Urgent care center wait times increase for COVID-19 results in August 2020, with rapid testing availability limited.

BACKGROUND: In a response to the pandemic, urgent care centers (UCCs) have gained a critical role as a common location for COVID-19 testing. We sought to characterize the changes in testing accessibility at UCCs between March and August 2020 on the basis of testing availability (including rapid antigen testing), wait time for test results, cost of visits, and cost of tests. METHODS: Data were collected using a secret shopper methodology. Researchers contacted 250 UCCs in 10 states. Investigators used a standardized script to survey centers on their COVID-19 testing availability and policies. UCCs were initially contacted in March and re-called in August. T-tests and chi-square tests were conducted to identify differences between March and August data and differences by center classification. RESULTS: Our results indicate that both polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect COVID-19 genetic material and rapid antigen COVID-19 tests have increased in availability. However, wait times for PCR test results have significantly increased to an average of 5.79 days. Additionally, a high proportion of UCCs continue to charge for tests and visits and no significant decrease was found in the proportion of UCCs that charge for COVID-19 testing from March to August. Further, no state reported a majority of UCCs with rapid testing available, indicating an overall lack of rapid testing. CONCLUSIONS: From March to August, COVID-19 testing availability gradually improved. However, many barriers lie in access to COVID-19 testing, including testing costs, visit costs, and overall lack of availability of rapid testing in the majority of UCCs. Despite the passage of the CARES Act, these results suggest that there is room for additional policy to improve accessibility to testing, specifically rapid testing.

Trends in Atrial Fibrillation Management-Results from a National Multi-Center Urgent Care Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common diagnosis in patients presenting to urgent care centers (UCCs), yet there is scant research regarding treatment in these centers. While some of these patients are managed within UCCs, some are referred for further care in an emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify the rate of patients referred to an ED and define predictors for this outcome. We analyzed the rates of AF diagnosis and hospital referral over the years. Finally, we described trends in patient anticoagulation (AC) medication use. METHODS: This retrospective study included 5873 visits of patients over age 18 visiting the TEREM UCC network with a diagnosis of AF over 11 years. Multivariate analysis was used to identify predictors for ED referral. RESULTS: In a multivariate model, predictors of referral to an ED included vascular disease (OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.43-2.45), p < 0.001), evening or night shifts (OR 1.31 (95% CI 1.11-1.55), p < 0.001; OR 1.68 (95% CI 1.32-2.15), p < 0.001; respectively), previously diagnosed AF (OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.26-0.37), p < 0.001), prior treatment with AC (OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.46-0.67), p < 0.001), beta blockers (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.52-0.76), p < 0.001), and antiarrhythmic medication (OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.48-0.69), p < 0.001). Visits diagnosed with AF increased over the years (p = 0.030), while referrals to an ED decreased over the years (p = 0.050). The rate of novel oral anticoagulant prescriptions increased over the years. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of referral to an ED from a UCC over the years is declining but remains high. Referrals may be predicted using simple clinical variables. This knowledge may help to reduce the burden of hospitalizations.

Association between oral health knowledge, perceived oral health related quality of life, perceived oral health status and emergency department and/or urgent care visit: Results from the multi-site oral health literacy study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the link between oral health knowledge (OHK), self-perceived oral health, and emergency room (ER)/urgent care utilization for a dental problem. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a convenience sample of 790 adult participants who presented to two US dental schools and completed an interviewer-administered survey. Key independent variables were OHK assessed with the Comprehensive Measure of Oral Health Knowledge (CMOHK) instrument, self-perceived oral health status and quality of life determined using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) scores. The dependent variable was ER and/or urgent care utilization for a dental problem. Select sociodemographic variables such as age and gender were adjusted for in logistic regression models using SAS. RESULTS: 15.7% of the participants had ever visited an ER and/or urgent care for a dental problem. CMOHK scores were not significantly associated with visits to the ER and/or urgent care. In adjusted analysis, participants with unfavorable GOHAI scores were about three times as likely to have had an ER and/or urgent care visit (OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.66-4.09). Similarly, participants who were unsatisfied with their oral health were about twice as likely to have had an ER and/or urgent care visit (OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.21-3.00) as compared to those satisfied with their oral health status. CONCLUSION: Individuals unsatisfied with their oral health and those with unfavorable perceived oral health related quality of life could benefit from a greater awareness of dental service availability and extended hours including weekend hours at public dental clinics.

Changing Care Settings for Injuries.

Tracking injury rates is important for surveillance purposes but little data exist for injuries outside of emergency department visits. We assess the share and type of injuries reported in urgent care centers (UCCs) compared with other settings. We used FAIR Health claims data from 2016 through the first quarter of 2019 to calculate the percent of claims and most common types of injuries. Of the 197 million injury claims, 62% occurred in office settings and 17% in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), 5% in inpatient and in ED settings, and less than 2% in UCCs. Injury claims in UCCs increased 6% from 2016 to 2018, whereas injury claims in EDs declined 24%. Overall, physician offices and HOPDs accounted for the largest share of injury care, but UCCs represented the fastest growing setting to treat injuries.

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in New York metropolitan area: the view from a major urgent care provider.

PURPOSE: Tracking severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and positivity trends is crucial for understanding the trajectory of the pandemic. We describe demographic and clinical characteristics, testing, and positivity rates for SARS-CoV-2 among 2.8 million patients evaluated at an urgent care provider. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients receiving a diagnostic or serologic test for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1, 2020 and July 20, 2021 at 115 CityMD locations in the New York metropolitan area. Temporal trends in SARS-CoV-2 positivity by diagnostic and serologic tests stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and borough of residence were assessed. RESULTS: During the study period, 6.1 million COVID diagnostic and serological tests were performed on 2.8 million individuals. Testing levels were higher among 20-29-year-old, non-Hispanic White, and female patients compared with other groups. About 35% were repeat testers. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction positivity was higher in non-Hispanic Black (7.9%), Hispanic (8.2%), and Native American (8.2%) compared to non-Hispanic White (5.7%) patients. Overall seropositivity was estimated to be 22.1% (95% confidence interval: 22.0-22.2) and was highest among 10-14 year olds (27.9%), and non-Hispanic Black (26.0%) and Hispanic (31.0%) testers. CONCLUSION: Urgent care centers can provide broad access to diagnostic testing and critical evaluation for ambulatory patients during pandemics, especially in population-dense, urban epicenters.  Urgent care center electronic medical records data can provide in-depth surveillance during pandemics complementary to citywide health department data sources.

Drive-Through Urgent Care Centers: Could They Be the Future of Healthcare Facilities?

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the perception of people toward drive-through healthcare services, their willingness to use them, and the scope of services they would like to receive in a post-pandemic world. BACKGROUND: The abrupt spread of COVID-19 urged healthcare facilities to adopt new infection-control measures. Drive-through testing facilities were implemented as one of the measures to minimize physical contact between healthcare workers and test-takers. Many studies describe drive-through models' merits, but people's opinions about them as a permanent attachment to healthcare facilities are unclear. METHODS: An online survey was distributed through snowball sampling. The survey solicited feedback from adults who lived in the United States. The survey consisted of Likert-type and multiple-choice questions and was completed by176 eligible participants. RESULTS: The use of drive-through pharmacies increased after the spread of COVID-19. Most people agreed drive-through healthcare services could be more convenient and safer to use. People prefer to have their vitals checked, and vaccinations received in a drive-through because of the improved infection-control matters and increased comfort; however, they are neutral about the level of privacy they have and the hygiene of drive-through healthcare settings. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows permanent drive-throughs offering medical services benefit people in times of crisis for the perceived infection control purposes and the improved convenience. A drive-through model can redefine the waiting experience and serve as a new safe triage system in urgent care centers. Drive-through urgent care centers can be adopted as a hybrid of telemedicine and in-person visits.

Resource utilization of adult patients referred to the emergency department from an urgent care center.

BACKGROUND: The rise of urgent care centers (UCC) continues to serve as an alternative to emergency departments (ED) for patients with a perceived lower acuity complaint. Patients that are deemed to be higher acuity are often evaluated at an UCC and then redirected to EDs. However, limited data exist on resource utilization by patients who are transferred from UCCs to EDs. The objective of this study was to compare resource utilization in the ED between patients who were transferred from UCCs and those who were initially evaluated in the ED. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of adult patients transferred from UCCs in Staten Island, NY to Staten Island University Hospital, between 1 March 2018 and 31 December 2018.  The first group (UCC Group) included those initially evaluated at an UCC and then referred to the ED. The second group (ED Group) included those who had their initial evaluation in the ED. RESULTS: 572 subjects were enrolled in the UCC Group, and 84,481 in the ED Group. The UCC Group was more likely to undergo laboratory tests, plain radiographs and computed tomography, electrocardiograms, intravenous fluids, and parenteral medications. Patients in the UCC group were also more likely to be admitted to an inpatient bed or placed into ED observation (p < 0.0001). Overall, ED length of stay was longer in the UCC Group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients referred from an UCC required more ED resources and were more likely to be admitted to a hospital bed compared to those who initially self-referred to the ED.

COVID-19 testing capabilities at urgent care centers in states with greatest disease burden.

While rapid and accessible diagnosis is paramount to monitoring and reducing the spread of disease, COVID-19 testing capabilities across the U.S. remain constrained. For many individuals, urgent care centers (UCCs) may offer the most accessible avenue to be tested. Through a phone survey, we describe the COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs and provide a snapshot highlighting the limited COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs in states with the greatest disease burden.

Urgent Care Center and Emergency Department Utilization for Non-Emergent Health Conditions: Analysis of Managed Care Beneficiaries.

The objective was to identify predictors of utilization for urgent care centers (UCCs), emergency departments (EDs), or for both services for non-emergent health conditions among beneficiaries from a managed care organization (MCO) who resided within a 10-mile radius of UCCs. A cross-sectional design was used to analyze 2016 administrative claims data from an MCO that contracted with a UCC with 12 locations (n = 20,107). Outcome variables were number of visits to UCC, ED, or both. The MCO used the New York University ED algorithm to identify non-emergent health conditions. The Behavioral Model of Health Care Utilization was used as a conceptual framework to identify predictors in the model; age, sex, race/ethnicity, distance to UCC from residence, type of insurance, primary care physician visits, inpatient admissions, chronic conditions, morbid obesity, and smoking behavior. Generalized linear models were used to analyze the association between outcomes and predictors. About 22.7% were UCC users, 66.8% were ED users, and 10.5% used both. African Americans (incident rate ratio [IRR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.98] were less likely to use UCCs and more likely to use the ED (IRR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.07-1.13). Beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions were more likely to use the ED than UCCs. Distance was not a predictor of UCC or ED usage. Utilization of UCC was low for non-emergent health conditions. African Americans and individuals with multiple chronic conditions preferred the ED to UCC for non-emergent health conditions. This study implies that MCO beneficiaries, especially the African American population, need to be informed about UCC locations and services provided.

Financial impact of improving patient care setting selection after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Potentially avoidable emergency department (ED) visits are a significant source of excess healthcare spending. Despite improvement in postoperative readmissions, 20% of bariatric surgery patients use the ED postoperatively. Many of these visits may be appropriately managed in lower-acuity centers. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the economic impact of shifting potentially avoidable ED visits after bariatric surgery to lower-acuity centers. SETTING: Statewide quality improvement collaborative. METHODS: We performed an observational study of patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2011 and 2017 using a linked data registry, including clinical data from a large-quality improvement collaborative and payment data from a statewide value collaborative. Postoperative ED visits and readmission rates were determined. Ninety-day ED and urgent care center (UCC) visit claims were matched to a clinical registry. Price-standardized payments for UCC and ED visits without admission were compared. RESULTS: Among the 36,071 patients who underwent bariatric surgery, 8.4% presented to the ED postoperatively. Approximately 50% of these visits resulted in readmission. Three hundred eighty-eight ED visits without readmission (i.e., potentially avoidable ED visits) and 110 UCC encounters with claims data were identified. Triaging a potentially avoidable ED visit to an UCC would generate a savings of $4238 per patient, reducing spending in this cohort by $1.6 million. CONCLUSION: Shifting potentially avoidable ED visits after bariatric surgery could result in significant cost savings. Efforts to improve patients' selection of healthcare setting and increase utilization of lower-acuity centers may serve as a template for appropriately meeting the needs of patients and containing spending after bariatric surgery.

Influenza vaccine availability at urgent care centers in the state of Arizona.

We surveyed urgent care centers (UCCs) in the state of Arizona to determine whether they offered the influenza vaccine during the 2016-2017 influenza season. Overall vaccine availability was 80.3% at these facilities. During this season, one-third of the UCCs offered influenza vaccination to children 6 months or older; approximately two-thirds offered influenza vaccination to children and young adults 16 years or older. This is the first study of influenza vaccine availability at UCCs.

Impact of an Educational Intervention to Improve Antibiotic Prescribing for Nurse Practitioners in a Pediatric Urgent Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Up to 21% of pediatric visits result in an antibiotic prescription, and a large portion of these are unnecessary. OBJECTIVE: To determine if educational sessions would reduce inappropriate antibiotic use. METHODS: Intervention study evaluating antibiotic prescribing following educational sessions for urinary tract infection, skin and soft tissue infection, pharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, acute otitis media, and acute bacterial sinusitis. RESULTS: A total of 26 out of 43 (60%) nurse practitioners in 4 urgent care centers were enrolled in the study. The rate of inappropriate antibiotic use among all conditions was 10% before and 8% after the intervention (p = .02). A decrease in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was seen after the educational session (p < .01). The most common reasons for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing were too broad (41%), wrong dosage (22%), and not indicated (17%). CONCLUSIONS: Educational sessions led to improvement in overall inappropriate antibiotic use. Additional stewardship interventions are needed to further reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.

Site of Treatment for Non-Urgent Conditions by Medicare Beneficiaries: Is There a Role for Urgent Care Centers?

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on where and how often Medicare beneficiaries seek care for non-urgent conditions when a physician office visit is not available. Emergency departments are often an alternative site of care, and urgent care centers have now also emerged to fill this need. The purpose of the study was to characterize the site of care for Medicare beneficiaries with non-urgent conditions; the relationship between physician office, urgent care center, and emergency department utilization; and specifically the role of urgent care centers. METHODS: The study is a retrospective, cross-sectional study of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries for fiscal year 2012. The main outcome was rate and geographic variation of urgent care center, emergency department, or physician office utilization. RESULTS: Care for non-urgent conditions most commonly occurred in physician offices (65.0 per 100 beneficiaries). In contrast, urgent care centers (6.0 per 100 beneficiaries) were a more common site of care than emergency departments (1.0 per 100 beneficiaries). Overall, 83% of non-urgent visits were physician offices, 14% urgent care centers, and 3% emergency departments. There was regional variation in urgent care center, emergency department, and physician office utilization for non-urgent conditions. Areas of higher emergency department utilization correspond to areas of lower urgent care center and physician office utilization, whereas areas of higher urgent care center utilization had lower emergency department utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent care centers are an important site of care for Medicare beneficiaries for non-urgent conditions. There is regional variation in the use of urgent care centers, emergency departments, and physician offices, with areas of low urgent care center utilization having higher emergency department utilization. The utilization of urgent care centers for treatment for non-urgent conditions may decrease emergency department utilization.