Case Management may Reduce Emergency Department Frequent use in a Universal Health Coverage System: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department (ED) users account for a disproportionately high number of ED visits. Studies on case management (CM) interventions to reduce frequent ED use have shown mixed results, and few studies have been conducted within a universal health coverage system. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a CM intervention-compared to standard emergency care-reduces ED attendance. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty frequent ED users (5 or more visits in the prior 12 months) who visited a public urban ED at the Lausanne University Hospital between May 2012 and July 2013 were allocated to either an intervention (n = 125) or control (n = 125) group, and monitored for 12 months. INTERVENTIONS: An individualized CM intervention consisting of concrete assistance in obtaining income entitlements, referral to primary or specialty medical care, access to mental health care or substance abuse treatment, and counseling on at-risk behaviors and health care utilization (in addition to standard care) at baseline and 1, 3, and 5 months. MAIN MEASURES: We used a generalized linear model for count data (negative binomial distribution) to compare the number of ED visits during the 12-month follow-up between CM and usual care, from an intention-to-treat perspective. KEY RESULTS: At 12 months, there were 2.71 (±0.23) ED visits in the intervention group versus 3.35 (±0.32) visits among controls (ratio = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.63; 1.02). In the multivariate model, the effect of the CM intervention on the number of ED visits approached statistical significance (b = -0.219, p = 0.075). The presence of poor social determinants of health was a significant predictor of ED use in the multivariate model (b = 0.280, p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: CM may reduce ED use by frequent users through an improved orientation to the health care system. Poor social determinants of health significantly increase use of the ED by frequent users.

Associations between perceived discrimination and health status among frequent Emergency Department users.

OBJECTIVE: Frequent Emergency Department (ED) users are vulnerable individuals and discrimination is usually associated with increased vulnerability. The aim of this study was to investigate frequent ED users' perceptions of discrimination and to test whether they were associated with increased vulnerability. METHODS: In total, 250 adult frequent ED users were interviewed in Lausanne University Hospital. From a previously published questionnaire, we assessed 15 dichotomous sources of perceived discrimination. Vulnerability was assessed using health status: objective health status (evaluation by a healthcare practitioner including somatic, mental health, behavioral, and social issues - dichotomous variables) and subjective health status [self-evaluation including health-related quality of life (WHOQOL) and quality of life (EUROQOL) - mean-scores]. We computed the prevalence rates of perceived discrimination and tested associations between perceived discrimination and health status (Fischer's exact tests, Mann-Whitney U-tests). RESULTS: A total of 35.2% of the frequent ED users surveyed reported at least one source of perceived discrimination. Objective health status was not significantly related to perceived discrimination. In contrast, experiencing perceived discrimination was associated with worse subjective health status (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Frequent ED users are highly likely to report perceived discrimination during ED use, and this was linked to a decrease in their own rating of their health. Hence, discrimination should be taken into account when providing care to such users as it may constitute an additional risk factor for this vulnerable population. Perceived discrimination may also be of concern to professionals seeking to improve practices and provide optimal care to frequent ED users.

Case management for frequent users of the emergency department: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We devised a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an intervention based on case management care for frequent emergency department users. The aim of the intervention is to reduce such patients' emergency department use, to improve their quality of life, and to reduce costs consequent on frequent use. The intervention consists of a combination of comprehensive case management care and standard emergency care. It uses a clinical case management model that is patient-identified, patient-directed, and developed to provide high intensity services. It provides a continuum of hospital- and community-based patient services, which include clinical assessment, outreach referral, and coordination and communication with other service providers. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to recruit, during the first year of the study, 250 patients who visit the emergency department of the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland. Eligible patients will have visited the emergency department 5 or more times during the previous 12 months. Randomisation of the participants to the intervention or control groups will be computer generated and concealed. The statistician and each patient will be blinded to the patient's allocation. Participants in the intervention group (N = 125), additionally to standard emergency care, will receive case management from a team, 1 (ambulatory care) to 3 (hospitalization) times during their stay and after 1, 3, and 5 months, at their residence, in the hospital or in the ambulatory care setting. In between the consultations provided, the patients will have the opportunity to contact, at any moment, the case management team. Participants in the control group (N = 125) will receive standard emergency care only. Data will be collected at baseline and 2, 5.5, 9, and 12 months later, including: number of emergency department visits, quality of life (EuroQOL and WHOQOL), health services use, and relevant costs. Data on feelings of discrimination and patient's satisfaction will also be collected at the baseline and 12 months later. DISCUSSION: Our study will help to clarify knowledge gaps regarding the positive outcomes (emergency department visits, quality of life, efficiency, and cost-utility) of an intervention based on case management care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01934322.

Biased thinking assessed by external observers in borderline personality disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Biased thinking (to some extent overlapping with the concepts of cognitive distortions and cognitive errors) is a key concept in cognitive therapy of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Specific contents and cognitive processes related to BPD functioning are known. However, most studies are based on self-report measures which present a number of important limitations, in particular the difficulty in assessing non-conscious processes infused by affect. So far, no studies were conducted using valid observer-rated methodology addressing the question of biased thinking in BPD as it unfolds spontaneously in session. DESIGN: This is a controlled interview study comparing two matched groups, BPD patients and healthy controls. METHODS: A total of N= 25 clinical dynamic interviews with patients presenting with BPD were transcribed and rated using the Cognitive Errors Rating Scale (Drapeau, Perry, & Dunkley, 2008); their cognitive profiles were compared to those of N= 25 healthy controls who underwent the same procedure. RESULTS: Overall, results indicated that no between-group difference in the frequency of specific biases was found. However, heightened levels of negative cognitive biases, in particular over-generalizing and fortune-telling, were associated with BPD. Furthermore, negative over-generalizing was associated with the number of BPD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These results have high levels of ecological validity and are promising for the refinement of cognitive theory of BPD. Clinical implications for assessment and intervention are discussed.

Impact of a board-game approach on current smokers: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The main objective of our study was to assess the impact of a board game on smoking status and smoking-related variables in current smokers. To accomplish this objective, we conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing the game group with a psychoeducation group and a waiting-list control group. METHODS: The following measures were performed at participant inclusion, as well as after a 2-week and a 3-month follow-up period: "Attitudes Towards Smoking Scale" (ATS-18), "Smoking Self-Efficacy Questionnaire" (SEQ-12), "Attitudes Towards Nicotine Replacement Therapy" scale (ANRT-12), number of cigarettes smoked per day, stages of change, quit attempts, and smoking status. Furthermore, participants were assessed for concurrent psychiatric disorders and for the severity of nicotine dependence with the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND). RESULTS: A time × group effect was observed for subscales of the ANRT-12, ATS-18 and SEQ-12, as well as for the number of cigarettes smoked per day. At three months follow-up, compared to the participants allocated to the waiting list group, those on Pick-Klop group were less likely to remain smoker.Outcomes at 3 months were not predicted by gender, age, FTND, stage of change, or psychiatric disorders at inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: The board game seems to be a good option for smokers. The game led to improvements in variables known to predict quitting in smokers. Furthermore, it increased smoking-cessation rates at 3-months follow-up. The game is also an interesting alternative for smokers in the precontemplation stage.