ArticleThe American journal of managed care2017
Risk stratification for return emergency department visits among high-risk patients.
Article in The American journal of managed care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring differential response to an emergency department-based care transition intervention.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2021Trial
- Discharge Information and Support for Patients Discharged from the Emergency Department: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Trial
- Prediction of high-risk emergency department revisits from a machine-learning algorithm: a proof-of-concept study.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Article
- Emergency Department Utilization Among People Living With HIV on Chronic Opioid Therapy.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS CareObservational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare 2 methods of identifying patients at high-risk of repeat emergency department (ED) use: high Care Assessment Need (CAN) score (≥90), derived from a model using Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data, and "Super User" status, defined as more than 3 ED visits within 6 months of the index ED visit. STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study.
methodsUsing McNemar's test, we compared rates of high-risk classification between CAN score and Super User status. We examined differences in patient characteristics and healthcare utilization across 4 levels of risk classification: high CAN and Super User status (n = 198), CAN <90 and non-Super User (n = 622), high CAN and non-Super User (n = 616), or Super User and CAN score <90 (n = 106). We used logistic regression to identify associations between risk classification and any ED visit within 90 days.
resultsOf 1542 veterans, 52.8% (n = 814) had a CAN score ≥90 and 19.7% (n = 304) were Super Users (P <.0001), indicating discrepant rates of high-risk classification. However, we found no differences in patient characteristics. Rates of subsequent ED use were high: 63.1% of patients had 1 or more ED visits. No levels of risk classification were associated with subsequent ED use within 90 days (P = .25).
conclusionsAmong the VHA users with multimorbidity and 3 or more prior ED visits or hospitalizations, subsequent ED use was high. Although CAN scores have demonstrated utility for predicting hospitalizations and deaths, prior utilization and multimorbidity without further risk classification identified a high-risk group for repeat ED use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29087151PMC6415920What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.