Frequency, Demographics, Diagnoses and Consultation Patterns Associated with Low-acuity Attendances in German Emergency Departments: a Retrospective Routine Healthcare Data Analysis from the INDEED Project

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Date 2025 Jan 14

PMID 39806647

Authors

Antje Fischer-Rosinsky

Anna Slagman

David Legg

Yves-Noel Wu

Ryan King

Stephanie Roll

Thomas Keil

Martin Mockel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Evidence suggests interventions targeting low-acuity attendances have been hampered by insufficient characterisation of potential target groups. This study aimed to estimate the frequency of low-acuity emergency department (ED) attendances and to provide an overview of their demographic, diagnosis and consultation patterns.

Design: Observational analyses of routine healthcare data.

Setting: German EDs.

Participants: Adult patients with statutory health insurance who visited the ED of 16 participating hospitals in 2016.

Main Outcome Measures: Frequency, demographics, diagnoses and consultation patterns of low-acuity and high-acuity attendees.

Main Results: Of the 454 747 ED visits, 370 756 visits (50.1% female) were included for analysis. Four participating hospitals had to be excluded due to the lack of data that were necessary for the stepwise approach to define low and high acuity. We identified 101 337 visits as low acuity (27.3%) and 256 876 as high acuity (69.3%), whereas 12 543 (3.4%) could not be classified. The proportion of attendees classified as low acuity decreased with age (highest at 40.6% in the age group <35 years). The proportion of women and men was 50% in both acuity categories, respectively (50 654 of all low-acuity and 128 427 of all high-acuity contacts). The highest proportion of low-acuity presentations was observed during the weekend (average of 18.6% per day), compared with an average of 12.5% on weekdays. The most common diagnoses (back pain, abdominal and pelvic pain) were similar in both low-acuity and high-acuity groups.

Conclusion: Our study provides further evidence that younger age is associated with low-acuity presentation in German EDs. Age-specific intervention strategies are needed to ease the burden on urgent care facilities. The similar spectrum of diagnoses between low-acuity and high-acuity patients suggests a so far under-recognised higher importance of severity.

Trial Registration Number: DRKS00022969.

References

Jeyaraman M, Alder R, Copstein L, Al-Yousif N, Suss R, Zarychanski R . Impact of employing primary healthcare professionals in emergency department triage on patient flow outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022; 12(4):e052850. PMC: 9058787. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052850. View

Holzinger F, Oslislo S, Resendiz Cantu R, Mockel M, Heintze C . Diverting less urgent utilizers of emergency medical services to primary care: is it feasible? Patient and morbidity characteristics from a cross-sectional multicenter study of self-referring respiratory emergency department consulters. BMC Res Notes. 2021; 14(1):113. PMC: 7992314. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-021-05517-8. View

Hesselink G, Sir O, Schoon Y . Effectiveness of interventions to alleviate emergency department crowding by older adults: a systematic review. BMC Emerg Med. 2019; 19(1):69. PMC: 6864956. DOI: 10.1186/s12873-019-0288-4. View

Fischer-Rosinsky A, Slagman A, King R, Reinhold T, Schenk L, Greiner F . INDEED-Utilization and Cross-Sectoral Patterns of Care for Patients Admitted to Emergency Departments in Germany: Rationale and Study Design. Front Public Health. 2021; 9:616857. PMC: 8085405. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.616857. View

Pforringer D, Pfluger P, Waehlert L, Beivers A, Seidl F, Duscher D . Emergency room as primary point of access in the German healthcare system : Objective evaluation and interview of motivation for ER entrance of 235 ER patients in a German hospital. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019; 47(2):453-460. DOI: 10.1007/s00068-019-01173-7. View

Graff I, Pin M . [Primary assessment in the emergency department]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2021; 146(23):1543-1546. DOI: 10.1055/a-1059-1698. View

Legg D, Fischer-Rosinsky A, Holzinger F, Mockel M, Slagman A . Overcoming terminological inconsistency in the study of emergency department attendees who do not require clinically defined emergency care. Eur J Emerg Med. 2022; 29(6):395-396. DOI: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000981. View

Hoot N, Aronsky D . Systematic review of emergency department crowding: causes, effects, and solutions. Ann Emerg Med. 2008; 52(2):126-36. PMC: 7340358. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.03.014. View

Crawford J, Cooper S, Cant R, DeSouza R . The impact of walk-in centres and GP co-operatives on emergency department presentations: A systematic review of the literature. Int Emerg Nurs. 2017; 34:36-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ienj.2017.04.002. View

10.

Agarwal S, Banerjee J, Baker R, Conroy S, Hsu R, Rashid A . Potentially avoidable emergency department attendance: interview study of patients' reasons for attendance. Emerg Med J. 2011; 29(12):e3. DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2011-200585. View

11.

Slagman A, Fischer-Rosinsky A, Legg D, Schmieder K, Mockel M . Identification of low-acuity attendances in routine clinical information documented in German Emergency Departments. BMC Emerg Med. 2023; 23(1):64. PMC: 10243890. DOI: 10.1186/s12873-023-00838-2. View

12.

Wahlster P, Czihal T, Gibis B, Henschke C . [Developments in Emergency Care - Analysis of Emergency Cases in In- and Outpatient Care from 2009 To 2015 in Germany]. Gesundheitswesen. 2019; 82(6):548-558. DOI: 10.1055/a-0820-3904. View

13.

Cowling T, Cecil E, Soljak M, Lee J, Millett C, Majeed A . Access to primary care and visits to emergency departments in England: a cross-sectional, population-based study. PLoS One. 2013; 8(6):e66699. PMC: 3680424. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066699. View

14.

Oslislo S, Kumpel L, Resendiz Cantu R, Mockel M, Heintze C, Holzinger F . [Am I an emergency patient? Emergency perception and decision-making competence in acute situations: a qualitative study of ED patients]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2021; 165:43-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2021.07.003. View

15.

Baier N, Geissler A, Bech M, Bernstein D, Cowling T, Jackson T . Emergency and urgent care systems in Australia, Denmark, England, France, Germany and the Netherlands - Analyzing organization, payment and reforms. Health Policy. 2018; 123(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.11.001. View

16.

Schmiedhofer M, Mockel M, Slagman A, Frick J, Ruhla S, Searle J . Patient motives behind low-acuity visits to the emergency department in Germany: a qualitative study comparing urban and rural sites. BMJ Open. 2016; 6(11):e013323. PMC: 5129074. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013323. View

17.

Mason S, Knowles E, Boyle A . Exit block in emergency departments: a rapid evidence review. Emerg Med J. 2016; 34(1):46-51. DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2015-205201. View

18.

Penson R, Coleman P, Mason S, Nicholl J . Why do patients with minor or moderate conditions that could be managed in other settings attend the emergency department?. Emerg Med J. 2011; 29(6):487-91. DOI: 10.1136/emj.2010.107276. View

19.

Ismail S, Gibbons D, Gnani S . Reducing inappropriate accident and emergency department attendances: a systematic review of primary care service interventions. Br J Gen Pract. 2013; 63(617):e813-20. PMC: 3839390. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X675395. View

20.

OKeeffe C, Mason S, Jacques R, Nicholl J . Characterising non-urgent users of the emergency department (ED): A retrospective analysis of routine ED data. PLoS One. 2018; 13(2):e0192855. PMC: 5825051. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192855. View