Cited by 253Emergency and Acute Care StudiesTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Frequent Users of Emergency Departments: Developing Standard Definitions and Defining Prominent Risk Factors

Doupe, Malcolm B., Palatnick, Wes, Day, Suzanne, Chateau, Dan, Soodeen, Ruth-Ann, Burchill, Charles, Derksen, Shelley·2012·Annals of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Study objective We identify factors that define frequent and highly frequent emergency department (ED) users.Methods Administrative health care records were used to define less frequent (1 to 6 visits), frequent (7 to 17 visits), and highly frequent (≥18 visits) ED users. Analyses were conducted to determine the most unique demographic, disease, and health care use features of these groups.Results Frequent users composed 9.9% of all ED visits, whereas highly frequent users composed 3.6% of visits. Compared with less frequent users, frequent users were defined most strongly by their substance abuse challenges and by their many visits to primary care and specialist physicians. Substance abuse also distinguished highly frequent from frequent ED users strongly; 67.3% versus 35.9% of these patient groups were substance abusers, respectively. Also, 70% of highly frequent versus only 17.8% of frequent users had a long history of frequent ED use. Last, highly frequent users did not use other health care services proportionally more than their frequent user counterparts, suggesting that these former patients use EDs as a main source of care.Conclusion This research develops objective thresholds of frequent and highly frequent ED use. Although substance abuse is prominent in both groups, only highly frequent users seem to visit EDs in place of other health care services. Future analyses can investigate these patterns of health care use more closely, including how timely access to primary care affects ED use. Cluster analysis also has value for defining frequent user subgroups who may benefit from different yet equally effective treatment options.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.11.036

Cites

51 of 51 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doupe, M. B., Palatnick, W., Day, S., Chateau, D., Soodeen, R.-A., Burchill, C., & Derksen, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • York University (CA)
Corresponding author
Doupe, Malcolm B.
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
24-32
ISSN
0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967763450
Cited by
253
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
17.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
frequent emergency department users, emergency department utilization, substance abuse, primary care access, risk factors, emergency department overcrowding, patient subgroups
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chronic Disease, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Health Services, Humans, Male, Manitoba, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Risk Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Logistic Models, Substance-Related Disorders, Young Adult

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