Abstract

BackgroundEmergency room (ER) use is increasing in several countries. Variability in the proportion of non-urgent ER visits was found to range from 5 to 90 % (median 32 %). Non-urgent emergency visits are considered an inappropriate and inefficient use of the health-care system because they may lead to higher expenses, crowding, treatment delays, and loss of continuity of health care provided by a general practitioner. Urgency levels of doctor–walk-in patient encounters were assessed based on their region of origin in a diverse Norwegian population.MethodsAn anonymous, multilingual questionnaire was distributed to all walk-in patients at a general emergency outpatient clinic in Oslo during two weeks in September 2009. We analysed demographic data, patient–doctor assessments of the level of urgency, and the results of the consultation. We used descriptive statistics to obtain frequencies with 95 % confidence interval (CI) for assessed levels of urgency and outcomes. Concordance between the patients’ and doctors’ assessments was analysed using a Kendall tau-b test. We used binary logistic regression modelling to quantify associations of explanatory variables and outcomes according to urgency level assessments.ResultsThe analysis included 1821 walk-in patients. Twenty-four per cent of the patients considered their emergency consultation to be non-urgent, while the doctors considered 64 % of encounters to be non-urgent. The concordance between the assessments by the patient and by their doctor was positive but low, with a Kendall tau-b coefficient of 0.202 (p < 0.001). Adjusted logistic regression analysis showed that patients from Eastern Europe (odds ratio (OR) = 3.04; 95 % CI 1.60–5.78), Asia and Turkey (OR = 4.08; 95 % CI 2.43–6.84), and Africa (OR = 8.47; 95 % CI 3.87–18.5) reported significantly higher urgency levels compared with Norwegians. The doctors reported no significant difference in assessment of urgency based on the patient’s region of origin, except for Africans (OR = 0.64; 95 % CI 0.43–0.96).ConclusionThis study reveals discrepancies between assessments by walk-in patients and doctors of the urgency level of their encounters at a general emergency clinic. The patients’ self-assessed perception of the urgency level was related to their region of origin.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12873-016-0086-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Emergency room (ER) use is increasing in several countries

  • Do patients using the emergency health-care facilities for non-urgent medical problems create a burden on the emergency health-care services, they may lose the continuity of health care provided by a regular general practitioner (RGP) [10,11,12]

  • There was a significant difference in the proportion of patients who reported being registered with the RGP scheme between Norwegians (96 %) and immigrants (77 %)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Emergency room (ER) use is increasing in several countries. Variability in the proportion of non-urgent ER visits was found to range from 5 to 90 % (median 32 %). Non-urgent emergency visits are considered an inappropriate and inefficient use of the health-care system because they may lead to higher expenses, crowding, treatment delays, and loss of continuity of health care provided by a general practitioner. An important factor contributing to the increased use is that of consultations for non-urgent medical problems that could have been handled more appropriately by ordinary primary health-care services [3]. Non-urgent ER consultations are considered an inappropriate and inefficient use of the health-care system because they may lead to higher expenses, crowding, and treatment delays for severely ill patients [2, 5]. Do patients using the emergency health-care facilities for non-urgent medical problems create a burden on the emergency health-care services, they may lose the continuity of health care provided by a regular general practitioner (RGP) [10,11,12]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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