Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb 16;315(7):663-71.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0649.

In-Hospital Outcomes and Costs Among Patients Hospitalized During a Return Visit to the Emergency Department

Amber K Sabbatini  1 , Keith E Kocher  2 , Anirban Basu  3 , Renee Y Hsia  4
Affiliations

In-Hospital Outcomes and Costs Among Patients Hospitalized During a Return Visit to the Emergency Department

Amber K Sabbatini et al. JAMA. .

Abstract

Importance: Unscheduled short-term return visits to the emergency department (ED) are increasingly monitored as a hospital performance measure and have been proposed as a measure of the quality of emergency care.

Objective: To examine in-hospital clinical outcomes and resource use among patients who are hospitalized during an unscheduled return visit to the ED.

Design, setting, and participants: Retrospective analysis of adult ED visits to acute care hospitals in Florida and New York in 2013 using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Patients with index ED visits were identified and followed up for return visits to the ED within 7, 14, and 30 days.

Exposures: Hospital admission occurring during an initial visit to the ED vs during a return visit to the ED.

Main outcomes and measures: In-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, and inpatient costs.

Results: Among the 9,036,483 index ED visits to 424 hospitals in the study sample, 1,758,359 patients were admitted to the hospital during the index ED visit. Of these patients, 149,214 (8.5%) had a return visit to the ED within 7 days of the index ED visit, 228,370 (13.0%) within 14 days, and 349,335 (19.9%) within 30 days, and 76,151 (51.0%), 122,040 (53.4%), and 190,768 (54.6%), respectively, were readmitted to the hospital. Among the 7,278,124 patients who were discharged during the index ED visit, 598,404 (8.2%) had a return visit to the ED within 7 days, 839,386 (11.5%) within 14 days, and 1,205,865 (16.6%) within 30 days. Of these patients, 86,012 (14.4%) were admitted to the hospital within 7 days, 121,587 (14.5%) within 14 days, and 173,279 (14.4%) within 30 days. The 86,012 patients discharged from the ED and admitted to the hospital during a return ED visit within 7 days had significantly lower rates of in-hospital mortality (1.85%) compared with the 1,609,145 patients who were admitted during the index ED visit without a return ED visit (2.48%) (odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.69-0.78]), lower rates of ICU admission (23.3% vs 29.0%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.71-0.76]), lower mean costs ($10,169 vs $10,799; difference, $629 [95% CI, $479-$781]), and longer lengths of stay (5.16 days vs 4.97 days; IRR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.03-1.05]). Similar outcomes were observed for patients returning to the ED within 14 and 30 days of the index ED visit. In contrast, patients who returned to the ED after hospital discharge and were readmitted had higher rates of in-hospital mortality and ICU admission, longer lengths of stay, and higher costs during the repeat hospital admission compared with those admitted to the hospital during the index ED visit without a return ED visit.

Conclusions and relevance: Compared with adult patients who were hospitalized during the index ED visit and did not have a return visit to the ED, patients who were initially discharged during an ED visit and admitted during a return visit to the ED had lower in-hospital mortality, ICU admission rates, and in-hospital costs and longer lengths of stay. These findings suggest that hospital admissions associated with return visits to the ED may not adequately capture deficits in the quality of care delivered during an ED visit.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures:

The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Kocher reported receiving a grant from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan/Blue Care Network to support a quality improvement project focused on care in the emergency department. Dr Hsia reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.
Derivation of Study Cohorts
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Readmissions Reduction Program. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-fee-for-service-payment/acuteinpat....Accessed January 21, 2016.
    1. Lindsay P, Schull M, Bronskill S, Anderson G. The development of indicators to measure the quality of clinical care in emergency departments following a modified-delphi approach. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9(11):1131–1139. - PubMed
    1. Guttmann A, Razzaq A, Lindsay P, Zagorski B, Anderson GM. Development of measures of the quality of emergency department care for children using a structured panel process. Pediatrics. 2006; 118(1):114–123. - PubMed
    1. Hung GR, Chalut D. A consensus-established set of important indicators of pediatric emergency department performance. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008;24(1):9–15. - PubMed
    1. Schull MJ, Guttmann A, Leaver CA, et al.Prioritizing performance measurement for emergency department care: consensus on evidence-based quality of care indicators. CJEM. 2011;13(5):300–309, E28–E43. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms