RESUMEN
Introduction The majority of emergency department (ED) patients are discharged following evaluation and treatment. Most patients are recommended to follow up with a primary care provider (PCP) or specialist. However, there is considerable variation between providers and EDs in discharge process practices that might facilitate such follow-up (e.g., simply discharging patients with follow-up physician names/contact information vs. making appointments for patients). Patients who do not follow up with their PCPs or specialists are more likely to be readmitted within 30 days than those who do. Furthermore, vulnerable patients have difficulty arranging transitional care appointments due to poor health literacy, inadequate insurance, appointment availability, and self-efficacy. Our innovative ED discharge process utilizes an Emergency Department Discharge Center (EDDC) staffed by ED Care Coordinators and assists patients with scheduling post-discharge appointments to improve rates of follow-up with outpatient providers. This study describes the structure and activities of the EDDC, characterizes the EDDC patient population, and demonstrates the volume and specialties of appointments scheduled by EDDC Care Coordinators. The impact of the EDDC on operational metrics (72-hour returns, 30-day admissions, and length-of-stay [LOS]) and the impact of the EDDC on patient satisfaction are evaluated. Methods The Long Island Jewish Medical Center (LIJMC) EDDC is an intervention developed in July 2020 within a 583-bed urban hospital serving a racially, ethnically, and socio-economically diverse population, with many patients having limited access to healthcare. Data from the Emergency Medicine Service Line (EMSL), an ED Care Coordinator database, and manual chart review were collected from July 2020 to July 2021 to examine the impact of the EDDC on 72-hour returns, 30-day admissions, and Press Ganey's® "likelihood to recommend ED" score (a widely used patient satisfaction survey question). The EDDC pilot cohort was compared to non-EDDC discharged patients during the same period. Results In unadjusted analysis, EDDC patients were moderately less likely to return to the ED within 72 hours (5.3% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.0044) or be admitted within 30 days (3.4% vs. 4.2%). The program was particularly beneficial for uninsured and elderly patients. For both EDDC and non-EDDC patients, most revisits and 30-day admissions were for the same chief complaint as the index visit. The length-of-stay increased by ~10 minutes with no impact on satisfaction with ED visits. Musculoskeletal conditions (~20%) and specialties (~15%) were the most commonly represented. Approximately 10% of referrals were to obtain a PCP. Nearly 90% were to new providers or specialties. Most scheduled appointments occurred within a week. Conclusion This novel EDDC program, developed to facilitate outpatient follow-up for discharged ED patients, produced a modest but statistically significant difference in 72-hour returns and 30-day admissions for patients with EDDC-scheduled appointments vs. those referred to outpatient providers using the standard discharge process. ED LOS increased by ~10 minutes for EDDC vs. non-EDDC patients, with no difference in satisfaction. Future analyses will investigate impacts on 72-hour returns, 30-day admissions, LOS, and satisfaction after adjusting for characteristics such as age, insurance, having a PCP, and whether the scheduled appointment was attended.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) represent a highly vulnerable patient population with complex conditions and multiple comorbidities. The introduction of a Geriatric and Palliative (GAP)-ED partnership may be an effective strategy to avoid unneeded admissions and improve outcomes for this population. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to decrease 30-day revisit and hospitalization rates in this population through identifying patients that could be safely sent home with connection to community resources. Secondary outcomes included achieving high patient and family satisfaction scores assessed through follow-up interviews. METHODS: The GAP-ED intervention included the placement of a Specialist in the ED to coordinate care for older adults presenting to the ED who were likely to be discharged home. Independent t-tests and chi-squared tests were used to assess for changes in outcomes between the intervention group and a blocked matched historical usual-care group. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in 30-day ED revisits between the two groups, but there was a statistically significant reduction in hospital admissions from these 30-day revisits. Patient and family satisfaction with the presence of the GAP-ED Specialist was high. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a GAP-ED partnership and use of a GAP-ED Specialist is an effective means of reducing hospitalization in older adults revisiting the ED.
