Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 56, Issue 1 , Pages 42-48, July 2010

Frequent Users of Emergency Departments: The Myths, the Data, and the Policy Implications

  • Eduardo LaCalle, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Eduardo LaCalle, MD, MPH, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1620, New York, NY 10029; 212-659-1660, fax 212-426-1946
  • ,
  • Elaine Rabin, MD

Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Received 27 September 2009; received in revised form 27 January 2010; accepted 29 January 2010. published online 29 March 2010.

Study objective

Frequent emergency department (ED) users have been the targets of health care reform proposals and hospital crowding interventions, but it is not clear that common assumptions about this group are supported by data. We review the literature pertaining to frequent ED users, their demographics, acuity of illness, and patterns of health care utilization. We seek to inform development of policies directed at frequent ED use and to highlight potential related challenges.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature on frequent ED users was performed.

Results

Frequent users comprise 4.5% to 8% of all ED patients but account for 21% to 28% of all visits. Most frequent ED users are white and insured; public insurance is overrepresented. Age is bimodal, with peaks in the group aged 25 to 44 years and older than 65 years. On average, these patients have higher acuity complaints and are at greater risk for hospitalization than occasional ED users. However, the opposite may be true of the highest-frequency ED users. Frequent users are also heavy users of other parts of the health care system. Only a minority of frequent ED users remain in this group long term. Complaints vary with age, location, and usage patterns.

Conclusion

Frequent ED users are a heterogeneous group along many dimensions and defy popular assumptions. The subgroups have not yet been sufficiently defined to allow clearly directed policy design, and many frequent users present with true medical needs, which may explain why existing attempts to address the phenomena have had mixed success at best.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supervising editor: Donald M. Yealy, MD

 Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article that might create any potential conflict of interest. The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement.

 Publication date: Available online March 26, 2010.

 Earn CME Credit: Continuing Medical Education is available for this article at: www.ACEP-EMedHome.com.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0196-0644(10)00105-8

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.01.032

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 56, Issue 1 , Pages 42-48, July 2010