Nonurgent Emergency Room Visit’ Effects

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Articles
Impacts of variables on the administration
How an administrator would monitor the variables
Conclusion
References

Introduction

An emergency department in a hospital is an important source of healthcare in the United States of America. Although there are few emergency departments, many people prefer seeking medical attention from them (Baker & Baker, 2014). Nonurgent emergency visits refer to visits for circumstances for which a postponement of many hours would not increase the chances of an unfavourable outcome (Baker & Baker, 2014).

Many studies conducted have demonstrated that many (30%) emergency visits in the United States of America are nonurgent conditions (Baker & Baker, 2014). It would be important to indicate that care should be taken because the visits have adverse effects. For example, they could result in an increase in healthcare expenditure and superfluous testing and treatment. As a result, there would be a lack of a longitudinal relationship of emergency department visits with those of primary care physicians (Weinick, Burns & Mehrotra, 2010).

Therefore, it is vital for governments to come up with intervention measures to discourage non-urgent visits (Baker & Baker, 2014). This paper focuses on discussing the effects of nonurgent emergency visits on hospital organizations using three articles. In addition, it summarizes the findings, discusses the impacts of the variables on administration, and describes how administrators would manage and monitor the variables. It is important to indicate that it concentrates on financial data and numbers, including in-flows and out-flows.

Articles

Weinick and colleagues (2010) conducted a study to investigate effects of nonurgent emergency room visits on hospitals. The researchers demonstrated that nonurgent emergency visits contributed to gratuitous testing and treatment in hospitals. The researchers found that most people prefer emergency department because they do not access other types of healthcare services (Weinick et al., 2010).

This motivates those with minor illness, such as strains and fractures, to visit EDs because most of them have medical covers and insurance companies pay for them. According to Weinick and colleagues (2010), 26% cases of the patients who visit EDs are insured, while 17% cases of the healthcare consumers are not insured. They concluded that most of the emergency cases could be handled in retail clinics or urgent care centers.

Despite the fact that retail clinics and urgent care centers are less costly for similar services, many patients prefer EDs (Weinick et al., 2010). The researchers estimated that RC and UCC cost $279 and $414 less than EDs. They stated that if nonurgent cases would be taken to RC and UCC, national healthcare spending would save $4.4 more billion every year. Thus, the in-flow in the EDs is less than out-flows (Weinick et al., 2010). This implies that hospitals’ managements should look for alternative sources of funds to run health centers effectively.

Another study was conducted by Ruger, Lewis and Richter (2006) in the United States of America. The researchers focused on determining costs implications of ED visits on hospitals and its impacts on the administration (Ruger et al., 2006). The researchers indicated that the costs varied because it was determined by the length of stay in the ED. The researchers cited that patients who visited EDs once spent $793.12 in all departments compared with those who paid $2360.80 for 20 visits (Ruger et al., 2006).

They also indicated that the in-flow was more than out-flow, and this strained EDs, implying that they could not cater for the large number of patients. They estimated the in-flow to be 20% less than out-flow (Ruger et al., 2006). However, the researchers concluded that, it was vital for hospitals’ administration to scrutinize patients thoroughly because those that were thought to over utilize the EDs insignificantly were sicker than those that were thought to be sick according to the findings (Ruger et al., 2006). They advised that hospitals’ administration should continue with investigations to improve the health status of the population and reduce the ED over-utilization (Ruger et al., 2006).

Mistry, Brousseau and Alessandrini (2008) carried out an investigation to examine the impacts of nonurgent cases in EDs on hospitals. In fact, they visited many EDs, RC, and UCC to find out how the situations were on the ground. The researchers found that EDs in hospitals were overcrowded, and the resources were over-utilized (Mistry et al., 2008). This was evidenced by the large number of patients who were in the EDs. According to the researchers, a significant number (75%) of the patients’ hospital bills was paid by insurance company, and the large number of patients were employed.

They estimated that in-flow in hospitals was $759, while out-flow was $1049 every thirty days (Mistry et al., 2008). Arguably, the out-flow figure is worrying. It indicates that hospital organizations are straining to meet the patients’ needs. In addition, hospital resources were inadequate, and this worsened the situation. This is for the reason that there are a few EDs beds in hospitals, making it a challenge for those who have genuine cases.

It is significant to point out that, the hospital administration is struggling to cater for the huge number of patients. With regard to congestion in hospitals, the researchers cited that it was as result of many nonurgent room visits, which could be handled in retail centers and urgent care centers (Mistry et al., 2008). Mistry and colleagues (2008) advised hospitals’ administrators to come up with policies to make healthcare services affordable and accessible to every citizen. This is for the reason that patients prefer EDs due to the fact that there is no queuing and one is attended to even before he or she pays (Mistry et al., 2008).

Impacts of variables on the administration

The huge difference in variables, i. e., between the in-flows and out-flows in EDs in hospitals’ administration has effects on the administration of hospitals. Notably, what patients in EDs pay is less than what the hospitals’ managements spend. For example, in-flow is estimated to be $759, while out-flow is approximately 1049 every thirty days as aforementioned (Baker & Baker, 2014).

It is imperative to note that there is higher expenditure in EDs than other sources of medical healthcare services. As a result, the administration strains to reduce expenditures in other areas to cater for the patients in nonurgent emergency room visits, yet, they could not be serious cases (Mistry et al., 2008). It also forces hospital management to work for more hours to ensure that every sick person is tested and treated (Baker & Baker, 2014). Furthermore, hospitals’ managements are required to employ many medical practitioners to sustain the huge number of patients.

How an administrator would monitor the variables

It is crucial for hospital’s administration to plan and prepare in advance to cater for health status of patients. Mistry and colleagues (2008) contend that administrators should multi-disciplinary so that they can distinguish between real cases that are emergency from those that are fake. Policymakers should ensure that reforms are introduced in the healthcare sector to reduce congestion. Other sources of healthcare services should be given attention and be equipped with enough health equipment so that nonurgent emergency cases can be handled (Baker & Baker, 2014).

With regard to limited medical practitioners, more of them should be employed. In addition, hospital administration should set aside funds for handling emergencies. For example, constructing ambulatory to deal with severe cases. Patients should also be provided with alternatives beside the EDs (Baker & Baker, 2014). Options would include improving primary healthcare to reduce the number of patients who would be visiting the EDs. Piloting should be done to investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of the EDs in hospitals (Baker & Baker, 2014; Mistry et al., 2008).

Conclusion

In conclusion, quality healthcare is important for every citizen. It is also the right of every individual to access good healthcare. Nonurgent emergency room visits cases have increased for the last five years as indicated by the above studies. The cases have made EDs congested and have strained the few medical practitioners. Despite the fact that most patients visiting emergency rooms do not have urgent issues, sick people should be provided with alternatives for their health status to be promoted. A lot emphasis should be put on EDs in hospitals to improve the hospital environment. Moreover, more of money is spent on EDs compared with other departments in the health industry. Therefore, it is vital for different organs that are involved in the running of hospitals to play their roles correctly so that issues relating to nonurgent in emergency room visits would be handled.

References

Baker, J. J., & Baker, R. W. (2014). Health care finance: basic tools for nonfinancial managers (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Mistry, R. D., Brousseau, D. C., & Alessandrini, E. A. (2008). Urgency classification methods for emergency department visits: do they measure up?. Pediatric emergency care, 24(12), 870-874.

Ruger, J. P., Lewis, L., & Richter, C. (2006). Analysis of Costs, Length of Stay, and Utilization of Emergency Department Services By Frequent Users: Implications for Health Policy. Academic Emergency Medicine, 13(8), 879-885.

Weinick, R. M., Burns, R. M., & Mehrotra, A. (2010). Many emergency department visits could be managed at urgent care centers and retail clinics. Health Affairs, 29(9), 1630-1636.

Click Here To Order Now!