medical and trauma patient groups, the a-priori outcome assessed was patient characteristics associated with the outcome variable of "PHUS-supported intervention." RESULTS: Both models were assessed (Likelihood Ratio, Score, and Wald) as a good fit. For medical patients, the characteristics of heart rate (HR) and shock index (SI) were found to be most significant for an intervention being supported by PHUS. An extremely low HR was found to be the most significant (OR=15.86 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-171.73]; P=.02). The higher the SI, the more likely that an intervention was supported by PHUS (SI 0.9 to<1.3: OR=9.15 [95% CI, 1.36-61.69]; P=.02; and SI 1.3+: OR=8.37 [95% CI, 0.69-101.66]; P=.09). For trauma patients, the characteristics of Prehospital Index (PHI) and SI were found to be most significant for PHUS support. The greatest effect was PHI, where increasing ORs were seen with increasing PHI (PHI 14-19: OR=13.36 [95% CI, 1.92-92.81]; P=.008; and PHI 20-24: OR=53.10 [95% CI, 4.83-583.86]; P=.001). Shock index was found to be similar, though, with lower impact and significance (SI 0.9 to<1.3: OR=9.11 [95% CI, 1.31-63.32]; P=.025; and SI 1.3+: OR=35.75 [95% CI, 2.51-509.81]; P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: In a critical care HEMS, markers of higher patient acuity in both medical and trauma patients were associated with occurrences when an intervention was supported by PHUS. Prospective study with in-hospital follow-up is required to confirm these hypothesis-generating results. O'Dochartaigh D , Douma M , Alexiu C , Ryan S , MacKenzie M . Utilization criteria for prehospital ultrasound in a Canadian critical care Helicopter Emergency Medical Service: determining who might benefit. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):536-540.