Tag: emergency department

Posted on

Emergency Department Visits After Elective Spine Surgery

Neurosurgery, Volume 85, Issue 2, August 2019, Pages E258–E265

Emergency department (ED) overuse is a costly and often neglected source of postdischarge resource utilization after spine surgery. Failing to investigate drivers of ED visits represents a missed opportunity to improve the value of care in spine patients.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence, drivers, and timing of ED visits following elective spine surgery.

METHODS: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery for degenerative disease at a major medical center were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal registry. Patient and surgery characteristics, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and 3 mo after surgery, along with self-reported 90-d ED visits. A multivariable regression model was used to identify independent factors associated with 90-d ED visits. For a sample of patients presenting to our institution’s ED, charts were reviewed to identify the reason and time to ED postdischarge.

RESULTS: Of 2762 patients, we found a 90-d ED visit rate of 9.4%. One-third of patients presented to our institution’s ED and of these, 70% presented due to pain or medical concerns at 9 and 7 d postdischarge, respectively, with 60% presenting outside normal clinic hours. Independent risk factors for 90-d ED visits included younger age, preoperative opioid use, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and more vertebral levels involved.

CONCLUSION: Nearly 10% of elective spine patients had 90-d ED visits not requiring readmission. Pain and medical concerns accounted for 70% of visits at our center, occurring within 10 d of discharge. This study provides the clinical details and a timeline necessary to guide individualized interventions to prevent unnecessary, costly ED visits after spine surgery.

Posted on

Predictors of admission and shunt revision during emergency department visits for shunt-treated adult patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension

J Neurosurg 127:233–239, 2017

Factors associated with emergency department admission and/or shunt revision for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) are unclear. In this study, the associations of several factors with emergency department admission and shunt revision for IIH were explored.

METHODS The authors performed a retrospective review of 31 patients (169 total emergency department visits) who presented to the emergency department for IIH-related symptoms between 2003 and 2015. Demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, IIH diagnosis and treatment history, ophthalmological examination, diagnostic lumbar puncture (LP), imaging findings, and data regarding admission and management decisions were collected. Multivariable general linear models regression analysis was performed to assess the predictive factors associated with admission and shunt revision.

RESULTS Thirty-one adult patients with a history of shunt placement for IIH visited the emergency department a total of 169 times for IIH-related symptoms, with a median of 3 visits (interquartile range 2–7 visits) per patient. Five patients had more than 10 emergency department visits. Baseline factors associated with admission included male sex (OR 10.47, 95% CI 2.13–51.56; p = 0.004) and performance of an LP (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.31–7.31; p = 0.01). Contrastingly, older age at presentation (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90–0.99; p = 0.01), and a greater number of prior emergency department visits (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89–0.99; p = 0.02) were slightly protective against admission. The presence of papilledema (OR 11.62, 95% CI 3.20–42.16; p < 0.001), Caucasian race (OR 40.53, 95% CI 2.49–660.09 p = 0.009), and systemic hypertension (OR 7.73, 95% CI 1.11–53.62; p = 0.03) were independent risk factors for shunt revision. In addition, a greater number of prior emergency department visits (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77–0.96; p = 0.009) and older age at presentation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–0.99; p = 0.02) were slightly protective against shunt revision, while there was suggestive evidence that presence of a programmable shunt (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05–1.14; p = 0.07) was a protective factor against shunt revision. Of note, location of the proximal catheter in the ventricle or lumbar subarachnoid space was not significantly associated with admission or shunt revision in the multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS The decision to admit a shunt-treated patient from the emergency department for symptoms related to IIH is challenging. Knowledge of factors associated with the need for admission and/or shunt revision is required. In this study, factors such as male sex, younger age at presentation, lower number of prior emergency department visits, and performance of a diagnostic LP were independent predictors of admission. In addition, papilledema was strongly predictive of the need for shunt revision, highlighting the importance of an ophthalmological examination for shunt-treated adults with IIH who present to the emergency department.

 

Proudly powered by WordPress