![]() ![]() ![]() While the NYU-EDA has been instrumental across research and public policy, many emergency medicine clinicians argue that the clinical precision of the algorithm is deficient for use in interventions aimed at reducing unnecessary visits or for denying payment claiming that the algorithm itself has not kept pace with its growing popularity. The algorithm placed ED visits into 1 of 8 categories: (4) Emergent/non-emergent categories, (3) Mental health categories, (1) Injury category, (1) Unclassified category. The algorithm was developed in the late ’90s and was based on 5700 ED discharge abstracts from 6 hospitals in the Bronx, NY. This is by far the most widely used model for classifying and assessing ED visits for purposes of research, shaping public policy, and driving intervention efforts. The most notable tool in use would be the NYU Emergency Department Visit Algorithm (NYU-EDA). Many advancements have been made over the years to identify these events in the hopes of improving care management/coordination, access to primary care, and health literacy. This is leading to overcrowding in the EDs and creating a significant financial burden on the economy, healthcare system, and consumers.Įfforts to reduce preventable ED visits continue to be an industry focal point. The latest reports from the CDC indicate there are roughly 130 million ED events that occur each year of which 13% to 27% are preventable and could be managed at less acute/less costly sites of services. has seen an increasing abuse of EDs for conditions that could be avoided if better managed in physician offices, clinics, and urgent care centers. To avoid exacerbating disparities, health policy efforts to minimize economic inefficiencies in health care delivery by limiting ED visits for ACSC should first address their determinants.The purpose of the Emergency Department (ED) is to save lives by providing immediate care for individuals with life-threatening conditions. These differences constitute disparities in potentially avoidable ED visits for ACSC. Conclusions: Disproportionately higher use of EDs for ACSC care exists for many priority populations and across a broader range of priority populations than previously documented. Multivariate models revealed significant disparities in ACSC visits to the ED by race/ethnicity, insurance status, age group, and socioeconomic status, although patterns differed for acute and chronic ACSC. ACSC visits were more likely to result in hospitalization than non-ACSC visits (34.4% vs. Results: Overall, 8.4% of ED visits were for ACSC, representing over 8 million potentially avoidable ED visits annually. We used Stata SE survey techniques to account for the complex survey design. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of all-cause, acute, and chronic ACSC visits. We constructed analytic groups aligned with Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's priority populations. Outcomes were ACSC visits determined from the primary ED diagnosis. Methods: We analyzed data from the 2007-2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for 78,114 ED visits by adults aged 18 and older. We examined ED visits to identify subpopulations with disproportionate use of EDs for ACSC care. However, potentially preventable encounters with the health care system also occur in emergency department (ED) settings. Introduction: Hospital care for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) is potentially avoidable and often viewed as an indicator of suboptimal primary care. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |