Comparing Statewide and Single-center Data to Predict High-frequency Emergency Department Utilization Among Patients With Asthma Exacerbation

7Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Previous studies examining high-frequency emergency department (ED) utilization have primarily used single-center data, potentially leading to ascertainment bias if patients visit multiple centers. The goals of this study were 1) to create a predictive model to prospectively identify patients at risk of high-frequency ED utilization for asthma and 2) to examine how that model differed using statewide versus single-center data. Methods: To track ED visits within a state, we analyzed 2011 to 2013 data from the New York State Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases. The first year of data (2011) was used to determine prior utilization, 2012 was used to identify index ED visits for asthma and for demographics, and 2013 was used for outcome ascertainment. High-frequency utilization was defined as 4+ ED visits for asthma within 1 year after the index visit. We performed analyses separately for children (age < 21 years) and adults and constructed two models: one included all statewide (multicenter) visits and the other was restricted to index hospital (single-center) visits. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed from potential predictors selected a priori. The final model was chosen by evaluating model performance using Akaike's Information Criterion scores, 10-fold cross-validation, and receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: Among children, high-frequency ED utilization for asthma was observed in 2,417 of 94,258 (2.56%) using all statewide visits, compared to 1,853 of 94,258 (1.97%) for index hospital visits only. Among adults, the corresponding results were 7,779 of 159,874 (4.87%) and 5,053 of 159,874 (3.16%), respectively. In the multicenter visit model, the area under the curve (AUC) from 10-fold cross-validation for children was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69–0.72), compared to 0.71 (95% CI = 0.69–0.72) in the single-center visit model. The corresponding AUC results for adults were 0.76 (95% CI = 0.76–0.77) and 0.76 (95% CI = 0.75–0.77), respectively. Conclusion: Data available at the index ED visit can predict subsequent high-frequency utilization for asthma with AUC ranging from 0.70 to 0.76. Model accuracy was similar regardless of whether outcome ascertainment included all statewide visits (multicenter) or was limited to the index hospital (single-center).

References Powered by Scopus

Pediatric complex chronic conditions classification system version 2: Updated for ICD-10 and complex medical technology dependence and transplantation

1299Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Predictors and outcomes of frequent emergency department users

236Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Non-emergency department interventions to reduce ED utilization: A systematic review

134Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Developing a model to predict hospital encounters for asthma in asthmatic patients: Secondary analysis

33Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Forecasting future asthma hospital encounters of patients with asthma in an academic health care system: Predictive model development and secondary analysis study

16Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Psychiatric-related Revisits to the Emergency Department Following Rapid Expansion of Community Mental Health Services

14Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Samuels-Kalow, M. E., Faridi, M. K., Espinola, J. A., Klig, J. E., & Camargo, C. A. (2018). Comparing Statewide and Single-center Data to Predict High-frequency Emergency Department Utilization Among Patients With Asthma Exacerbation. Academic Emergency Medicine, 25(6), 657–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13342

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Researcher 6

50%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

33%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

17%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 12

75%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

13%

Computer Science 1

6%

Social Sciences 1

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free