Cited by 251Emergency and Acute Care StudiesChronic Disease Management StrategiesHospital Admissions and Outcomes

Reducing Frequent Visits to the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review of Interventions

Open access
Soril, Lesley J. J., Leggett, Laura E., Lorenzetti, Diane L., Noseworthy, Tom W., Clement, Fiona M.·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to establish the effectiveness of interventions to reduce frequent emergency department (ED) use among a general adult high ED-use population. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature from 1950-January 2015. Studies were included if they: had a control group (controlled trials or comparative cohort studies), were set in an ED or acute care facility, and examined the impact of an intervention to reduce frequent ED use in a general adult population. Studies reporting non-original data or focused on a specific patient population were excluded. Study design, patient population, intervention, the frequency of ED visits, and costs of frequent ED use and/or interventions were extracted and narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Among 17 included articles, three intervention categories were identified: case management (n = 12), individualized care plans (n = 3), and information sharing (n = 2). Ten studies examining case management reported reductions in mean (-0.66 to -37) or median (-0.1 to -20) number of ED visits after 12-months; one study reported an increase in mean ED visits (+2.79); and one reported no change. Of these, 6 studies also reported reduced hospital costs. Only 1 study evaluating individualized care plans examined ED utilization and found no change in median ED visits post-intervention. Costs following individualized care plans were also only evaluated in 1 study, which reported savings in hospital costs of $742/patient. Evidence was mixed regarding information sharing: 1 study reported no change in mean ED visits and did not examine costs; whereas the other reported a decrease in mean ED visits (-16.9) and ED cost savings of $15,513/patient. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of all three frequent-user interventions was modest. Case management had the most rigorous evidence base, yielded moderate cost savings, but with variable reductions in ED use. Future studies evaluating non-traditional interventions, tailoring to patient subgroups or socio-cultural contexts, are warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0123660

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Past emergency department use would be a useful measure to identify patients who would benefit from closer follow-up, geriatric referral, emergency department-to-community transition support, and closer engagement with primary care and home care.

    “The relative strength of the association we observed with past ED visits is informative, suggesting that past ED use would be useful measure to identify patients who would benefit from closer follow-up, geriatric referral, ED-to-community transition support, and closer engagement with primary care and home care.36”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soril, L. J. J., Leggett, L. E., Lorenzetti, D. L., Noseworthy, T. W., & Clement, F. M.
Affiliations
  • O'Brien Institute for Public Health (CA)
  • Institute of Health Economics (CA)
Corresponding author
Clement, Fiona M.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-04-13
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
e0123660
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965434882
Cited by
251
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
frequent emergency department users, emergency department utilization, case management, individualized care plans, information sharing, hospital costs, cost reduction, intervention effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adult, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Patient Care Planning, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Cost Savings, Hospital Costs, Case Management

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