Abstract
IntroductionResearch has described emergency department (ED) use patterns in detail. However, evidence is lacking on how, at the time a decision is made, patients decide if healthcare is required or where to seek care.MethodsUsing community-based participatory research methods, we conducted a mixed-methods descriptive pilot study. Due to the exploratory, hypothesis-generating nature of this research, we did not perform power calculations, and financial constraints only allowed for 20 participants. Hypothetical vignettes for the 10 most common low acuity primary care complaints (cough, sore throat, back pain, etc.) were texted to patients twice daily over six weeks, none designed to influence the patient’s decision to seek care. We conducted focus groups to gain contextual information about participant decision-making. Descriptive statistics summarized responses to texts for each scenario. Qualitative analysis of open-ended text message responses and focus group discussions identified themes associated with decision-making for acute care needs.ResultsWe received text survey responses from 18/20 recruited participants who responded to 72% (1092/1512) of the texted vignettes. In 48% of the vignettes, participants reported they would do nothing, for 34% of the vignettes participants reported they would seek care with a primary care provider, and 18% of responses reported they would seek ED care. Participants were not more likely to visit an ED during “off-hours.” Our qualitative findings showed: 1) patients don’t understand when care is needed; 2) patients don’t understand where they should seek care.ConclusionParticipants were unclear when or where to seek care for common acute health problems, suggesting a need for patient education. Similar research is necessary in different populations and regarding the role of urgent care in acute care delivery.
Highlights
Research has described emergency department (ED) use patterns in detail
We used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) strategy to conduct a mixed methods evaluation of real-time patient decision-making for common acute conditions
We formed a steering committee comprised of University of Michigan researchers, a member of the “Villages of Parkside” (TVP), an urban, government-subsidized community, and a representative of Friends of Parkside (FOP), a non-profit community organization affiliated with TVP
Summary
Using community-based participatory research methods, we conducted a mixed-methods descriptive pilot study. We conducted focus groups to gain contextual information about participant decision-making. Qualitative analysis of open-ended text message responses and focus group discussions identified themes associated with decision-making for acute care needs. We used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) strategy to conduct a mixed methods evaluation of real-time patient decision-making for common acute conditions. The steering committee guided the research project from inception to completion and met on a regular basis to design and plan the study, recruit and enroll participants, discuss data collection and assess results. 10,14 Our mixed methods approach was designed to use quantitative data to inform our focus group discussion guide and assist in analyzing our qualitative findings consistent with the “following a thread” strategy.[15,16] Key principles of CBPR emphasizing equal partnership between all members and building capacity within communities guided this study. 10,14 Our mixed methods approach was designed to use quantitative data to inform our focus group discussion guide and assist in analyzing our qualitative findings consistent with the “following a thread” strategy.[15,16]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
