Comparison of presenting complaint vs discharge diagnosis for identifying "nonemergency" emergency department visits

Maria C. Raven, Robert (Bob) Lowe, Judith Maselli, Renee Y. Hsia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

118 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Importance: Reduction in emergency department (ED) use is frequently viewed as a potential source for cost savings. One consideration has been to deny payment if the patient's diagnosis upon ED discharge appears to reflect a "nonemergency" condition. This approach does not incorporate other clinical factors such as chief complaint that may inform necessity for ED care. Objective: To determine whether ED presenting complaint and ED discharge diagnosis correspond sufficiently to support use of discharge diagnosis as the basis for policies discouraging ED use. Design, Setting, and Participants: The New York University emergency department algorithm has been commonly used to identify nonemergency ED visits. We applied the algorithm to publicly available ED visit data from the 2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) for the purpose of identifying all "primary care-treatable" visits. The 2009 NHAMCS data set contains 34 942 records, each representing a unique ED visit. For each visit with a discharge diagnosis classified as primary care treatable, we identified the chief complaint. To determine whether these chief complaints correspond to nonemergency ED visits, we then examined all ED visits with this same group of chief complaints to ascertain the ED course, final disposition, and discharge diagnoses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and disposition associated with chief complaints related to nonemergency ED visits. Results: Although only 6.3% (95% CI, 5.8%-6.7%) of visits were determined to have primary care-treatable diagnoses based on discharge diagnosis and our modification of the algorithm, the chief complaints reported for these ED visits with primary care-treatable ED discharge diagnoses were the same chief complaints reported for 88.7% (95% CI, 88.1%-89.4%) of all ED visits. Of these visits, 11.1% (95% CI, 9.3%-13.0%) were identified at ED triage as needing immediate or emergency care; 12.5% (95% CI, 11.8%-14.3%) required hospital admission; and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.5%-4.3%) of admitted patients went directly from the ED to the operating room. Conclusions and Relevance: Among ED visits with the same presenting complaint as those ultimately given a primary care-treatable diagnosis based on ED discharge diagnosis, a substantial proportion required immediate emergency care or hospital admission. The limited concordance between presenting complaints and ED discharge diagnoses suggests that these discharge diagnoses are unable to accurately identify nonemergency ED visits.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1145-1153
Number of pages9
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume309
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 20 2013

Fingerprint

Hospital Emergency Service
Primary Health Care
Emergency Medical Services
Health Care Surveys
Cost Savings
Triage
Operating Rooms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparison of presenting complaint vs discharge diagnosis for identifying "nonemergency" emergency department visits. / Raven, Maria C.; Lowe, Robert (Bob); Maselli, Judith; Hsia, Renee Y.

In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 309, No. 11, 20.03.2013, p. 1145-1153.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c0ba51e9197e4bbf8aa867ea5cb903f8,
title = "Comparison of presenting complaint vs discharge diagnosis for identifying {"}nonemergency{"} emergency department visits",
abstract = "Importance: Reduction in emergency department (ED) use is frequently viewed as a potential source for cost savings. One consideration has been to deny payment if the patient's diagnosis upon ED discharge appears to reflect a {"}nonemergency{"} condition. This approach does not incorporate other clinical factors such as chief complaint that may inform necessity for ED care. Objective: To determine whether ED presenting complaint and ED discharge diagnosis correspond sufficiently to support use of discharge diagnosis as the basis for policies discouraging ED use. Design, Setting, and Participants: The New York University emergency department algorithm has been commonly used to identify nonemergency ED visits. We applied the algorithm to publicly available ED visit data from the 2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) for the purpose of identifying all {"}primary care-treatable{"} visits. The 2009 NHAMCS data set contains 34 942 records, each representing a unique ED visit. For each visit with a discharge diagnosis classified as primary care treatable, we identified the chief complaint. To determine whether these chief complaints correspond to nonemergency ED visits, we then examined all ED visits with this same group of chief complaints to ascertain the ED course, final disposition, and discharge diagnoses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and disposition associated with chief complaints related to nonemergency ED visits. Results: Although only 6.3{\%} (95{\%} CI, 5.8{\%}-6.7{\%}) of visits were determined to have primary care-treatable diagnoses based on discharge diagnosis and our modification of the algorithm, the chief complaints reported for these ED visits with primary care-treatable ED discharge diagnoses were the same chief complaints reported for 88.7{\%} (95{\%} CI, 88.1{\%}-89.4{\%}) of all ED visits. Of these visits, 11.1{\%} (95{\%} CI, 9.3{\%}-13.0{\%}) were identified at ED triage as needing immediate or emergency care; 12.5{\%} (95{\%} CI, 11.8{\%}-14.3{\%}) required hospital admission; and 3.4{\%} (95{\%} CI, 2.5{\%}-4.3{\%}) of admitted patients went directly from the ED to the operating room. Conclusions and Relevance: Among ED visits with the same presenting complaint as those ultimately given a primary care-treatable diagnosis based on ED discharge diagnosis, a substantial proportion required immediate emergency care or hospital admission. The limited concordance between presenting complaints and ED discharge diagnoses suggests that these discharge diagnoses are unable to accurately identify nonemergency ED visits.",
author = "Raven, {Maria C.} and Lowe, {Robert (Bob)} and Judith Maselli and Hsia, {Renee Y.}",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1001/jama.2013.1948",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "309",
pages = "1145--1153",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of presenting complaint vs discharge diagnosis for identifying "nonemergency" emergency department visits

AU - Raven, Maria C.

AU - Lowe, Robert (Bob)

AU - Maselli, Judith

AU - Hsia, Renee Y.

PY - 2013/3/20

Y1 - 2013/3/20

N2 - Importance: Reduction in emergency department (ED) use is frequently viewed as a potential source for cost savings. One consideration has been to deny payment if the patient's diagnosis upon ED discharge appears to reflect a "nonemergency" condition. This approach does not incorporate other clinical factors such as chief complaint that may inform necessity for ED care. Objective: To determine whether ED presenting complaint and ED discharge diagnosis correspond sufficiently to support use of discharge diagnosis as the basis for policies discouraging ED use. Design, Setting, and Participants: The New York University emergency department algorithm has been commonly used to identify nonemergency ED visits. We applied the algorithm to publicly available ED visit data from the 2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) for the purpose of identifying all "primary care-treatable" visits. The 2009 NHAMCS data set contains 34 942 records, each representing a unique ED visit. For each visit with a discharge diagnosis classified as primary care treatable, we identified the chief complaint. To determine whether these chief complaints correspond to nonemergency ED visits, we then examined all ED visits with this same group of chief complaints to ascertain the ED course, final disposition, and discharge diagnoses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and disposition associated with chief complaints related to nonemergency ED visits. Results: Although only 6.3% (95% CI, 5.8%-6.7%) of visits were determined to have primary care-treatable diagnoses based on discharge diagnosis and our modification of the algorithm, the chief complaints reported for these ED visits with primary care-treatable ED discharge diagnoses were the same chief complaints reported for 88.7% (95% CI, 88.1%-89.4%) of all ED visits. Of these visits, 11.1% (95% CI, 9.3%-13.0%) were identified at ED triage as needing immediate or emergency care; 12.5% (95% CI, 11.8%-14.3%) required hospital admission; and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.5%-4.3%) of admitted patients went directly from the ED to the operating room. Conclusions and Relevance: Among ED visits with the same presenting complaint as those ultimately given a primary care-treatable diagnosis based on ED discharge diagnosis, a substantial proportion required immediate emergency care or hospital admission. The limited concordance between presenting complaints and ED discharge diagnoses suggests that these discharge diagnoses are unable to accurately identify nonemergency ED visits.

AB - Importance: Reduction in emergency department (ED) use is frequently viewed as a potential source for cost savings. One consideration has been to deny payment if the patient's diagnosis upon ED discharge appears to reflect a "nonemergency" condition. This approach does not incorporate other clinical factors such as chief complaint that may inform necessity for ED care. Objective: To determine whether ED presenting complaint and ED discharge diagnosis correspond sufficiently to support use of discharge diagnosis as the basis for policies discouraging ED use. Design, Setting, and Participants: The New York University emergency department algorithm has been commonly used to identify nonemergency ED visits. We applied the algorithm to publicly available ED visit data from the 2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) for the purpose of identifying all "primary care-treatable" visits. The 2009 NHAMCS data set contains 34 942 records, each representing a unique ED visit. For each visit with a discharge diagnosis classified as primary care treatable, we identified the chief complaint. To determine whether these chief complaints correspond to nonemergency ED visits, we then examined all ED visits with this same group of chief complaints to ascertain the ED course, final disposition, and discharge diagnoses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and disposition associated with chief complaints related to nonemergency ED visits. Results: Although only 6.3% (95% CI, 5.8%-6.7%) of visits were determined to have primary care-treatable diagnoses based on discharge diagnosis and our modification of the algorithm, the chief complaints reported for these ED visits with primary care-treatable ED discharge diagnoses were the same chief complaints reported for 88.7% (95% CI, 88.1%-89.4%) of all ED visits. Of these visits, 11.1% (95% CI, 9.3%-13.0%) were identified at ED triage as needing immediate or emergency care; 12.5% (95% CI, 11.8%-14.3%) required hospital admission; and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.5%-4.3%) of admitted patients went directly from the ED to the operating room. Conclusions and Relevance: Among ED visits with the same presenting complaint as those ultimately given a primary care-treatable diagnosis based on ED discharge diagnosis, a substantial proportion required immediate emergency care or hospital admission. The limited concordance between presenting complaints and ED discharge diagnoses suggests that these discharge diagnoses are unable to accurately identify nonemergency ED visits.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875155509&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875155509&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.2013.1948

DO - 10.1001/jama.2013.1948

M3 - Article

C2 - 23512061

AN - SCOPUS:84875155509

VL - 309

SP - 1145

EP - 1153

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 11

ER -