Objective

To examine current trends in the characteristics of patients visiting California emergency departments (EDs) in order to better direct the allocation of acute care resources.

Design

A retrospective study.

Setting

We analysed ED utilisation trends between 2005 and 2015 in California using non-public patient data from California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.

Participants

We included all ED visits in California from 2005 to 2015.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

We analysed ED visits and visit rates by age, sex, race/ethnicity, payer and urban/rural trends. We further examined age, sex, race/ethnicity and urban/rural trends within each payer group for a more granular picture of the patient population. Additionally, we looked at the proportion of patients admitted from the ED and distribution of diagnoses.

Results

Between 2005 and 2015, the annual number of ED visits increased from 10.2 to 14.2 million in California. ED visit rates increased by 27.8% (p<0.001), with the greatest increases among patients aged 5-19 (37.4%, p<0.001) and 45-64 years (41.1%, p<0.001), non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients (56.8% and 48.8%, p<0.001), the uninsured and Medicaid-insured (36.1%, p=0.002; 28.6%, p<0.001) and urban residents (28.3%, p<0.001). The proportion of ED visits resulting in hospitalisation decreased by 18.3%, with decreases across all payer groups.

Conclusions

Our findings reveal an increasing demand for emergency care and may reflect current limitations in accessing care in other parts of the healthcare system. Policymakers may need to recognise the increasingly vital role that EDs are playing in the provision of care and consider ways to incorporate this changing reality into the delivery of health services.

Objectives

As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED.

Methods

We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person.

Results

Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved.

Conclusion

We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.

Objective

We sought to assess the frequency, content, and quality of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), from patients' perspectives.

Methods

Utilizing a cross-sectional, multisite approach, we administered an instrument, consisting of two validated SDM assessment tools-the CollaboRATE and the SDM-Q-9-and one newly developed tool to a sample of ED patients. Our primary outcome was the occurrence of SDM in the clinical encounter, as defined by participants giving "top-box" scores on the CollaboRATE measure, and the ability of patients to identify the topic of their SDM conversation. Secondary outcomes included the content of the SDM conversations, as judged by patients, and whether patients were able to complete each of the two validated scales included in the instrument.

Results

After exclusions, 285 participants from two sites completed the composite instrument. Just under half identified as female (47%) or as white (47%). Roughly half gave top-box scores (i.e., indicating optimal SDM) on the CollaboRATE scale (49%). Less than half of the participants were able to indicate a decision they were involved in (44%), although those who did gave high scores for such conversations (73/100 via the SDM-Q-9 tool). The most frequently identified decisions discussed were admission versus discharge (19%), medication options (17%), and options for follow-up care (15%).

Conclusions

Fewer than half of ED patients surveyed reported they were involved in SDM. The most common decision for which SDM was used was around ED disposition (admission vs. discharge). When SDM was employed, patients generally rated the discussion highly.