Judging a patient's decision to seek emergency healthcare: clues for managing increasing patient demand

Open Access Article

<< Previous

Next >>

Contents Vol 36(1)

doi:10.1071/AH10921

Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association

	Search




	Advanced Search



	Journal Home

	About the Journal

	Editorial Committee

	Contacts

	For Advertisers



	Content

	Online Early

	Current Issue

	Just Accepted

	All Issues

	Sample Issue



	For Authors

	General Information

	Instructions to Authors

	Submit Article

	Open Access



	For Referees

	Referee Guidelines

	Review Article

	Call for Reviewers




	For Subscribers

	Subscription Prices

	Customer Service

	Print Publication Dates

e-Alerts

Subscribe to our Email Alert or

feeds for the latest journal papers.

Connect with AHR

Connect with CP

Judging a patient’s decision to seek emergency healthcare: clues for managing increasing patient demand

Amee Morgans ^A ^B ^C and Stephen Burgess ^A ^B

^A Ambulance Victoria, 375 Manningham Road, Doncaster, Vic. 3175, Australia. Email: stephen.burgess@monash.edu
^B Department of Community and Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice, Monash University, McMahons Road, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia.
^C Corresponding author. Email: amee.morgans@ambulance.vic.gov.au

Australian Health Review 36(1) 110-114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AH10921
Submitted: 18 May 2010 Accepted: 20 June 2011 Published: 24 February 2012





	Full Text



	PDF (173 KB)



	Export Citation

Print

Abstract

Objective. In recent years, the concept of an ‘inappropriate’ emergency department or ambulance user has arisen. This discussion paper explores definition and measurement of inappropriate emergency healthcare utilisation, and the effect on demand.

Method. A comprehensive literature review of published articles was conducted.

Results. Exploration of the definitions of ‘inappropriate’ emergency healthcare utilisation identified two patient cohorts; emergency healthcare utilisation by those who are not experiencing a health emergency, and those who do not seek emergency healthcare who should. Several position papers from Australian and international sources emphasised the patient’s right to access emergency healthcare when they feel the need, and the responsibility of emergency healthcare workers to provide treatment to all patients. Differences between medical classifications of urgency based on physiological measures are contrasted with patient-based determination of urgency, which is defined by psychosocial factors.

Conclusions. This literature review raises questions about patients’ understanding of the role of emergency healthcare services in an emergency. This has implications for determining the patient’s point of access to the health system in an acute health event, and offers an opportunity to selectively educate patients and carers to change help-seeking behaviours to suit the health system resources and moderate patient demand.

What is known about the topic? There is a public health issue where some patients seek emergency healthcare when they are not acutely unwell (inappropriate health service users) and some patients who fail to seek emergency healthcare when they are acutely unwell (patients who ‘delay’ or avoid using emergency health services). There is a difference in understanding between health professionals and patients about what a health emergency is and when it is appropriate to seek emergency healthcare. There is an increasing demand for emergency health services both nationally and internationally.

What does this paper add? This paper provides a review of Australian and international rates of ‘inappropriate’ healthcare utilisation. This paper identifies the limitations on the ability to determine whether patients were appropriate or inappropriate, and instead identifies what motivates patients to seek emergency healthcare for non-acute events and fail to seek healthcare for acute events.

What are the implications for practitioners? There is a high demand for health services, which is increasing, and understanding patient motivations to seek healthcare may assist the development of demand management strategies. This paper will enhance practitioner understanding of patient motivation to seek emergency healthcare. This paper concludes with educational information that practitioners can use to change patient healthcare utilisation patterns.

References

[1] Westwood B, Westwood G. Multi-presenter mental health patients in emergency departments – a review of models of care. Aust Health Rev 2001; 24: 202–13.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[2] MacLean SL, Bayley EW, Cole FL, Bernado L, Lenaghan P, Manton A. The LUNAR Project: a description of the population of individuals who seek health care at emergency departments. J Emerg Nurs 1999; 25: 269–82.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[3] Murphy AW. ‘Inappropriate ‘ attenders at accident and emergency departments II: health service responses. Fam Pract 1998; 15: 33–7.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[4] Burgess S, Smith E, Piper S, Archer F. The development of an updated prehospital search filter for the Cochrane Library: Prehospital Search Filter Version 2.0. J Emerg Prim Health Care 2010; 8: 990444.

[5] Murphy AW. ‘Inappropriate’ attenders at accident and emergency departments I: definition, incidence and reasons for attendance. Fam Pract 1998; 15: 23–32.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[6] Lowe RA, Bindman AB. Judging who needs emergency department care: a prerequisite for policy-making. Am J Emerg Med 1997; 15: 133–6.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[7] Woollard M. Emergency calls not requiring an urgent ambulance response: expert consensus. Prehosp Emerg Care 2003; 7: 384–91.
| CrossRef |

[8] Morgans A, Burgess S. What is a health emergency? The difference in definition and understanding between patients and health professionals. Aust Health Rev 2011; 35: 284–9.
| CrossRef |

[9] Sanders J. A review of health professional attitudes and patient perceptions on ‘inappropriate’ accident and emergency attendances. The implications for current minor injury service provision in England and Wales. J Adv Nurs 2000; 31: 1097–105.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[10] Heslop L, Elsom S, Parker N. Improving continuity of care across psychiatric and emergency services: combining patient data within a participatory action research framework. J Adv Nurs 2000; 31: 135–43.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[11] Kost S, Arruda J. Appropriateness of ambulance transportation to a suburban pediatric emergency department. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999; 3: 187–90.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[12] Thakore S, McGugan EA, Morrison W. Emergency ambulance dispatch: is there a case for triage? J R Soc Med 2002; 95: 126–9.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[13] Mogielnicki RP, Stevenson KA, Willemain TR. Patient and bystander response to medical emergencies. Med Care 1975; 13: 753–62.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[14] Morgans AE, Archer F, Allen FCL. Patient decision making processes and outcomes when deciding to call an ambulance: what are patients thinking? J Emerg Prim Health Care 2008; 2: 990295.

[15] Leslie WS, Urie A, Hooper J, Morrison CE. Delay in calling for help during myocardial infarction: reasons for the delay and subsequent pattern of accessing care. Heart 2000; 84: 137–41.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[16] Walsh M. The health belief model and use of accident and emergency services by the general public. J Adv Nurs 1995; 22: 694–9.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[17] Theinhasu OJ, Ford J, Hillard JR. Factors related to patients’ decisions to visit the psychiatric emergency service. Psychiatr Serv 1995; 46: 1227–8.

[18] Olsson M, Hansagi H. Repeated use of the emergency department: qualitative study of the patient’s perspective. Emerg Med J 2001; 18: 430–4.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[19] Riner RM. Practical application of the prudent layperson standard. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37: 550.
| CAS |

[20] Selevan J. Practical application of the prudent layperson standard. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 37: 550–1.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[21] Palazzo FF, Warner OJ, Harron M, Sadana A. Misuse of the London ambulance service: how much and why? J Accid Emerg Med 1998; 15: 368–70.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[22] Wilson S, Edwards S, Cooke MW. Inappropriate ambulance usage is a retrospective diagnosis. J Accid Emerg Med 1999; 16: 75.
| CrossRef | CAS |

[23] Sprivulis P, Carey M, Rouse I. Compliance with advice and appropriateness of emergency presentation following contact with the HealthDirect telephone triage. Emerg Med Australas 2004; 16: 35–40.
| CrossRef |

[24] Goeman DP, Aroni RA, Sawyer SM, Stewart K, Thien FC, Abramson MJ, Douglass JA. Back for more: a qualitative study of emergency department reattendance for asthma. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 113–7.

[25] Hanson DW, Sadlier H, Muller R. Bulk billing GP clinics did not reduce emergency department caseload in Mackay, Queensland. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 594–5.

[26] Dent AW, Phillips GA, Chenhall AJ, McGregor LR. The heaviest repeat users of an inner city emergency department are not general practice patients. Emerg Med 2003; 15: 322–9.
| CrossRef |

[27] Report on Government Services 2009. Melbourne: Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Productivity Commission; 2009.

[28] Clark MJ, Purdie J, FitzGerald G. Determinants of pre-hospital care non-usage for patients with emergency care needs. Prehosp Emerg Care 2000; 4: 90–6.

[29] Dracup K, McKinley SM, Moser DK. Australian patients’ delay in response to heart attack symptoms. Med J Aust 1997; 166: 233–6.
| CAS |

[30] Herlitz J, Bahr J, Fischer M, Kuisma M, Lexow K, Thorgeirsson G. Resuscitation in Europe: a tale of five European regions. Resuscitation 1999; 41: 121–31.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help