Cited by 16Emergency and Acute Care StudiesHospital Admissions and OutcomesChronic Disease Management Strategies

Predictors of return visits to the emergency department among different age groups of older adults

Oliveira J. e Silva, Lucas, Jeffery, Molly M., Campbell, Ronna L., Mullan, Aidan F., Takahashi, Paul Y., Bellolio, Fernanda·2021·The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Objective To identify predictors of 30-day emergency department (ED) return visits in patients age 65-79 years and age ≥ 80 years.Methods This was a cohort study of older adults who presented to the ED over a 1-year period. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to identify predictors for returning to the ED within 30 days. We stratified the cohort into those aged 65-79 years and aged ≥80 years. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. This study adhered to the STROBE reporting guidelines.Results A total of 21,460 ED visits representing 14,528 unique patients were included. The overall return rate was 15% (1998/13,300 visits) for age 65-79 years, and 16% (1306/8160 visits) for age ≥ 80 years. A history of congestive heart failure (CHF), dementia, or prior hospitalization within 2 years were associated with increased odds of returning in both age groups (for age 65-79: CHF aOR 1.36 [CI 1.16-1.59], dementia aOR 1.27 [CI 1.07-1.49], prior hospitalization aOR 1.36 [CI 1.19-1.56]; for age ≥ 80: CHF aOR 1.32 [CI 1.13-1.55], dementia aOR 1.22 [CI 1.04-1.42], and prior hospitalization aOR 1.27 [CI 1.09-1.47]). Being admitted from the ED was associated with decreased odds of returning to the ED within 30 days (aOR 0.72 [CI 0.64-0.80] for age 65-79 years and 0.72 [CI 0.63-0.82] for age ≥ 80).Conclusion Age alone was not an independent predictor of return visits. Prior hospitalization, dementia and CHF were predictors of 30-day ED return. The identification of predictors of return visits may help to optimize care transition in the ED.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.07.042

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oliveira J. e Silva, L., Jeffery, M. M., Campbell, R. L., Mullan, A. F., Takahashi, P. Y., & Bellolio, F.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Bellolio, Fernanda
Venue
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-08
Volume
46
Pages
241-246
ISSN
0735-6757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3044666743
Cited by
16
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
emergency department return visits, older adults, age differences, congestive heart failure, dementia, prior hospitalization, care transitions, predictors of readmission
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Male, Risk Factors, Utilization Review

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review