Sociodemographic and Health Behaviour of Frequent, Avoidable Emergency Department Users in Ontario, Canada: A Population-based Descriptive Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Frequent users are a small but important group of patients in the emergency department (ED). This group is often the target of interventions that redirect visits to other areas of the healthcare system under the premise that some of these visits could be best managed elsewhere. Most existing interventions do not consider sociodemographic factors when targeting specific populations, while larger scale policy initiatives often do not reach those who would most benefit from alternative points of healthcare access. In this study we use population-level survey data linked to health administrative data to describe frequent ED users and those whose visits are potentially avoidable and could benefit from additional points of healthcare access. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study of responses from 18-74 year-old Ontario residents to the Canadian Community Health Survey from 2001-2014, which we linked to administrative health data for one-year following survey completion. We categorized participants according to the frequency of their ED use in the year following survey date and whether any of their visits were potentially avoidable. Associations between category of ED use and various sociodemographic, health, and behavioural factors were examined with multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 181,369 eligible respondents were included in this study. Of these, 1,460 (0.8%) were frequent users (four or more visits) with one or more potentially avoidable visits in the year following survey date. Compared to non-ED users, frequent users with avoidable visits were associated with the lowest quintile of household income (aOR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.65), rural-dwelling (aOR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.18, 1.77), and the highest quintile of material resource deprived neighbourhoods (aOR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.47, 3.36). They were more likely to have poor self-reported physical (17.2% vs 9.0%) and mental health (4.1% vs 2.7%) compared to total cohort, and more likely to have comorbidities (63.3% vs 48.7%), but less likely to access a usual provider of care for their healthcare needs (33.3% vs 28.2% without a usual provider of care). CONCLUSION: This study provides a novel description of frequent ED users for whom some of their visits were potentially avoidable. As efforts are made to redesign access to primary and community care, and with increasing emphasis on virtual care and other initiatives to reduce avoidable ED use, the healthcare system should ensure that these interventions are responsive to the needs of the people at higher likelihood of needing them.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».