14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Trends and Characteristics of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits Among Patients With Cancer in the US

      research-article
      , MD, PhD, MPH 1 , 2 , 3 , , , PhD, MPH, MA 1 , 2 , 3 , , PhD, MPH 4 , 5 , , MD 6 , , MD, MS 1 , 3 , , PhD 7 , 8
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Has there been a change in potentially preventable emergency department (ED) visits among adult patients with cancer over time?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional study of 35.5 million ED visits among patients with cancer, 51.6% of visits were identified as potentially preventable. From 2012 to 2019, the absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits among patients with cancer increased from approximately 1.8 million to 3.2 million.

          Meaning

          This study’s finding of an increase in potentially preventable ED visits among patients with cancer highlights the need for cancer care programs to devise innovative ways to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings.

          Abstract

          Importance

          An initial step to reducing emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer is to identify the characteristics of patients visiting the ED and examine which of those visits could be prevented.

          Objective

          To explore nationwide trends and characteristics of ED visits and examine factors associated with potentially preventable ED visits and unplanned hospitalizations among patients with cancer in the US.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional study used data on ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019; US Cancer Statistics reports were used to estimate new cancer cases each year. Frequencies and trends among 35 510 014 ED visits by adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with cancer were calculated.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was potentially preventable ED visits, and secondary outcomes were unplanned hospitalizations and the immediacy of the ED visits. Potentially preventable ED visits were identified using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition. The Emergency Severity Index, a triage algorithm that ranks patients based on the urgency of their health care condition, was used to measure the immediacy of ED visits (immediate [most urgent], emergent, urgent, less urgent, and nonurgent), with the categories of immediate and emergent classified as high acuity. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate trends in ED visits among patients with cancer over time. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the associations of patient, hospital, and temporal factors with potentially preventable ED use and ED use resulting in hospitalization.

          Results

          Among 854 911 106 ED visits, 35 510 014 (4.2%) were made by patients with cancer (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [16.2] years); of those, 55.2% of visits were among women, 73.2% were among non-Hispanic White individuals, 89.8% were among patients living in a private residence, and 54.3% were among Medicare enrollees. A total of 18 316 373 ED visits (51.6%) were identified as potentially preventable, and 5 770 571 visits (21.3%) were classified as high acuity. From 2012 to 2019, potentially preventable ED visits increased from 1 851 692 to 3 214 276. Pain (36.9%) was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits. The number of patients who visited an ED because of pain increased from 1 192 197 in 2012 to 2 405 849 in 2019 (a 101.8% increase). Overall, 28.9% of ED visits resulted in unplanned hospitalizations, which did not change significantly over time (from 32.2% in 2012 to 26.6% in 2019; P = .78 for trend). Factors such as residence in a nursing home (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.25-2.41) were positively associated with having a potentially preventable ED visit, and factors such as the presence of more than 1 comorbidity (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.43-2.32) were positively associated with having an unplanned hospitalization.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this study, 51.6% of ED visits among patients with cancer were identified as potentially preventable, and the absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits increased substantially between 2012 and 2019. These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study assesses trends and characteristics of potentially preventable emergency department visits and factors associated with potentially preventable visits and unplanned hospitalizations among patients with cancer in the US.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer statistics, 2019

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2015, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2016, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2019, 1,762,450 new cancer cases and 606,880 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2006-2015) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% per year in men, whereas the cancer death rate (2007-2016) declined annually by 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Although the racial gap in cancer mortality is slowly narrowing, socioeconomic inequalities are widening, with the most notable gaps for the most preventable cancers. For example, compared with the most affluent counties, mortality rates in the poorest counties were 2-fold higher for cervical cancer and 40% higher for male lung and liver cancers during 2012-2016. Some states are home to both the wealthiest and the poorest counties, suggesting the opportunity for more equitable dissemination of effective cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment strategies. A broader application of existing cancer control knowledge with an emphasis on disadvantaged groups would undoubtedly accelerate progress against cancer.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

              Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                19 January 2023
                January 2023
                19 January 2023
                : 6
                : 1
                : e2250423
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
                [2 ]Department of Oncological Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa
                [3 ]Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
                [4 ]Department of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville
                [5 ]Health Cancer Center, University of Florida, Gainesville
                [6 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Science, Tabriz, Iran
                [7 ]Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
                [8 ]UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: November 18, 2022.
                Published: January 19, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50423
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Alishahi Tabriz A et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Amir Alishahi Tabriz, MD, PhD, MPH, Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 USF Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612 ( amir.alishahi@ 123456moffitt.org ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Tabriz had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Alishahi Tabriz, Elston Lafata.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Alishahi Tabriz, Turner, Hong, Gheytasvand, Powers.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Alishahi Tabriz, Gheytasvand, Elston Lafata.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Alishahi Tabriz, Turner, Hong, Powers, Elston Lafata.
                Statistical analysis: Alishahi Tabriz, Gheytasvand.
                Obtained funding: Alishahi Tabriz.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Alishahi Tabriz, Turner, Elston Lafata.
                Supervision: Powers, Elston Lafata.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                zoi221433
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50423
                9857289
                36656584
                f6cd424d-de42-42af-a328-499f07d90fb3
                Copyright 2023 Alishahi Tabriz A et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 17 August 2022
                : 18 November 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Emergency Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article