Potentially Avoidable Admissions and Prolonged Hospitalization in Patients with Suspected Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Suspicion of cancer in the Emergency Department (ED) may lead to potentially avoidable and prolonged admissions. We aimed to examine the reasons for potentially avoidable and prolonged hospitalizations after admissions from the ED for new colon cancer diagnoses (ED-dx). METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution analysis was conducted of patients with ED-dx between 2017 and 2018. Defined criteria were used to identify potentially avoidable admissions. Patients without avoidable admissions were examined for ideal length of stay (iLOS), using separate defined criteria. Prolonged length of stay (pLOS) was defined as actual length of stay (aLOS) being greater than 1 day longer than iLOS. RESULTS: Of 97 patients with ED-dx, 12% had potentially avoidable admissions, most often (58%) for cancer workup. Very little difference in demographic, tumor characteristics, or symptoms were found, except patients with potentially avoidable admissions were more functional (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] score 0-1: 83% vs. 46%; p = 0.049) and had longer symptom duration prior to ED presentation {24 days (interquartile range [IQR] 7-75) vs. 7 days (IQR 2-21)}. Among the 60 patients who had necessary admissions but did not require urgent intervention, 78% had pLOS, most often for non-urgent surgery (60%) and further oncologic workup. The median difference between iLOS and aLOS was 12 days (IQR 8-16) for pLOS. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially avoidable admissions following Ed-dx were uncommon but were mostly for oncologic workup. Once admitted, the majority of patients had pLOS, most often for definitive surgery and further oncologic workup. This suggests a lack of systems to safely transition to outpatient cancer management.

The Association Between Hospital Characteristics and Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act Citation Events.

OBJECTIVES: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law enacted in 1986 prohibiting patient dumping (refusing or transferring patients with emergency medical conditions without appropriate stabilization), and discrimination based upon ability to pay. We evaluate hospital-level features associated with citation for EMTALA violation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of observational data on EMTALA enforcement (2005-2013). Regression analysis evaluates the association between facility-level features and odds of EMTALA citation by hospital-year. RESULTS: Among 4916 EMTALA-obligated hospitals there were 1925 EMTALA citation events at 1413 facilities between 2005 and 2013, with 4.3% of hospitals cited per year. In adjusted analyses, increased odds of EMTALA citations were found at hospitals that were: for-profit [odds ratio (OR): 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-1.96], in metropolitan areas (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.11-1.57); that admitted a higher proportion of Medicaid patients (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.0-1.01); and were in the top quartiles of hospital size (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.10-1.99) and emergency department (ED) volume (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.14-2.12). Predicted probability of repeat EMTALA citation in the year following initial citation was 17% among for-profit and 11% among other hospital types. Among citation events for patients presenting to the same hospital's ED, there were 1.30 EMTALA citation events per million ED visits, with 1.04 at private not-for-profit, 1.47 at government-owned, and 2.46 at for-profit hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: For-profit ownership is associated with increased odds of EMTALA citations after adjusting for other characteristics. Efforts to improve EMTALA might be considered to protect access to emergency care for vulnerable populations, particularly at large, urban, for-profit hospitals admitting high proportions of Medicaid patients.

Diagnosis Setting and Colorectal Cancer Outcomes: The Impact of Cancer Diagnosis in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The rate of diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the emergency department (ED), its characteristics, and its effect on outcomes have been poorly described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chart review was conducted to identify presenting clinical setting leading to diagnosis, symptoms, and history of colonoscopy for patients diagnosed with CRC at a single institution from 2012-2014. Patients diagnosed with CRC as a result of an ED visit (EDDx) were compared with those diagnosed after presentation to other settings (non-EDDx). RESULTS: Of 638 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 271 (42.4%) were EDDx patients. These patients were more likely to be older than 80 y (29.89% versus 19.35%), have Medicare (59.78% versus 42.78%) or Medicaid (23.62% versus 12.81%) insurance, have stage IV cancer (45.02% versus 18.26%), and were symptomatic at the time of presentation (94.83% versus 64.03%). EDDx patients were less likely to ever have had a colonoscopy (21.77% versus 41.69%). In a model adjusted for patient demographics, cancer stage, presence of symptoms, and history of prior colonoscopy, EDDx was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.8). On stratifying survival by stage, it was found that for all stages, EDDx was associated with decreased survival. CONCLUSIONS: More than 40% of patients with CRC received their diagnosis through the ED. EDDx was associated with a nearly twofold mortality risk increase. EDDx should be considered a marker of poor outcomes for CRC and may be related to unaccounted patient-level or systems-level factors. Efforts should be made to identify modifiable risks of cancer diagnosis in the ED to improve cancer outcomes.