Introduction: The short-term return visit rate among patients discharged from emergency departments (ED) is a quality metric and target for interventions. The ability to accurately identify which patients are more likely to revisit the ED could allow EDs and health systems to develop more focused interventions, but efforts to reduce revisits have not yet found success. Whether patients with a high number of ED visits are at increased risk of a return visit remains underexplored.

Methods: This was a population-based, retrospective, cohort study using administrative data from a large physician partnership. We included patients discharged from EDs from 80 hospitals in seven states from July 2014 – June 2016. We performed multivariable logistic regression of short-term return visits on patient, visit, hospital, and community characteristics. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had a return visit within 14 days of an index ED visit.

Results: Among 6,699,717 index visits, the overall risk of 14-day revisit was 12.6%. Frequent visitors accounted for 18.7% of all visits and 40.2% of all 14-day revisits. Frequent visitor status was associated with the highest odds of a revisit (odds ratio [OR] 3.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.041 – 3.073). Other predictors of revisits were cellulitis (OR 2.131; 95% CI, 2.106 – 2.156), alcohol-related disorders (OR 1.579; 95%CI, 1.548 – 1.610), congestive heart failure (OR 1.175; 95% CI, 1.126 – 1.226), and public insurance (Medicaid OR 1.514; 95% CI, 1.501 – 1.528; Medicare OR 1.601; 95% CI, 1.583 – 1.620).

Conclusion: Previous ED use – even a single previous visit – was a stronger predictor of a return visit than any other patient, hospital, or community characteristic. Clinicians should consider previous ED use when considering treatment decisions and risk of return visit, as should stakeholders targeting patients at risk of a return visit.

Background

Purpose

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Practice implications

Background: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience significant healthcare disparities. Clinicians are responsible for using and documenting their use of certified interpreters for patient encounters when appropriate. However, the data on interpreter use documentation in the emergency department (ED) is limited and variable. We sought to assess the effects of dot phrase and SmartPhrase implementation in an adult ED on the rates of documentation of interpreter use.

Methods: We conducted an anonymous survey asking emergency clinicians to self-report documentation of interpreter use. We also retrospectively reviewed documentation of interpreter-services use in ED charts at three time points: 1) pre-intervention baseline; 2) post-implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase shortcut; and 3) post-implementation of a SmartPhrase.

Results: Most emergency clinicians reported using an interpreter “almost always” or “often.” Our manual audit revealed that at baseline, interpreter use was documented in 35% of the initial clinician note, 4% of reassessments, and 0% of procedure notes; 52% of discharge instructions were written in the patients’ preferred languages. After implementation of the dot phrase and SmartPhrase, respectively, rates of interpreter-use documentation improved to 43% and 97% of initial clinician notes, 9% and 6% of reassessments, and 5% and 35% of procedure notes, with 62% and 64% of discharge instructions written in the patients’ preferred languages.

Conclusion: There was a discrepancy between reported rates of interpreter use and interpreter-use documentation rates. The latter increased with the implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase and then a SmartPhrase built into the notes. Ensuring accurate documentation of interpreter use is an impactful step in language equity for LEP patients.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV—using antiretroviral medication in non-infected individuals to prevent HIV—has immense potential to slow the spread of the virus. However, uptake has been insufficient, and stark racial disparities exist in both HIV acquisition and PrEP usage, making PrEP access a health equity issue. A promising venue to engage high-risk populations in PrEP care is the emergency department (ED); however, existing ED PrEP initiatives have been costly or have had limited success. We hypothesize that two strategies could overcome these barriers: prescribing PrEP during an ED visit and providing patients with an initial supply of PrEP medication in the ED. Here, we describe the results of a qualitative study exploring multidisciplinary emergency clinicians and HIV clinicians’ needs and views about the feasibility of such an initiative.

Methods: We conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with multidisciplinary clinicians from an urban, safety-net medical center in the ED and the on-site HIV clinic that provides PrEP services.We performed thematic analysis to summarize challenges and potential solutions described by participants.

Results: Participants’ responses fell into three thematic categories: operational challenges; patient-level considerations; and potential impacts. Operational challenges highlighted the difficulty of PrEP initiation in a busy ED and clinician support needs. Patient-level considerations included the complex psychosocial needs of ED patients who could benefit from PrEP. Finally, participants anticipated that an ED-based PrEP initiation program could positively impact both individual patients and public health.

Conclusion: Interviews with emergency department and HIV clinic staff revealed important considerations and potential solutions for ED-initiated PrEP workflows. Clinicians in both specialties were enthusiastic about such an initiative, which could facilitate its success. This study lays the groundwork for the future design of an efficient and innovative workflow to leverage the ED as an essential entry point into HIV prevention services.