Abstract
Background:
The factors that underlie persistent frequent visits to the emergency department are poorly understood. This study aimed to characterize people who visit emergency departments frequently in Ontario and Alberta, by number of years of frequent use.
Methods:
This was a retrospective cohort study aimed at capturing information about patients visiting emergency departments in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, from Apr. 1, 2011, to Mar. 31, 2016. We identified people 18 years or older with frequent emergency department use (top 10% of emergency department use) in fiscal year 2015/16, using the Dynamic Cohort from the Canadian Institute of Health Information. We then organized them into subgroups based on the number of years (1 to 5) in which they met the threshold for frequent use over the study period. We characterized subgroups using linked emergency department, hospitalization and mental health–related hospitalization data.
Results:
We identified 252 737 people in Ontario and 63 238 people in Alberta who made frequent visits to the emergency department. In Ontario and Alberta, 44.3% and 44.7%, respectively, met the threshold for frequent use in only 1 year and made 37.9% and 38.5% of visits; 6.8% and 8.2% met the threshold for frequent use over 5 years and made 11.9% and 13.2% of visits. Many characteristics followed gradients based on persistence of frequent use: as years of frequent visits increased (1 to 5 years), people had more comorbidities, homelessness, rural residence, annual emergency department visits, alcohol- and substance use–related presentations, mental health hospitalizations and instances of leaving hospital against medical advice.
Interpretation:
Higher levels of comorbidities, mental health issues, substance use and rural residence were seen with increasing years of frequent emergency department use. Interventions upstream and in the emergency department must address unmet needs, including services for substance use and social supports.
In many Canadian jurisdictions, the number of emergency department visits attributable to frequent users is increasing; understanding the drivers of high emergency department use is imperative so that patient needs can be addressed.1,2 For instance, emergency department use is higher in low-income neighbourhoods and rural communities with limited access to primary care.3,4 As well, 1 in 5 emergency department visits could be dealt with more efficiently in settings other than the emergency department.5
A small proportion of patients account for a disproportionate share of health care use and spending.6 Patients in the top 3% of emergency department utilization account for 30% of health care costs, and costs increase with persistent frequent use.7,8 Previous studies have indicated that one-third of high-cost health care users9 and 16.5% to 21.9% of people who make frequent visits to the emergency department (including those in our previous analysis in British Columbia)1 continue to do so over multiple years. People with persistent frequent emergency department use have complex health needs and more conditions related to mental health and substance use than those with short-term frequent use.10,11
Using population-level analyses in multiple jurisdictions to understand the characteristics and unmet needs that underlie persistent frequent emergency department use is crucial to developing effective interventions that better meet people’s needs, improve outcomes and optimize resource allocation. We hypothesized that people who make frequent visits to the emergency department have different characteristics and needs based on the persistence of their high use. This study aimed to characterize people in Ontario and Alberta who visited emergency departments frequently based on their number of years of frequent use (1 to 5 years).
Methods
Study design and setting
This was a retrospective administrative database study that captured patients who visited an emergency department in Ontario or Alberta from Apr. 1, 2011, to Mar. 31, 2016. We report study findings in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.12
Participants
We derived our study cohort from a subset of people aged 18 years or older who visited emergency departments frequently in the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) Dynamic Cohort of Complex, High System Users. We identified patients who were in the top 10% in terms of emergency department utilization during our most recent year of data (Apr. 1, 2015, to Mar. 31, 2016). We disaggregated results by province (Ontario and Alberta).
Data sources
CIHI created the Dynamic Cohort in Ontario and Alberta using in-house data sets to identify patient subsets with the highest acute care costs, lengths of stay, number of hospitalizations and number of emergency department visits.13
CIHI first stratified emergency department visit data from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS)14 by province of residence, fiscal year and age (< 18 yr and ≥ 18 yr). Within each stratum, CIHI generated emergency department visit counts per patient and then identified the top 10% of frequent emergency department visitors. CIHI also created a control group by randomly selecting patients from the remaining 90%, using a 4:1 ratio. CIHI repeated the cohort selection process each fiscal year, adding new patients and updating information from all previously included patients.13 Therefore, the Dynamic Cohort identifies a top 10% cohort in each fiscal year, adds patients each year who meet the threshold for frequent emergency department use, and follows this cohort forward in time.
For this analysis, we used the “ED Visit Indicator” variable collected in NACRS to differentiate emergency department visits from scheduled ambulatory care.15 All emergency departments in Ontario and Alberta submit level 3 NACRS data, leading to high emergency department coverage and mandatory reporting of discharge diagnoses.15
CIHI performed all data linkages using personal health numbers and provided anonymized study identifiers. We linked NACRS records for our study cohort to the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) for hospitalizations and the Hospital Mental Health Database (HMHDB) for hospitalizations related to mental illness and substance use (including alcohol use).8,13,14,16 The HMHDB combines information on mental health–related hospitalizations in all Canadian provinces and territories by combining 4 administrative sources whose availability is variable in individual jurisdictions: DAD, the Hospital Morbidity Database, Hospital Mental Health Survey and the Ontario Mental Health Reporting System.8,17
Study variables and definitions
All study variables and their data sources are outlined in Appendix 1, Table S1, available at www.cmajopen.ca/content/10/1/E220/suppl/DC1.
Persistence of frequent emergency department use
We classified our cohort (people who visited emergency departments frequently from Apr. 1, 2015, to Mar. 31, 2016) into subgroups based on the number of fiscal years (1 to 5) in which they met the threshold for frequent emergency department use over our 5-year study period (Apr. 1, 2011, to Mar. 31, 2016).
Demographic characteristics
We examined sex, age, province and rural or urban residence using NACRS. A “0” in the second character of a postal code denoted a rural address.18
Homelessness was documented in the HMHDB.19 This variable is not validated, but it is based on mandatory reporting fields: “postal code” in DAD (Ontario and Alberta) and “Usual Residential Status” in the Ontario Mental Health Reporting System database (Ontario only).
Emergency department visits
We summarized the characteristics of emergency department visits (ambulance arrival, triage level, diagnoses and disposition) in NACRS. Triage level was classified using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS), a national tool that defines 5 acuity levels, allowing Canadian emergency departments to prioritize care.20,21 The CTAS has predictive validity for overall and intensive care unit admission, and good inter-relater reliability over multiple revisions in many settings.22–24
Diagnostic categories
Emergency department visit and admission diagnoses were classified in NACRS and DAD using the Canadian version of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10-CA). The ICD-10-CA comprises 22 diagnostic chapters, as well as specific diagnoses. 25 We summarized both diagnostic chapters and specific diagnoses, an approach that has demonstrated improved coding reliability.26
Most responsible discharge diagnoses in the HMHDB are described under mental health categories based on diagnostic classification systems specific to the data source. DAD employs ICD-10-CA. The Ontario Mental Health Reporting System and Hospital Mental Health Survey employ the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) classification system (DSM-5 for the Ontario Mental Health Reporting System and DSM-III or DSM-IV-TR for the Hospital Mental Health Survey).8
We examined alcohol-related presentations using ICD-10-CA codes related to intoxication, withdrawal and associated complications (Appendix 1, Table S2). We developed our definition based on a coding standard employed by CIHI, cross-referenced against an expert analysis of alcohol-related ICD-10-CA codes.27,28
We defined presentations related to substance use with ICD-10 codes used by CIHI to quantify harms related to substance use in Canada28 (Appendix 1, Table S3). These codes include presentations related to alcohol, opioids, cannabis, sedatives, cocaine, stimulants, hallucinogens, nicotine, inhalants and psychoactive substances. The category of substance use–related mental health admissions in the HMHDB is a classification unique to that database, as described above.28
Charlson Comorbidity Index
The Charlson Comorbidity Index describes patients’ status using a score (0–37) that includes 17 comorbidities.29 It is a validated prognosticator of mortality, length of hospitalization, complications and costs.29–31 Although it was initially validated using admission diagnoses,30 its calculation based on emergency department diagnoses also predicts short-term and long-term mortality.30,32–34 We used primary emergency department diagnoses in NACRS to calculate this index.
Statistical analysis
We first identified people who met the definition for frequent emergency department use in the fiscal year from Apr. 1, 2015, to Mar. 31, 2016, among patients in the Dynamic Cohort. We then classified people into subgroups based on the number of study years (1 to 5) that they met the threshold for frequent emergency department use. Given that this was a population-based study, that statistical testing on large data sets often produces very low p values, and that the objective of our analysis was descriptive, we felt that it was more important to rely on clinically meaningful rather than statistical differences across groups. Therefore, we used descriptive statistics to summarize subgroup characteristics with respect to emergency department visits, hospitalizations and mental health hospitalizations in fiscal year 2015/16, without undertaking tests of statistical significance or quantifying the magnitude of differences among groups. We performed all analyses using R (R Development Core Team, 2011).
Ethics approval
The University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board approved this study.
Results
We identified 252 737 people in Ontario and 63 238 people in Alberta who met the definition for frequent emergency department use between Apr. 1, 2015, and Mar. 31, 2016 (Tables 1 and 2; Appendix 1, Tables S4 and S5). As the number of years of frequent use went up, subgroups decreased in size but increased in terms of the proportion of total emergency department visits in 2015/16. In Ontario, 44.3% of the sample met the threshold for frequent emergency department use over 1 year, making 37.9% of the visits; over 2 years, 24.9% of the sample made 23.6% of the visits; over 3 years, 14.8% of the sample made 15.5% of the visits; over 4 years, 9.3% of the sample made 11.2% of the visits; and over 5 years, 6.8% of the sample made 11.9% of the visits.
Table 1:
Demographic, emergency department use and hospitalization characteristics for people who made frequent emergency department visits from Apr. 1, 2015, to Mar. 31, 2016, by persistent frequent use subgroup — Ontario
| Characteristic | Subgroup: no. of study years in which the definition of frequent emergency department use was met | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| No. of patients (% of total) | 112048 (44.3) | 62813 (24.9) | 37338 (14.8) | 23397 (9.3) | 17141 (6.8) |
| No. of patients whose frequent emergency department use spanned consecutive yr (%) | – | 27868 (44.4) | 12807 (34.3) | 9068 (38.8) | 17141 (100.0) |
| Patient characteristics (NACRS metadata) | |||||
| Gender, n (%) | |||||
| Female | 58617 (52.3) | 34887 (55.5) | 21713 (58.2) | 14265 (61.0) | 10807 (63.0) |
| Male | 53430 (47.7) | 27924 (44.5) | 15624 (41.8) | 9132 (39.0) | 6333 (36.9) |
| Other | 1 (0.0) | 2 (0.0) | 1 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.0) |
| Age, yr, median (IQR) | 53 (33–71) | 53 (33–71) | 52 (33–71) | 50 (33–68) | 48 (34–63) |
| Rural or urban, n (%) | |||||
| Rural | 22365 (20.0) | 13798 (22.0) | 8478 (22.7) | 5505 (23.5) | 3994 (23.3) |
| Urban | 89266 (79.7) | 48651 (77.5) | 28547 (76.5) | 17645 (75.4) | 12827 (74.8) |
| Not available | 417 (0.4) | 364 (0.6) | 313 (0.8) | 247 (1.1) | 320 (1.9) |
| Weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index, n (%) | |||||
| 0 | 90259 (80.6) | 48656 (77.5) | 27898 (74.7) | 17300 (73.9) | 12211 (71.2) |
| 1 | 14820 (13.2) | 10077 (16.0) | 6979 (18.7) | 4546 (19.4) | 3753 (21.9) |
| 2 | 4756 (4.2) | 2877 (4.6) | 1774 (4.8) | 1130 (4.8) | 847 (4.9) |
| 3 | 961 (0.9) | 663 (1.1) | 431 (1.2) | 285 (1.2) | 223 (1.3) |
| 4+ | 1252 (1.1) | 540 (0.9) | 256 (0.7) | 136 (0.6) | 107 (0.6) |
| No. of emergency department visits per person, median (IQR) | 4 (4–6) | 5 (4–6) | 5 (4–7) | 6 (4–8) | 7 (5–11) |
| Emergency department visit characteristics (NACRS metadata) | |||||
| No. of emergency department visits (% of total) | 583092 (37.9) | 362668 (23.6) | 238976 (15.5) | 171694 (11.2) | 183162 (11.9) |
| Arrival by ambulance, n (%) | |||||
| Air ambulance | 97 (0.0) | 54 (0.0) | 34 (0.0) | 49 (0.0) | 59 (0.0) |
| Air and ground ambulance | 313 (0.1) | 263 (0.1) | 193 (0.1) | 114 (0.1) | 105 (0.1) |
| Ground ambulance | 106309 (18.2) | 76772 (21.2) | 55184 (23.1) | 40820 (23.8) | 49225 (26.9) |
| No ambulance | 476373 (81.7) | 285579 (78.7) | 183565 (76.8) | 130711 (76.1) | 133773 (73.0) |
| Triage level (CTAS), n (%) | |||||
| 1 (resuscitation) | 5404 (0.9) | 3406 (0.9) | 2224 (0.9) | 1544 (0.9) | 1632 (0.9) |
| 2 (emergent) | 119647 (20.5) | 76365 (21.1) | 50578 (21.2) | 35773 (20.8) | 38922 (21.3) |
| 3 (urgent) | 266440 (45.7) | 163842 (45.2) | 108364 (45.3) | 77876 (45.4) | 83289 (45.5) |
| 4 (less urgent) | 157088 (26.9) | 94601 (26.1) | 61756 (25.8) | 44772 (26.1) | 46266 (25.3) |
| 5 (nonurgent) | 31488 (5.4) | 20583 (5.7) | 13897 (5.8) | 10006 (5.8) | 11466 (6.3) |
| Unknown | 2506 (0.4) | 3456 (1.0) | 1873 (0.8) | 1491 (0.9) | 1253 (0.7) |
| Not available | 519 (0.1) | 415 (0.1) | 284 (0.1) | 232 (0.1) | 334 (0.2) |
| Alcohol-related visit, n (%) | |||||
| Yes | 4948 (0.8) | 5387 (1.5) | 5654 (2.4) | 5486 (3.2) | 9873 (5.4) |
| No | 578144 (99.2) | 357281 (98.5) | 233322 (97.6) | 166208 (96.8) | 173289 (94.6) |
| Substance use–related visit, n (%) | |||||
| Yes | 7343 (1.3) | 7773 (2.1) | 7806 (3.3) | 7222 (4.2) | 11 748 (6.4) |
| No | 575749 (98.7) | 354895 (97.9) | 231170 (96.7) | 164472 (95.8) | 171414 (93.6) |
| Top 5 ICD-10-CA emergency department diagnoses, n (%) | |||||
| 1 | Drug therapies 25570 (4.4) |
Abdominal pain 12194 (3.4) |
Abdominal pain 8453 (3.5) |
Abdominal pain 7056 (4.1) |
Abdominal pain 9150 (5.0) |
| 2 | Abdominal pain 18609 (3.2) |
Drug therapies 11110 (3.1) |
UTI 7187 (3.0) |
UTI 4956 (2.9) |
Chest pain 5559 (3.0) |
| 3 | UTI 14799 (2.5) |
UTI 10829 (3.0) |
Drug therapies 5843 (2.4) |
Chest pain 4509 (2.6) |
Alcohol intoxication 5000 (2.7) |
| 4 | Chest pain 12142 (2.1) |
Chest pain 8651 (2.4) |
Chest pain 5792 (2.4) |
Drug therapies 3485 (2.0) |
UTI 4798 (2.6) |
| 5 | Cellulitis of lower limb 10178 (1.7) |
Cellulitis of lower limb 5787 (1.6) |
COPD 3576 (1.5) |
COPD 2631 (1.5) |
Drug therapies 3610 (2.0) |
| Visit disposition, n (%) | |||||
| Discharged | 465571 (79.8) | 287842 (79.4) | 189881 (79.5) | 137287 (80.0) | 147860 (80.7) |
| Transferred or admitted | 94122 (16.1) | 57491 (15.9) | 35777 (15.0) | 23383 (13.6) | 20504 (11.2) |
| Left against medical advice | 23127 (4.0) | 17159 (4.7) | 13210 (5.5) | 10976 (6.4) | 14745 (8.1) |
| Died | 272 (0.0) | 176 (0.0) | 108 (0.0) | 48 (0.0) | 53 (0.0) |
| Hospitalization characteristics (DAD metadata) | |||||
| No. of patients with at least 1 admission, n (%) | 43548 (38.9) | 24536 (39.1) | 14465 (38.7) | 8948 (38.2) | 6717 (39.2) |
| No. of admissions | 84784 | 50951 | 31194 | 20212 | 16672 |
| No. of admissions per person, median (IQR) | 2 (1–2) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) |
| Time admitted, d, median (IQR) | 4 (2–8) | 4 (2–7) | 4 (2–7) | 3 (2–7) | 3 (2–6) |
| Top 5 ICD-10-CA primary diagnoses, n (%) | |||||
| 1 | CHF 3865 (4.6) |
CHF 2826 (5.5) |
CHF 1774 (5.7) |
COPD 987 (4.9) |
COPD 751 (4.5) |
| 2 | UTI 1950 (2.3) |
COPD 1642 (3.2) |
COPD 1474 (4.7) |
CHF 984 (4.9) |
CHF 610 (3.7) |
| 3 | Pneumonia 1715 (2.0) |
UTI 1453 (2.9) |
COPD and respir. infection 954 (3.1) |
COPD and respir. infection 632 (3.1) |
COPD and respir. infection 453 (2.7) |
| 4 | COPD 1691 (2.0) |
Pneumonia 1167 (2.3) |
UTI 923 (3.0) |
UTI 586 (2.9) |
UTI 452 (2.7) |
| 5 | Myocardial infarction 1627 (1.9) |
COPD and respir. infection 1162 (2.3) |
Pneumonia 684 (2.2) |
Pneumonia 461 (2.3) |
Alcohol, withdrawal 353 (2.1) |
| Top 5 ICD-10-CA primary diagnosis chapters, n (%) | |||||
| 1 | Circulatory 15152 (17.9) |
Circulatory 8663 (17.0) |
Circulatory 4891 (15.7) |
Circulatory 2887 (14.3) |
Circulatory 1951 (11.7) |
| 2 | Respiratory 8640 (10.2) |
Respiratory 6679 (13.1) |
Respiratory 4700 (15.1) |
Respiratory 3062 (15.1) |
Respiratory 2357 (14.1) |
| 3 | Digestive 12393 (14.6) |
Digestive 6904 (13.6) |
Digestive 4158 (13.3) |
Digestive 2707 (13.4) |
Digestive 2111 (12.7) |
| 4 | Abnormal clinical findings 7671 (9.0) |
Abnormal clinical findings 5027 (9.9) |
Abnormal clinical findings 3230 (10.4) |
Abnormal clinical findings 2222 (11.0) |
Abnormal clinical findings 2098 (12.6) |
| 5 | Injury, poisoning 7780 (9.2) |
Injury, poisoning 4436 (8.7) |
Injury, poisoning 2608 (8.4) |
Injury, poisoning 1768 (8.7) |
Injury, poisoning 1506 (9.0) |
| Discharge disposition, n (%) | |||||
| Transferred to another facility | 4748 (5.6) | 2629 (5.2) | 1493 (4.8) | 981 (4.9) | 752 (4.5) |
| Transferred to a long-term care facility | 8749 (10.3) | 5708 (11.2) | 3319 (10.6) | 1924 (9.5) | 1249 (7.5) |
| Transferred to other centre | 833 (1.0) | 524 (1.0) | 351 (1.1) | 235 (1.2) | 201 (1.2) |
| Discharged to a home setting with support services | 26146 (30.8) | 16740 (32.9) | 9943 (31.9) | 6086 (30.1) | 4572 (27.4) |
| Discharged home | 39714 (46.8) | 22332 (43.8) | 14103 (45.2) | 9639 (47.7) | 8546 (51.3) |
| Signed out against medical advice | 1017 (1.2) | 910 (1.8) | 834 (2.7) | 717 (3.5) | 994 (6.0) |
| Died | 3572 (4.2) | 2106 (4.1) | 1148 (3.7) | 628 (3.1) | 355 (2.1) |
| Did not return from pass | 5 (0.0) | 2 (0.0) | 3 (0.0) | 2 (0.0) | 3 (0.0) |
| Mental health hospitalization–related characteristics (HMHDB metadata) | |||||
| No. of patients with at least 1 mental health–related admission, n (% of total) | 6004 (5.4) | 4543 (7.2) | 3155 (8.4) | 2218 (9.5) | 2124 (12.4) |
| No. of mental health–related admissions | 9876 | 7925 | 5757 | 4233 | 4754 |
| Documented homelessness among patients with at least 1 mental health–related admission, n (%) | |||||
| Yes | 225 (3.7) | 259 (5.7) | 193 (6.1) | 151 (6.8) | 214 (10.1) |
| No | 5779 (96.3) | 4284 (94.3) | 2962 (93.9) | 2067 (93.2) | 1910 (89.9) |
| Length of hospital stay, d median (IQR) | 7 (3–16) | 7 (2–16) | 6 (2–15) | 5 (2–13) | 4 (2–12) |
| Diagnosis category, n (%) | |||||
| Substance-related disorder | 1659 (16.8) | 1629 (20.6) | 1422 (24.7) | 1112 (26.3) | 1355 (28.5) |
| Mood disorder | 2885 (29.2) | 2338 (29.5) | 1477 (25.7) | 1086 (25.7) | 1123 (23.6) |
| Schizophrenic and psychotic disorder | 2059 (20.8) | 1639 (20.7) | 1347 (23.4) | 981 (23.2) | 1003 (21.1) |
| Organic disorder | 1584 (16.0) | 1067 (13.5) | 570 (9.9) | 327 (7.7) | 203 (4.3) |
| Other mental health disorder | 866 (8.8) | 555 (7.0) | 393 (6.8) | 291 (6.9) | 382 (8.0) |
| Personality disorder | 328 (3.3) | 315 (4.0) | 283 (4.9) | 269 (6.4) | 509 (10.7) |
| Anxiety disorder | 451 (4.6) | 330 (4.2) | 233 (4) | 145 (3.4) | 162 (3.4) |
| Non–mental health disorder | 35 (0.4) | 41 (0.5) | 27 (0.5) | 20 (0.5) | 12 (0.3) |
| Unknown disorder | 9 (0.1) | 11 (0.1) | 5 (0.1) | 2 (0.0) | 5 (0.1) |
| Discharge disposition, n (%) | |||||
| Discharged home | 8178 (82.8) | 6405 (80.8) | 4580 (79.6) | 3408 (80.5) | 3750 (78.9) |
| Transferred | 1111 (11.2) | 878 (11.1) | 608 (10.6) | 416 (9.8) | 408 (8.6) |
| Died | 48 (0.5) | 27 (0.3) | 15 (0.3) | 10 (0.2) | 5 (0.1) |
| Signed out against medical advice | 146 (1.5) | 160 (2.0) | 187 (3.2) | 137 (3.2) | 199 (4.2) |
| Other* | 393 (4.0) | 455 (5.7) | 367 (6.4) | 262 (6.2) | 392 (8.2) |
Note: CHF = congestive heart failure, COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CTAS = Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale, DAD = Discharge Abstract Database, ED = emergency department, HMHDB = Hospital Mental Health Database, ICD-10-CA = International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision, Canadian version, IQR = interquartile range, NACRS = National Ambulatory Care Reporting System, respir. = respiratory, UTI = urinary tract infection.
Including homeless and other; applies to records from the Ontario Mental Health Reporting System.
Table 2:
Demographic, emergency department use and hospitalization characteristics for people who made frequent emergency department visits from Apr. 1, 2015, to Mar. 31, 2016, by persistent frequent use subgroup — Alberta
| Characteristic | Subgroup: no. of study years in which the definition of frequent emergency department use was met | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| No. of patients (% of total) | 28290 (44.7) | 14730 (23.3) | 9058 (14.3) | 5958 (9.4) | 5202 (8.2) |
| No. of patients whose frequent emergency department use spanned consecutive yr (%) | – | 6855 (46.5) | 3214 (35.5) | 2339 (39.3) | 5202 (100.0) |
| Patient characteristics (NACRS metadata) | |||||
| Gender, n (%) | |||||
| Female | 14557 (51.5) | 8085 (54.9) | 5328 (58.8) | 3689 (61.9) | 3307 (63.6) |
| Male | 13733 (48.5) | 6645 (45.1) | 3730 (41.2) | 2269 (38.1) | 1895 (36.4) |
| Other | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Age, yr, median (IQR) | 46 (29–65) | 47 (30–66) | 46 (31–65) | 46 (32–64) | 47 (34–62) |
| Rural or urban, n (%) | |||||
| Rural | 9013 (31.9) | 5581 (37.9) | 3790 (41.8) | 2729 (45.8) | 2622 (50.4) |
| Urban | 18949 (67.0) | 8897 (60.4) | 5069 (56.0) | 3092 (51.9) | 2422 (46.6) |
| Not available | 328 (1.2) | 252 (1.7) | 199 (2.2) | 137 (2.3) | 158 (3) |
| Weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index, n (%) | |||||
| 0 | 23114 (81.7) | 11472 (77.9) | 6798 (75.0) | 4350 (73.0) | 3659 (70.3) |
| 1 | 3543 (12.5) | 2335 (15.9) | 1701 (18.8) | 1206 (20.2) | 1125 (21.6) |
| 2 | 1165 (4.1) | 644 (4.4) | 383 (4.2) | 286 (4.8) | 306 (5.9) |
| 3 | 236 (0.8) | 177 (1.2) | 122 (1.3) | 71 (1.2) | 68 (1.3) |
| 4+ | 232 (0.8) | 102 (0.7) | 54 (0.6) | 45 (0.8) | 44 (0.8) |
| No. of emergency department visits per person, median (IQR) | 6 (5–8) | 6 (5–9) | 7 (5–10) | 7 (6–11) | 9 (7–15) |
| Emergency department visit characteristics (NACRS metadata) | |||||
| No. of emergency department visits (% of total) | 206562 (38.5) | 120083 (22.4) | 80140 (14.9) | 59006 (11.0) | 70934 (13.2) |
| Arrival by ambulance, n (%) | |||||
| Air ambulance | 125 (0.1) | 67 (0.1) | 52 (0.1) | 46 (0.1) | 50 (0.1) |
| Air and ground ambulance | 137 (0.1) | 85 (0.1) | 42 (0.1) | 60 (0.1) | 56 (0.1) |
| Ground ambulance | 23909 (11.6) | 16654 (13.9) | 12270 (15.3) | 10008 (17.0) | 13143 (18.5) |
| No ambulance | 182391 (88.3) | 103277 (86.0) | 67776 (84.6) | 48892 (82.9) | 57685 (81.3) |
| Triage level (CTAS), n (%) | |||||
| 1 (resuscitation) | 803 (0.4) | 522 (0.4) | 404 (0.5) | 245 (0.4) | 379 (0.5) |
| 2 (emergent) | 21786 (10.5) | 12989 (10.8) | 8874 (11.1) | 6614 (11.2) | 7736 (10.9) |
| 3 (urgent) | 62041 (30.0) | 37457 (31.2) | 25443 (31.7) | 18529 (31.4) | 22203 (31.3) |
| 4 (less urgent) | 72600 (35.1) | 41909 (34.9) | 27458 (34.3) | 20106 (34.1) | 23583 (33.2) |
| 5 (nonurgent) | 39538 (19.1) | 21546 (17.9) | 13964 (17.4) | 10515 (17.8) | 13451 (19.0) |
| Unknown | 9446 (4.6) | 5422 (4.5) | 3771 (4.7) | 2826 (4.8) | 3317 (4.7) |
| Not available | 348 (0.2) | 238 (0.2) | 226 (0.3) | 171 (0.3) | 265 (0.4) |
| Alcohol-related visits, n (%) | |||||
| Yes | 2356 (1.1) | 2389 (2.0) | 2314 (2.9) | 2338 (4.0) | 4046 (5.7) |
| No | 204206 (98.9) | 117694 (98.0) | 77826 (97.1) | 56668 (96) | 66888 (94.3) |
| Substance use-related visits, n (%) | |||||
| Yes | 3247 (1.6) | 3114 (2.6) | 2890 (3.6) | 2716 (4.6) | 4249 (6.0) |
| No | 203315 (98.4) | 116969 (97.4) | 77250 (96.4) | 56290 (95.4) | 66685 (94.0) |
| Top 5 ICD-10-CA emergency department diagnoses, n (%) | |||||
| 1 | Drug therapies 35297 (17.1) |
Drug therapies 17185 (14.3) |
Drug therapies 9425 (11.8) |
Drug therapies 6187 (10.5) |
Drug therapies 8240 (11.6) |
| 2 | Dressings 8806 (4.3) |
Dressings 3791 (3.2) |
Abdominal pain 1969 (2.5) |
Abdominal pain 1647 (2.8) |
Abdominal pain 2196 (3.1) |
| 3 | Abdominal pain 3993 (1.9) |
Abdominal pain 2719 (2.3) |
Dressings 1876 (2.3) |
Dressings 1496 (2.5) |
Migraine 2019 (2.8) |
| 4 | Orthopaedic 3773 (1.8) |
UTI 2477 (2.1) |
UTI 1831 (2.3) |
UTI 1450 (2.5) |
Alc. intoxication 1897 (2.7) |
| 5 | UTI 3611 (1.7) |
Chest pain 817 (1.5) |
Chest pain 1333 (1.7) |
Alc. intoxication 1029 (1.7) |
UTI 1499 (2.1) |
| Visit disposition, n (%) | |||||
| Discharged | 174523 (84.5) | 100848 (84.0) | 67040 (83.7) | 49366 (83.7) | 59956 (84.5) |
| Transferred or admitted | 24821 (12.0) | 14059 (11.7) | 9004 (11.2) | 6287 (10.7) | 6180 (8.7) |
| Left against medical advice | 7153 (3.5) | 5153 (4.3) | 4071 (5.1) | 3346 (5.7) | 4778 (6.7) |
| Died | 65 (0.0) | 23 (0.0) | 25 (0.0) | 7 (0.0) | 20 (0.0) |
| Hospitalization characteristics (DAD metadata) | |||||
| No. of patients with at least 1 admission, n (%) | 11287 (39.9) | 6248 (42.4) | 3846 (42.5) | 2590 (43.5) | 2338 (44.9) |
| No. of admissions | 22389 | 13 125 | 8437 | 5895 | 5729 |
| No. of admissions per person, median (IQR) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) |
| Time admitted, d, median (IQR) | 4 (2–7) | 3 (2–7) | 4 (2–7) | 3 (2–7) | 3 (2–7) |
| Top 5 ICD-10-CA primary diagnoses, n (%) | |||||
| 1 | CHF 844 (3.8) |
CHF 504 (3.8) |
COPD 358 (4.2) |
COPD 249 (4.2) |
COPD 226 (3.9) |
| 2 | COPD 530 (2.4) |
COPD 424 (3.2) |
CHF 260 (3.1) |
Alc. withdrawal 165 (2.8) |
Alc. withdrawal 210 (3.7) |
| 3 | UTI 396 (1.8) |
Pneumonia 274 (2.1) |
COPD and respir. infection 223 (2.6) |
CHF 160 (2.7) |
COPD and respir. infection 161 (2.8) |
| 4 | Pneumonia 390 (1.7) |
COPD and respir. infection 264 (2.0) |
Pneumonia 177 (2.1) |
COPD and respir. infection 157 (2.7) |
Pneumonia 157 (2.7) |
| 5 | COPD and respir. infection 318 (1.4) |
UTI 257 (2.0) |
UTI 166 (2.0) |
Pneumonia 137 (2.3) |
CHF 129 (2.3) |
| Top 5 ICD-10-CA primary diagnosis chapters, n (%) | |||||
| 1 | Circulatory 3211 (14.3) |
Digestive 1729 (13.2) |
Respiratory 1164 (13.8) |
Mental, behav. 945 (16.0) |
Mental, behav. 975 (17.0) |
| 2 | Digestive 3186 (14.2) |
Mental, behav. 1573 (12.0) |
Mental, behav. 1153 (13.7) |
Respiratory 850 (14.4) |
Respiratory 844 (14.7) |
| 3 | Injury, poisoning 2373 (10.6) |
Circulatory 1569 (12.0) |
Digestive 1004 (11.9) |
Circulatory 524 (8.9) |
Digestive 676 (11.8) |
| 4 | Mental, behav. 2187 (9.8) |
Respiratory 1562 (11.9) |
Circulatory 874 (10.4) |
Digestive 690 (11.7) |
Injury, poisoning 534 (9.3) |
| 5 | Respiratory 2184 (9.8) |
Injury, poisoning 1315 (10.0) |
Injury, poisoning 870 (10.3) |
Injury, poisoning 604 (10.2) |
Abnormal clinical findings 453 (7.9) |
| Discharge disposition among admissions, n (%) | |||||
| Transferred to another facility | 2030 (9.1) | 1117 (8.5) | 691 (8.2) | 492 (8.3) | 425 (7.4) |
| Transferred to a long-term care facility | 811 (3.6) | 461 (3.5) | 293 (3.5) | 210 (3.6) | 105 (1.8) |
| Transferred to other centre | 381 (1.7) | 198 (1.5) | 138 (1.6) | 95 (1.6) | 86 (1.5) |
| Discharged to a home setting with support services | 3075 (13.7) | 1861 (14.2) | 1151 (13.6) | 702 (11.9) | 542 (9.5) |
| Discharged home | 14 971 (66.9) | 8616 (65.6) | 5557 (65.9) | 3902 (66.2) | 4009 (70) |
| Signed out against medical advice | 492 (2.2) | 493 (3.8) | 392 (4.6) | 366 (6.2) | 468 (8.2) |
| Died | 604 (2.7) | 371 (2.8) | 202 (2.4) | 122 (2.1) | 89 (1.6) |
| Did not return from pass | 25 (0.1) | 8 (0.1) | 13 (0.2) | 6 (0.1) | 5 (0.1) |
| Mental health hospitalization–related characteristics (HMHDB metadata) | |||||
| No. of patients with at least 1 mental health–related admission, n (% of total) | 1441 (5.1) | 1055 (7.2) | 752 (8.3) | 589 (9.9) | 601 (11.6) |
| No. of mental health–related admissions | 2468 | 1802 | 1320 | 1085 | 1092 |
| Documented homelessness among patients with at least 1 mental health–related admission, n (%) | |||||
| Yes | 70 (4.9) | 54 (5.1) | 47 (6.3) | 46 (7.8) | 56 (9.3) |
| No | 1371 (95.1) | 1001 (94.9) | 705 (93.8) | 543 (92.2) | 545 (90.7) |
| Length of hospital stay, d median (IQR) | 5 (2–14) | 4 (2–12) | 4 (2–10) | 4 (2–10) | 4 (2–8) |
| Diagnosis category, n (%) | |||||
| Substance-related disorder | 756 (30.6) | 668 (37.1) | 563 (42.7) | 488 (45.0) | 529 (48.4) |
| Mood disorder | 536 (21.7) | 322 (17.9) | 211 (16.0) | 175 (16.1) | 175 (16.0) |
| Schizophrenic and psychotic disorder | 336 (13.6) | 250 (13.9) | 167 (12.7) | 139 (12.8) | 99 (9.1) |
| Organic disorder | 274 (11.1) | 170 (9.4) | 99 (7.5) | 54 (5.0) | 37 (3.4) |
| Other mental health disorder | 324 (13.1) | 217 (12.0) | 139 (10.5) | 122 (11.2) | 120 (11.0) |
| Personality disorder | 106 (4.3) | 80 (4.4) | 67 (5.1) | 53 (4.9) | 81 (7.4) |
| Anxiety disorder | 128 (5.2) | 86 (4.8) | 69 (5.2) | 44 (4.1) | 51 (4.7) |
| Non–mental health disorder | 8 (0.3) | 9 (0.5) | 5 (0.4) | 10 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) |
| Unknown disorder | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Discharge disposition, n (%) | |||||
| Discharged home | 1972 (79.9) | 1426 (79.1) | 1055 (79.9) | 857 (79) | 868 (79.5) |
| Transferred | 329 (13.3) | 211 (11.7) | 132 (10.0) | 110 (10.1) | 75 (6.9) |
| Died | 8 (0.3) | 6 (0.3) | 2 (0.2) | 1 (0.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Signed out against medical advice | 157 (6.4) | 158 (8.8) | 128 (9.7) | 116 (10.7) | 149 (13.6) |
| Other* | 2 (0.1) | 1 (0.1) | 3 (0.2) | 1 (0.1) | 0 (0.0) |
Note: Alc. = alcohol, behav. = behavioural, CHF = congestive heart failure, COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CTAS = Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale, DAD = Discharge Abstract Database, ED = emergency department, HMHDB = Hospital Mental Health Database, ICD-10-CA = International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision, Canadian version, IQR = interquartile range, NACRS = National Ambulatory Care Reporting System, respir. = respiratory, UTI = urinary tract infection.
Including homeless and other; applies to records from the Ontario Mental Health Reporting System.
Similarly in Alberta, 44.7% of the sample met the threshold for frequent emergency department use over 1 year, making 38.5% of visits; over 2 years, 23.3% of the sample made 22.4% of the visits; over 3 years, 14.3% of the sample made 14.9% of the visits; over 4 years, 9.4% of the sample made 11.0% of the visits; and over 5 years, 8.2% of the sample made 13.2% of the visits.
Characterization by persistence of frequent use
We have summarized demographic, emergency department visit and hospitalization characteristics of people with frequent emergency department use by persistence of frequent emergency department use in Tables 1 and 2 and Appendix 1, Tables S4 and S5. Many characteristics and health care utilization patterns appeared to follow a gradient based on the increasing persistence of frequent emergency department use.
Patient characteristics
Subgroups with increasingly persistent frequent emergency department use over 1 to 5 years were females (Ontario: 52.3% to 63.0%; Alberta: 51.5% to 63.6%), people with a rural residence (Ontario: 20.0% to 23.3%; Alberta: 31.9% to 50.4%) and people with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1 or higher (Ontario: 19.4% to 28.8%; Alberta: 18.3% to 29.7%).
Emergency department use
We observed increasingly persistent frequent use over 1 to 5 years with a rising median number of annual emergency department visits (Ontario: 4 to 7; Alberta: 6 to 9), arrivals by ambulance (Ontario: 18.3% to 27%; Alberta: 11.7% to 18.7%), alcohol-related visits (Ontario: 0.8% to 5.4%; Alberta: 1.1% to 5.7%), substance use–related visits (Ontario: 1.3% to 6.4%; Alberta: 1.6% to 6.0%) and leaving the emergency department against medical advice (Ontario: 4.0% to 8.1%; Alberta: 3.5% to 6.7%). The proportion of people who were transferred or admitted to hospital at the end of their emergency department visit decreased among subgroups from 1 to 5 years of frequent use (Ontario: 16.1% to 11.2%; Alberta: 12.0% to 8.7%).
Hospitalizations
Overall, we found no difference across subgroups in the proportion of people who had at least 1 hospital admission (about 39%). Congestive heart failure and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were common diagnoses at admission in all subgroups. Subgroups with 1 to 5 years of persistent frequent use had mental health–specific hospitalizations more often (Ontario: 5.4% to 12.4%; Alberta: 5.1% to 11.6%), of which increasing proportions were related to substance use (Ontario: 16.8% to 28.5%; Alberta: 30.6% to 48.4%) or involved documented homelessness (Ontario: 3.7% to 10.1%; Alberta: 4.9% to 9.3%).
We observed increasing persistent frequent use with more dispositions of leaving against medical advice from both general (Ontario: 1.2% to 6.0%; Alberta: 2.2% to 8.2%) and mental health–related hospitalizations (Ontario: 1.5% to 4.2%; Alberta: 6.4% to 13.6%), and also with decreasing in-hospital mortality (Ontario: 4.2% to 2.1%; Alberta: 2.7% to 1.6%).
Interpretation
Our results showed heterogenous demographic, clinical and health care utilization characteristics in patients with persistent frequent emergency department use. In our study, among people who made frequent emergency department visits in 2015/16, 44.3% in Ontario and 44.7% in Alberta met the threshold for frequent use in only that year; smaller numbers had also visited frequently in the preceding 2 to 5 years (6.8% and 8.2% over all 5 years in Ontario and Alberta, respectively). We observed gradients in characteristics and health care utilization patterns, where increasing persistence of frequent use was seen with more females, more comorbidities, higher rates of homelessness and rural residence, higher annual numbers of emergency department visits, increasing numbers of presentations related to alcohol and substance use, and higher rates of leaving against medical advice. Conversely, we observed decreasing gradients for admission rates following an emergency department visit and for in-hospital mortality, but not with having at least 1 hospitalization.
Our population-level analysis provides a longitudinal characterization of frequent emergency department use in 2 large Canadian provinces, a distinctive opportunity afforded by the annually updated Dynamic Cohort from CIHI, which provides information about patients’ transitions into and out of frequent use. Our analysis contributes new evidence that many characteristics of people with frequent emergency department use follow gradients based on persistence. Consistent with previous studies, we identified that frequent use is most often short-term.10,35,36 Associations between persistent frequent use and increasing comorbidity, mental health, substance use and homelessness could indicate predispositions to medical complications, return visits seeking more compassionate treatment37 or gaps in effectual alternatives to emergency department care (e.g., primary or addictions care), in rural areas for instance.
Persistent frequent use may indicate that more community and social supports are required for discharge planning to preempt repeat visits. Furthermore, our finding of an increasing prevalence of patients who left the emergency department against medical advice may suggest that complex care was inadequately provided (e.g., pain or withdrawal management), or that acute care services addressed patients’ needs suboptimally. 38 As well, differences in clinical presentations (e.g., more presentations related to alcohol and substance use presentations among the most persistent subgroups) provide directions for resource allocation.
It is important to note that we did not have access to data on race or ethnicity. It is known that people from racialized communities experience health care differently (e.g., service access barriers, stigma, discrimination),39 and this may influence the likelihood of frequent emergency department use and its persistence. Future analyses should explore associations with race or ethnicity.
Our results must be interpreted in light of the high mortality risk among people with frequent emergency department use. Our previous analyses of people who presented frequently to emergency departments in British Columbia found 1-year mortalities of 24.7% in a subgroup of older patients and 12.3% in a younger subgroup with prevalent substance use and mental illness.40 An analysis of patients in Ontario demonstrated that 8.8% of patients with 5 or more annual alcohol-related emergency department visits died within 1 year.17 The present study likely captures these high-risk patient profiles. Furthermore, existing evidence shows that leaving against medical advice is associated with a high risk of hospital readmission and mortality.41,42
Future studies should examine predictors of and triggers for persistent frequent emergency department use, and should engage patients in qualitative work to explore reasons for leaving against medical advice and codesign interventions to improve on the modest effectiveness of interventions described to date.43,44 Studies should also examine outcomes associated with persistent frequent emergency department use (e.g., mortality, overdose, incarceration, institutionalization, quality of life) such that interventions prioritize patients at highest risk and patient-centred outcomes.
Limitations
Our analytic approach may have introduced survivorship bias, because we identified our study cohort by first selecting patients who met our threshold for frequent use within our final year of data (fiscal year 2015/16). Patients who had died in the preceding 4 years would have been excluded. Therefore, our cohort likely underrepresents the sickest patients in the potential cohort at study outset in fiscal year 2011/12; our results must be interpreted with this limitation in mind.
We were able to link only the Dynamic Cohort to CIHI-held databases. We did not have access to provincially held records, including pharmacy, physician billing, ambulance service and vital statistics databases. Therefore, we were unable to examine important data related to family physician attachment, prescription medications, comprehensive service utilization and mortality. Other important variables were unavailable, such as employment, ethnicity and education. Nonetheless, our population-level analysis of the CIHI-created, longitudinal Dynamic Cohort, linked comprehensively to acute care databases, contributes a broad characterization of the people who visit emergency departments frequently in Ontario and Alberta.
Our analysis is limited by data completeness and quality. Discharge diagnoses and homelessness variables were not validated. Nonetheless, mandatory level 3 NACRS reporting, low missingness and regular CIHI quality assurance increased data reliability. Furthermore, we used the NACRS “ED Visit Indicator” flag to identify emergency department visits and exclude prescheduled care. However, the accuracy and reliability of this variable was uncertain, and our analysis probably misclassified a minority of scheduled visits as emergency department visits.
Finally, because of delays in data acquisition and linkage inherent in all administrative data analyses, our data were not current, and 2016 was our most recent available year. Patterns of frequent emergency department use may have changed since then; still, our analysis highlights important findings (e.g., increasing frequency of emergency department use seen with mental health and substance use disorders) that remain relevant and should inform clinical and policy interventions.
Conclusion
People who make persistent frequent emergency department visits over multiple years have prevalent multimorbidity, mental health issues, substance use issues and homelessness, and they commonly leave against medical advice. Understanding the risk factors for persistent frequent emergency department use, exploring interventions (both in the emergency department and outside of it) to address physical and mental health needs that underlie frequent emergency department visits, and advocating for alternatives that better address care gaps (e.g., addiction services, social supports) are urgent implications of our findings.
Supplementary Material
Footnotes
Competing interests: Jessica Moe has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada Substance Use and Addictions Program, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver Foundation, Vancouver Physician Staff Association, UBC Department of Family Practice, Vancouver General Hospital Complex Pain and Addictions Service, BC Centre for Disease Control Foundation for Public Health, and the UBC Faculty of Medicine. Margaret McGregor is a board member of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. Kathryn Dong has received grant funding from the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse, committee honoraria from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta and the Edmonton Zone Medical Staff Association, financial support from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, and a medical leadership salary from Alberta Health Services. No other competing interests were declared.
This article has been peer reviewed.
Contributors: Jessica Moe conceived the study, designed the analysis, obtained research funding, analyzed the data, interpreted results, and provided overall study oversight. Elle Wang designed the analysis, analyzed the data, created tables, and interpreted results. Margaret McGregor, Michael Schull, Kathryn Dong, Brian Holroyd, Corinne Hohl, Eric Grafstein and Johanna Trimble provided feedback on study design, data analysis, and results interpretation. Fiona O’Sullivan assisted with data analysis and table creation. Kimberlyn McGrail served as a methodological expert, designed the analysis, analyzed the data, and provided feedback on results interpretation. Jessica Moe drafted the manuscript and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. All authors have reviewed the final version, have provided final approval for publication, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work
Funding: This study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians.
Data sharing: We accessed our data through a data request to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Additional investigators can access the data analyzed in this study through an independent data request to CIHI.
Supplemental information: For reviewer comments and the original submission of this manuscript, please see www.cmajopen.ca/content/10/1/E220/suppl/DC1.
References
- 1.Moe J, O’Sullivan F, McGregor MJ, et al. Characteristics of frequent emergency department users in British Columbia, Canada: a retrospective analysis. CMAJ Open. 2021;9:E134–41. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20200168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bertoli-Avella AM, Haagsma JA, Van Tiel S, et al. Frequent users of the emergency department services in the largest academic hospital in the Netherlands: a 5-year report. Eur J Emerg Med. 2017;24:130–5. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Health Quality Ontario. Under pressure: emergency department performance in Ontario. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mian O, Pong R. Does better access to FPs decrease the likelihood of emergency department use? Results from the Primary Care Access Survey. Can Fam Physician. 2012;58:e658–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sources of potentially avoidable emergency department visits. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2014. [accessed 2021 Apr. 28]. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/ED_Report_ForWeb_EN_Final.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Pan-Canadian forum on high users of health care: summary report. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2014. [accessed 2021 Apr. 28]. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/highusers_summary_report_revised_EN_web.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Johnson TL, Rinehart DJ, Durfee J, et al. For many patients who use large amounts of health care services, the need is intense yet temporary. Health Aff (Millwood) 2015;34:1312–9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Mitchell MS, León CLK, Byrne TH, et al. Cost of health care utilization among homeless frequent emergency department users. Psychol Serv. 2017;14:193–202. doi: 10.1037/ser0000113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wodchis WP, Austin PC, Henry DA. A 3-year study of high-cost users of health care. CMAJ. 2016;188:182–8. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.150064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kanzaria HK, Niedzwiecki MJ, Montoy JC, et al. Persistent frequent emergency department use: core group exhibits extreme levels of use for more than a decade. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017;36:1720–8. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Chiu YM, Vanasse A, Courteau J, et al. Persistent frequent emergency department users with chronic conditions: a population-based cohort study. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0229022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (Strobe) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335:806–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Dynamic cohort of complex, high system users — 2011–2015. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2017. [accessed 2021 Apr. 24]. Available: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50129.html#section_1. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Paul P, Heng BH, Seow E, et al. Predictors of frequent attenders of emergency department at an acute general hospital in Singapore. Emerg Med J. 2010;27:843–8. doi: 10.1136/emj.2009.079160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Data quality documentation, national ambulatory care reporting system: current-year information, 2017ȓ2018. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2018. [accessed 2021 Apr. 28]. Available: www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/current-year-information-nacrs-2017-2018-en-web.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Discharge Abstract Database metadata (DAD) Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; [accessed 2021 Apr. 28]. Available: https://www.cihi.ca/en/discharge-abstract-database-metadata-dad. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hulme J, Sheikh H, Xie E, et al. Mortality among patients with frequent emergency department use for alcohol-related reasons in Ontario: a population-based cohort study. CMAJ. 2020;192:E1522–31. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.191730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.du Plessis V, Beshiri R, Bollman RD, et al. Definitions of rural. [accessed 2021 Apr. 24];Rural Small Town Canada Anal Bull. 2001 3(3) Cat (21)-006XIE. Available: www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/21-006-x/-21-006-x2001003-eng.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Hospital Mental Health Database (HMHDB). 2018–2019 user documentation. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2020. [accessed 2021 May 31]. Available: http://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HMHDB-user-documentation-2018-2019-en.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bullard MJ, Musgrave E, Warren D, et al. Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) guidelines 2016. CJEM. 2017;19:S18–27. doi: 10.1017/cem.2017.365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) Ottawa: CTAS National Working Group; 2016. [accessed 2021 Oct. 27]. Available: http://ctas-phctas.ca/?page_id=294. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lee JY, Oh SH, Peck EH, et al. The validity of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in predicting resource utilization and the need for immediate life-saving interventions in elderly emergency department patients. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011;19:68. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kuriyama A, Kaihara T, Ikegami T. Validity of the Japan acuity and triage scale in elderly patients: a cohort study. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37:2159–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mirhaghi A, Heydari A, Mazlom R, et al. The reliability of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: meta-analysis. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7:299–305. doi: 10.4103/1947-2714.161243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Home care reporting system metadata. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; [accessed 2021 May 13]. Available: https://www.cihi.ca/en/home-care-reporting-system-metadata. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wockenfuss R, Frese T, Herrmann K, et al. Three- and four-digit ICD-10 is not a reliable classification system in primary care. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2009;27:131–6. doi: 10.1080/02813430903072215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Saunders JB, Room R. Enhancing the ICD system in recording alcohol’s involvement in disease and injury. Alcohol Alcohol. 2012;47:216–8. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/ags024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hospital stays for harm caused by substance use: appendices to indicator library. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2020. [accessed 2021 Apr. 24]. Available: http://indicatorlibrary.cihi.ca/download/attachments/15565197/Hospital%20Stays%20for%20Harm%20Caused%20by%20Substance%20Use%20%20%E2%80%94%20Appendices.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1588097505000&api=v2. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–9. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson Comorbidity Index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:676–82. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Needham DM, Scales DC, Laupacis A, et al. A systematic review of the Charlson Comorbidity Index using Canadian administrative databases: a perspective on risk adjustment in critical care research. J Crit Care. 2005;20:12–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2004.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Murray SB, Bates DW, Ngo L, et al. Charlson Index is associated with one-year mortality in emergency department patients with suspected infection. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13:530–6. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.11.084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Olsson T, Terent A, Lind L. Charlson Comorbidity Index can add prognostic information to rapid emergency medicine score as a predictor of longterm mortality. Eur J Emerg Med. 2005;12:220–4. doi: 10.1097/00063110-200510000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Moe J, O’Sullivan F, McGregor MJ, et al. Frequent emergency department users in British Columbia, Canada: a retrospective analysis. CMAJ Open. 2021;9:E134–41. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20200168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Chen A, Fielding S, Hu XJ, et al. Frequent users of emergency departments and patient flow in Alberta and Ontario, Canada: an administrative data study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:938. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05774-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Redelmeier DA, Molin JP, Tibshirani RJ. A randomised trial of compassionate care for the homeless in an emergency department. Lancet. 1995;345:1131–4. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90975-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Simon R, Snow R, Wakeman S. Understanding why patients with substance use disorders leave the hospital against medical advice: a qualitative study. Subst Abus. 2020;41:519–25. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1671942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Hausmann LRM, Jones AL, McInnes SE, et al. Identifying healthcare experiences associated with perceptions of racial/ethnic discrimination among veterans with pain: a cross-sectional mixed methods survey. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0237650. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Moe J, O’Sullivan F, McGregor MJ, et al. Identifying subgroups and risk among frequent emergency department users in British Columbia. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2021;2:e12346. doi: 10.1002/emp2.12346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Garland A, Ramsey CD, Fransoo R, et al. Rates of readmission and death associated with leaving hospital against medical advice: a population-based study. CMAJ. 2013;185:1207–14. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.130029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Glasgow JM, Vaughn-Sarrazin M, Kaboli PJ. Leaving against medical advice (AMA): risk of 30-day mortality and hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:926–9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1371-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Moe J, Kirkland SW, Rawe E, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to decrease emergency department visits by adult frequent isers: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24:40–52. doi: 10.1111/acem.13060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Soril LJ, Leggett LE, Lorenzetti DL, et al. Reducing frequent visits to the emergency department: a systematic review of interventions. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0123660. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.