Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-zqvvz Total loading time: 0.785 Render date: 2021-04-13T21:53:50.327Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Frequent emergency department use and mortality in patients with substance and opioid use in Alberta: A population-based retrospective cohort study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2019

Jessica Moe
Affiliation:
Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Carlos A. Camargo Jr.
Affiliation:
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Roger B. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Susan Jelinski
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB
Brian H. Rowe
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Emergency Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB.
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Objectives

In the current opioid epidemic, identifying high-risk patients among those with substance and opioid use may prevent deaths. The objective of this study was to determine whether frequent emergency department (ED) use and degree of frequent use are associated with mortality among ED patients with substance and opioid use.

Methods

This cohort study used linked population-based ED (National Ambulatory Care Reporting System) and mortality data from Alberta. All adults ≥ 18 years with substance or opioid use-related visits based on diagnostic codes from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013, were included (n = 16,389). Frequent use was defined by ≥ 5 visits in the previous year. Outcomes were unadjusted and adjusted (for age, sex, income) mortality within 90 days (primary), and 30 days, 365 days, and 2 years (secondary). To examine degree, frequent use was subcategorized into 5–10, 11–15, 16–20, and > 20 visits.

Results

Frequent users were older, lower income, and made lower acuity visits than non-frequent users. Frequent users with substance use had higher mortality at 365 days (hazard ratio [HR] 1.36 [1.04, 1.77]) and 2 years (HR 1.32 [1.04, 1.67]), but not at 90 or 30 days. Mortality did not differ for frequent users with opioid use overall. By degree, patients with substance use and > 20 visits/year and with opioid use and 16–20 visits/year demonstrated a higher 365-day and 2-year mortality.

Conclusions

Among patients with substance use, frequent ED use and extremely frequent use (> 20 visits/year) were associated with long-term but not short-term mortality. These findings suggest a role for targeted screening and preventive intervention.

Résumé

Objectif

Dans le contexte actuel de l’épidémie de surdoses d'opioïdes, la détection des patients à risque élevé parmi ceux qui font usage d'opioïdes ou d'autres substances psychoactives peut avoir, pour effet, la prévention de la mort. L’étude visait donc à déterminer si les consultations fréquentes au service des urgences (SU) et le degré de fréquence étaient associés à la mortalité chez les patients faisant usage d'opioïdes ou d'autres substances psychoactives, traités au SU.

Méthode

Il s'agit d'une étude de cohortes fondée sur la population et reposant sur des bases de données liées en ce qui concerne les consultations au SU (Système national d'information sur les soins ambulatoires) et la mortalité, en Alberta. Ont été inclus dans l’étude tous les adultes ≥ 18 ans ayant consulté pour des troubles liés à l'usage d'opioïdes ou d'autres substances psychoactives, d'après les codes de diagnostic inscrits du 1er avril 2012 au 31 mars 2013 (n = 16 389). On entendait par « visites fréquentes » ≥ 5 consultations (cons.) au cours de l'année précédente. Les résultats recherchés consistaient en la mortalité brute et la mortalité rajustée selon l’âge, le sexe et les revenus au cours des 90 jours suivants (critère d’évaluation principal) ainsi qu'au bout de 30 jours, de 365 jours et de 2 ans (critères d’évaluation secondaires). Quant au degré de fréquence, le nombre de visites a été subdivisé en tranches de 5-10, 11-15, 16-20 et > 20 consultations.

Résultats

Les usagers fréquents étaient des personnes plus âgées, ayant des revenus plus faibles et consultant pour des troubles moins graves que les usagers non fréquents. Parmi les usagers fréquents, ceux qui utilisaient des substances psychoactives connaissaient une mortalité plus élevée au bout de 365 jours (rapport des risques instantanés [RRI] : 1,36 [1,04–1,77]) et de 2 ans (RRI : 1,32 [1,04–1,67]), mais pas au bout de 90 jours ou de 30 jours. Par contre, il n'y avait pas de différence de mortalité chez les usagers fréquents utilisant des opioïdes, dans l'ensemble. Enfin, la mortalité calculée en fonction du degré de fréquence chez les patients faisant usage de substances psychoactives et comptant > 20 cons./année ainsi que chez ceux faisant usage d'opioïdes et comptant 16-20 cons./année était plus élevée au bout de 365 jours et de 2 ans.

Conclusion

Une fréquence élevée et extrêmement élevée de consultations (> 20/année) au SU chez les patients faisant usage de substances psychoactives a été associée à la mortalité à long terme mais pas à court terme. Les résultats laissent donc croire à la pertinence d'un dépistage ciblé et d'interventions préventives.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2019 

CLINICIAN'S CAPSULE

What is known about the topic?

Substance and opioid use are common among emergency department (ED) patients, and ED-based interventions are effective; however, optimal targeting is unclear.

What did this study ask?

Among ED patients with substance and opioid use, are frequent ED use and degree of frequent use associated with mortality?

What did this study find?

Frequent users with substance use and extremely frequent users with substance and opioid use had higher mortality than non-frequent users.

Why does this study matter to clinicians?

Clinicians should flag frequent users electronically and explore and address their unmet needs, because multiple visits are missed prevention opportunities.

INTRODUCTION

Substance and opioid use are common among emergency department (ED) patients,Reference Sanjuan, Rice and Witkiewitz1Reference Wu, Swartz and Wu3 especially among frequent ED users.Reference Urbanoski, Cheng, Rehm and Kurdyak4Reference Curran, Sullivan and Williams7 In the current opioid epidemic, frequent ED presentation is increasingly being recognized as a harbinger of poor patient outcome; patients often make frequent ED visits prior to near-fatal overdose events.Reference Otterstatter8, Reference Hasegawa, Brown, Tsugawa and Camargo9 These ED visits are often missed opportunities to intervene. If frequent ED use could identify patients with substance and opioid use who are at risk of dying, a visit flagging system could enable practitioners to initiate ED-based brief interventions known to be effective, to engage patients with necessary follow-up care (e.g., addictions services), and ultimately to prevent mortality.Reference Crawford, Patton and Touquet10Reference D'Onofrio and Degutis12 Although frequent ED users have a higher mortality than non-frequent users in general,Reference Moe, Kirkland and Ospina13 they are heterogeneous,Reference Doupe, Palatnick and Day6, Reference LaCalle and Rabin14, Reference Moe, Bailey and Oland15 and this risk has not been elaborated among patients with substance use. Additionally, frequent users likely differ by degree, that is, those at the extremes of frequent use (e.g., ≥ 16 visits/year) likely have different characteristics and outcomes than those with moderately high use (e.g., 5–15 visits/year). For instance, psychiatric comorbidities and non-urgent presentations are more common among patients with ≥ 18 annual visits; however, whether a “dose-response” relationship exists for mortality remains unclear.Reference Doupe, Palatnick and Day6, Reference Ruger, Richter, Spitznagel and Lewis16 Despite important prevention implications, to date, no system-level study has evaluated whether frequent ED use is associated with all-cause mortality in patients with substance and opioid use.

The objective was primarily to determine among ED patients with substance or opioid use whether frequent ED use in the previous 12 months was independently associated with mortality compared with non-frequent ED use, and, secondarily, whether mortality differed by degree of frequent use. We hypothesized that frequent use would be associated with mortality in ED patients presenting with substance or opioid use-related concerns.

METHODS

Study design and setting

This is a population-based, cohort study obtained from linked electronic ED visit and mortality databases evaluating patients who presented between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. The study adheres to the RECORD reporting guidelines.Reference Benchimol, Smeeth and Guttmann17 The study setting is Alberta, Canada, with a population of over 4 million served by more than 100 EDs.

Data sources

The ED visit data were drawn from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System administrative database containing all provincial ED visits.18 This database contains patient demographic information (i.e., personal health number, age, sex, postal code) and ED visit information (i.e., arrival mode, visit date, visit time, Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale level [CTAS]19), in-ED care (i.e., provider details, procedures), and outcome (International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 diagnostic codes, disposition date, time, and destination). The CTAS categorizes patient presentations based on severity. This ranges from resuscitation (Level 1) requiring immediate physician assessment, to non-urgent (Level 5) with a suggested time to physician within 2 hours.Reference Lee, Oh and Peck20 Previous studies have validated the scale's ability to accurately predict patient outcomes and resource utilization, and have demonstrated high inter-rater reliability.Reference Lee, Oh and Peck20Reference Beveridge, Ducharme and Janes22

The Canadian Institute of Health Information performs annual quality checks on National Ambulatory Care Reporting System data to ensure its accuracy.23 For the years of data analysed, incomplete ED record-level data were negligible (0.03% to 0.5%), and Albertan ED submissions met the most complete reporting standard (Level 3).2426 Additionally, Alberta has independent validation processes for its electronic ambulatory care data.27 Furthermore, external validation studies have found 98% agreement for encounter and demographic data and 87% agreement for diagnostic coding.28

Mortality for all Alberta residents is captured within the Vital Statistics Registry, which records death date and demographic information.29 Vital statistics data were collected until the final study date, December 31, 2014.

The final database for this study was created by linking the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System and vital statistics registries using postal code, birthdate, and sex. The data for this study were obtained by the Alberta Health Services Data Integration Management and Reporting Service.30

Study population

The study included all adult patients (≥ 18 years old at time of index visit) who presented to an Albertan ED at least once during the study year (April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013) for a substance use-related concern. Visits were classified as being related to substance use if an a priori group of diagnostic codes was listed as the primary or secondary diagnoses. Additional fields were excluded to limit misclassification from coding failure. The primary definition consisted of ICD-10 codes within the category, “Mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use” (F10-F19), based on a previously published algorithm.31 Two additional sensitivity analyses were conducted using alternative ICD-10 code-based substance use definitions: firstly, a more comprehensive definition including additional selected codes within the category, “Poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances” (T36-T50), and, secondly, a definition including all F10-F19 codes except those pertaining to the use of tobacco (F17).

A separate analysis of opioid use-related ED visits was performed because we hypothesized that the analysis of 2012–2013 data may provide important insight into the growth of the current public health issue. These were defined as visits with a primary or secondary ICD-10 diagnosis within the category, “Mental and behavioural disorders due to use of opioids” (F11) or certain codes within the category, “Poisoning by narcotics and psychodysleptics” (T40), consistent with the definition used by Alberta Health Services.32

In the entire database, 101 visits attributing to 14 unique patient identifiers had an index visit that occurred after the recorded death date. These visits were deleted as presumed erroneous entries; they represented 0.4% (101/24,880) of the study database.

Definition of frequent ED use

Patients were defined as frequent ED users if they had made ≥ 5 ED visits for any reason in the 12 months prior to the index visit (i.e., first visit within the study year). Non-frequent users had made ≤ 4 visits. The threshold of ≥ 5 visits corresponded to the 95th percentile of annual visits made by adult patients in Alberta, as suggested in previous studies.Reference Moe, Bailey and Oland15 An additional sensitivity analysis defined frequent ED use based on the number of substance use-related visits (rather than visits for any reason).

To assess whether mortality risk differed by degree, the frequent use definition was subcategorized into four groups: 5–10, 11–15, 16–20, and > 20 visits. Patients within the categories 16–20 and > 20 visits/year were considered to have extremely frequent ED use.

Key outcome measures

The primary endpoint was survival at 90 days following the index visit. Secondary endpoints were survival at 30 days, 365 days, and 2 years. Deaths were recorded over the entire study period from the index visit until December 31, 2014.

Statistical methods

Unadjusted mortality for frequent and non-frequent users was assessed using log-rank tests. Adjusted mortality was assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and is reported as hazard ratios (HRs).

Age, sex, and postal-code-derived income33Reference Thomas, Eberly, Davey Smith and Neaton35 were included in the model as important potential confounders. Income was dichotomized as above or below the median income for the cohort. Missing income data (n = 1032) were included as a separate category. Additional sensitivity analyses were performed to account for missing data by excluding missing entries and excluding income entirely as a covariate. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and used a two-tailed p < 0.05.

Power calculation

Estimating that our frequent user population comprised 20% of our total cohort, 298 mortality events were necessary to detect an HR of 1.5 for mortality among frequent users compared with non-frequent users, with 80% power and an α = 0.05 two-tailed level of significance.

Ethical considerations

The study received ethics approval from the University of Alberta (Pro00058053_AME3), and administrative approval and a data sharing agreement from Alberta Health Services. Investigators accessed data after de-identification from a secure research server.

RESULTS

Characteristics of study subjects

Visit and patient characteristics

A total of 16,389 patients accounted for 24,880 substance use visits during the study year. Frequent users comprised 3,209 (19.6%) patients and 9,719 (39.1%) visits. Within the study year, 1,787 patients made 2,241 visits for opioid use. Among patients with opioid use, 481 (26.9%) frequent users accounted for 821 (36.6%) visits.

Baseline patient and visit characteristics are presented in Table 1. Among patients with substance and opioid use, frequent users were older, lower income, and more often resided rurally than non-frequent users. Furthermore, visits by frequent users were lower acuity (proportionally fewer triage level 1 or 2 visits) and were hospitalized less often.

Table 1. Patient characteristics of frequent and non-frequent ED users among patients with substance and opioid use

Main results

Unadjusted mortality

Table 2 reports unadjusted mortality estimates. Overall mortality was low in all groups, and 364 total mortality events (92 among frequent users and 272 among non-frequent users) were observed within the substance use cohort. Among substance use patients, no mortality difference was identified for frequent users compared with non-frequent users at 90 days or at 30 days. Mortality was higher for frequent users compared with non-frequent users at 365 days (2.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 2.8 versus 1.6%, 95% CI: 1.4, 1.8) and at 2 years (2.9%, 95% CI: 2.3, 3.4 versus 2.0%, 95% CI: 1.8, 2.3).

Table 2. Visit characteristics of frequent and non-frequent ED users among patients with substance and opioid use

LOS = length of stay

Among patients with opioid use, there was no significant difference between frequent users and non-frequent users for mortality at 90 days, 30 days, 365 days, or 2 years.

Adjusted mortality

Table 3 presents the results of multivariable regression analyses. Frequent use was not significantly associated with 90-day mortality for patients with substance use; however, it was significantly associated with mortality at 365 days (HR 1.36 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.77]) and 2 years (HR 1.32 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.67]) when controlling for age, sex, and income. For patients with opioid use, frequent use was not associated with mortality at 90 days, 30 days, 365 days, or 2 years.

Table 3. Unadjusted mortality estimates for frequent and non-frequent ED users

*Significant at p < 0.05

By degree (5–10, 11–15, 16–20, and > 20 visits), frequent use was significantly associated with mortality for patients with substance use and > 20 visits/year at 365 days (HR 1.88 [95% CI: 1.03, 3.44]) and at 2 years (HR 1.89 [95% CI: 1.10, 3.22]) (Table 4). Frequent use was significantly associated with mortality for patients with opioid use and 16–20 visits/year at 365 days (HR 3.62 [95% CI: 1.12, 11.66]) and at 2 years (HR 3.37 [95% CI: 1.05, 10.81]). These results remained consistent over the multiple sensitivity analyses.

Table 4. Adjusted mortality estimates by degree of frequent ED use

*Significant at p < 0.05

DISCUSSION

Among ED patients with substance use identified from valid province-wide, population-based administrative data, frequent users were more likely to die at 365 days and at 2 years than non-frequent users, but not at 30 and 90 days, when controlling for age, sex, and income. Despite low overall mortality, these results support the hypothesis that frequent ED presentation is correlated with risk of dying among patients with substance use, generally, but not opioid use alone.

Our results suggest that frequent ED users with substance use are high-risk patients; this is likely related to specific complications (e.g., overdose, infections) but also probably reflects poor overall health, chronic illness, and low socioeconomic status.Reference LaCalle and Rabin14, Reference Sun, Burstin and Brennan36, Reference Khan, Glazier, Moineddin and Schull37 Urbanoski et al.Reference Urbanoski, Cheng, Rehm and Kurdyak4 (2018) found that frequent ED users with psychiatric conditions died more often if they had comorbid substance use. Our study expands on this finding by suggesting that, among all patients with substance use, frequent ED use is associated with long-term mortality. Our study furthermore builds on previous work that has correlated overdose with frequent ED presentationReference Hasegawa, Brown, Tsugawa and Camargo9, Reference Brady, DiMaggio and Keyes38 by suggesting that risk extends to all-cause mortality.

Our analysis provides a signal that mortality risk may differ by degree of frequent use (e.g., patients with ≥ 16 visits compared with those with 5–15 visits). Subcategorized by degree (5–10, 11–15, 16–20, and > 20 visits), higher mortality was only seen for extremely frequent users with substance use (> 20 visits) and opioid use (16–20 visits). This finding is unexpected given that previous studies have not demonstrated that extreme frequent users have higher mortality and, in fact, they make lower acuity visits.Reference Doupe, Palatnick and Day6, Reference Ruger, Richter, Spitznagel and Lewis16 Our results support the importance of recognizing frequent users’ heterogeneity. Risk factors and outcomes should be explored within specific clinical subgroups. Additionally, our results suggest that recurrent low acuity visits should not distract from the long-term mortality risk among patients with substance use.

Our results also showed that frequent users with substance use made lower acuity visits and were admitted less often, which is somewhat paradoxical given their increased mortality risk. One possible explanation is that practitioner bias may enter into triage classifications. Another explanation is that medical complications of substance use (e.g., cellulitis, falls) are rapidly diagnosed and treated.Reference Kerr, Wood and Grafstein39 Finally, many of these patients would likely have medical and psychosocial needs (which may potentially be inadequately addressed by existing services) that would necessitate high healthcare service use overall, of which frequent ED utilization is one aspect.Reference Byrne, Murphy and Plunkett40 Whatever the cause, it is possible that these multiple minor ED visits indicate ongoing high-risk behaviours that increased frequent users’ overall long-term mortality. In retrospect, these minor events represent missed prevention opportunities and highlight the need for screening.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, our diagnostic code-based definitions have not been validated. Nonetheless, they are aligned with current standards,31, 32 and our results remained consistent in multiple sensitivity analyses exploring a range of definitions. Secondly, the algorithm used to link the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System and Vital Statistics databases was not validated. Nonetheless, it is expected to be robust due to the requirement of three matching pieces of demographic information. It did not achieve a perfect match; however, erroneous entries represented a very small number of visits relative to the entire database (0.4%) and are unlikely to have affected results. Thirdly, there is a small possibility of losses to follow-up (e.g., patients not properly identified at death or who moved out of the province). Overall, censored data are likely minimal given the comprehensive provincial database and previously low documented rates of inter-provincial healthcare claims (approximately 2% for Alberta and Canada).41 Fourthly, our ability to control for potential confounders was limited by information available in the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database. We were unable to adjust for comorbidities, end-of-life status or receipt of palliative/hospice care, patient complexity, homelessness or aboriginal status, which are not reliably recorded. Our inability to control for comorbidities in this analysis is a study limitation. In particular, it is possible that frequent ED use is associated with psychiatric comorbidities or chronic medical conditions, and that adequately controlling for these factors may help explain the difference in mortality observed between groups. Frequent ED presentations are, however, important considerations in their own right, because they are an easily measurable indicator that allows preventive intervention to be initiated; our study provides justification for more detailed analyses of potential underlying drivers of increased mortality among frequent ED users with substance use. Fifthly, our analysis is limited by missing data, particularly for income. In spite of this, our results remained consistent over multiple sensitivity analyses dealing with the missing income variable. Finally, despite the low overall mortality rates observed among all groups studied, given the importance of the outcome (mortality) and the public health crisis that exists, we argue that this small difference has the potential to have an important impact across Canada (assuming similar provincial event rates). This analysis of 2012–2013 data is an important precursor of what has likely become an increasingly significant issue in the context of the current burgeoning opioid epidemic and ongoing societal issues of alcohol and other substance-related disorders. Evidence shows that numbers of substance and opioid use-related ED visits continue to climb.42 Therefore, the small mortality difference that we detected at a population level likely translates to many individual lives at stake. Our results provide an important reference point and set the stage for current analyses by highlighting an important signal of risk among extremely frequent ED users presenting with substance and opioid use. This association likely has become stronger and merits repeat evaluation using data collected since 2012–2013.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that, among patients with substance use, generally, but not opioid use alone, frequent ED use is associated with a higher risk for long-term (365-day and 2-year) but not short-term (90- and 30-day) mortality compared with non-frequent ED users. Our analysis appears to signal that extremely frequent ED use is associated with mortality among patients with substance use (> 20 visits) and opioid use (16–20 visits). This finding may be generalizable across Canada; for instance, in British Columbia, at the epicentre of the current opioid epidemic, similar evidence is emerging.Reference Otterstatter8 Extremely frequent users might benefit from targeted prevention, such as by flagging them using existing electronic visit tracking systems already operational in many EDs. Additionally, educating clinicians about exploring patient needs and reasons for frequent presentation will facilitate identification of appropriate interventions. Future research should link ED data to additional databases to better adjust for patient complexity and should assess the effectiveness of targeted interventions for frequent ED users with substance and opioid use.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2019.15.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the Emergency Strategic Clinical Network of Alberta Health Services (AHS) for access to the health data.

Financial support

Author JM's research is currently supported by the University of British Columbia Department of Emergency Medicine and the Vancouver Acute Emergency Physicians’ Association. At the time of the study, author BHR's research was supported by a Tier I Canada Research Chair in Evidence-based Emergency Medicine funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) through the Government of Canada. He is currently supported by the CIHR as the Scientific Director of the Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health (ICRH). At the time of the study, author SJ's research was supported by the Emergency Strategic Clinical Network of AHS. The funders take no responsibility for the content or interpretation of these data.

Presentations

A related abstract was presented as a poster presentation at the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians Conference in May 2018.

References

1.Sanjuan, PM, Rice, SL, Witkiewitz, K, et al. Alcohol, tobacco, and drug use among emergency department patients. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014;138:32–8.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Cederbaum, JA, Guerrero, EG, Mitchell, KR, Kim, T. Utilization of emergency and hospital services among individuals in substance abuse treatment. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2014;9(16).Google ScholarPubMed
3.Wu, L, Swartz, MS, Wu, Z, et al. Alcohol and drug use disorders among adults in emergency department settings in the United States. Ann Emerg Med 2012;60(2):180.e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Urbanoski, K, Cheng, J, Rehm, J, Kurdyak, P. Frequent use of emergency departments for mental and substance use disorders. Emerg Med J 2018;35:220–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Liu, SW, Nagurney, JT, Chang, Y, et al. Frequent ED users: are most visits for mental health, alcohol, and drug-related complaints? Am J Emerg Med 2013;31:1512–5.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Doupe, MB, Palatnick, W, Day, S, et al. Frequent users of emergency departments: developing standard definitions and defining prominent risk factors. Ann Emerg Med 2012;60(1):24.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Curran, GM, Sullivan, G, Williams, K, et al. The association of psychiatric comorbidity and use of the emergency department among persons with substance use disorders: an observational cohort study. BMC Emerg Med 2008;8(1):17.Google Scholar
8.Otterstatter, M. Analyzing patterns of health care utilization among people who overdose from illegal drugs in British Columbia. BC Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, March 7, 2018.Google Scholar
9.Hasegawa, K, Brown, DFM, Tsugawa, Y, Camargo, CA. Epidemiology of emergency department visits for opioid overdose: a population-based study. Mayo Clin Proceed 2014;89(4):462–71.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Crawford, MJ, Patton, R, Touquet, R, et al. Screening and referral for brief intervention of alcohol-misusing patients in an emergency department: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364(9442):1334–9.Google Scholar
11.Cunningham, RM, Bernstein, SL, Walton, M, et al. Alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs: future directions for screening and intervention in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16(11):1078–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.D'Onofrio, G, Degutis, LC. Preventive care in the emergency department: screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems in the emergency department: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9(6):627–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Moe, J, Kirkland, S, Ospina, MB, et al. Mortality, admission rates and outpatient use among frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review. Emerg Med J 2016;33(3):230–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.LaCalle, E, Rabin, E. Frequent users of emergency departments: the myths, the data, and the policy implications. Ann Emerg Med 2010;56(1):42–8.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Moe, J, Bailey, AL, Oland, R, et al. Defining, quantifying, and characterizing adult frequent users of a suburban Canadian emergency department. CJEM 2013;15(4):214–26.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Ruger, JP, Richter, CJ, Spitznagel, EL, Lewis, LM. Analysis of costs, length of stay, and utilization of emergency department services by frequent users: implications for health policy. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11(12):1311–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Benchimol, EI, Smeeth, L, Guttmann, A, et al. The REporting of studies conducted using observational routinely-collected health data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med 2015;12(10).Google ScholarPubMed
18.Canadian Institute for Health Information. National ambulatory care reporting system metadata (NACRS); 2017. Available at: https://www.cihi.ca/en/national-ambulatory-care-reporting-system-metadata (accessed July 13, 2017).Google Scholar
19.Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: Combined Adult/Paediatric Educational Program, Version 2.5b; 2013, November. Available at: http://ctas-phctas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/participant_manual_v2.5b_november_2013_0.pdf (accessed July 13, 2017).Google Scholar
20.Lee, JY, Oh, SH, Peck, EH, et al. The validity of the Canadian triage and acuity scale in predicting resource utilization and the need for immediate life-saving interventions in elderly emergency department patients. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2011;19(68).Google ScholarPubMed
21.Dong, SL, Bullard, MJ, Meurer, DP, et al. Predictive validity of a computerized emergency triage tool. Acad Emerg Med 2007;14(1):1621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Beveridge, R, Ducharme, J, Janes, L, et al. Reliability of the Canadian emergency department triage and acuity scale: interrater agreement. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34(2):155–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Data quality documentation, national ambulatory care reporting system – multi-year information. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2012.Google Scholar
24.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Data quality documentation, National Ambulatory Care Reporting System – current-year information, 2011–2012. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2012.Google Scholar
25.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Data quality documentation, National Ambulatory Care Reporting System – current-year information, 2012–2013. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2013.Google Scholar
26.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Data quality documentation, National Ambulatory Care Reporting System – current-year information, 2013–2014. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2014.Google Scholar
27.Health Information Standards Committee for Alberta. National Ambulatory Care Reporting System and comprehensive ambulatory care classification system data set. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta; March 20, 2012.Google Scholar
28.Alberta Health and Wellness. Alberta health and wellness ambulatory care re-abstraction study: executive report. Edmonton, AB; June 30, 2006. Available at: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/8cdd925a-8a15-4e81-bfd7-91aeff6470f8/resource/a74af261-80a4-4707-91f3-3631a8ee8ad9/download/ac-reabstraction-report-2006.pdf (accessed June 25, 2017).Google Scholar
29.Government of Alberta. Death certificates and documents. Available at: https://www.alberta.ca/order-death-certificate.aspx (accessed July 20, 2017).Google Scholar
30.Alberta Health Services. Analytics, data integration, measurement and reporting. Calgary, AB; 2017. Available at: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/findhealth/service.aspx?Id=1661&facilityId=1005258 (accessed July 13, 2017).Google Scholar
31.Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Repeat emergency visits for substance abuse. Toronto, ON. October 19, 2015.Google Scholar
32.Alberta Health. Opioids and substances of misuse Alberta report: Alberta report, 2016 Q4. Alberta Health, Alberta; February 7, 2017.Google Scholar
33.Statistics Canada. Postal code conversion file plus (PCCF+) version 6B, reference guide: November 2014 postal codes; 2015.Google Scholar
34.Statistics Canada. Census profile – 2016 census. Statistics Canada catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Statistics Canada; 2017. Available at: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed July 13, 2017).Google Scholar
35.Thomas, AJ, Eberly, LE, Davey Smith, G, Neaton, JD. ZIP-code-based versus tract-based income measures as long-term risk-adjusted mortality predictors. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164(6):586–90.Google ScholarPubMed
36.Sun, BC, Burstin, HR, Brennan, TA. Predictors and outcomes of frequent emergency department users. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10(4):320–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Khan, Y, Glazier, RH, Moineddin, R, Schull, MJ. A population-based study of the association between socioeconomic status and emergency department utilization in Ontario, Canada. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18(8):836–43.Google ScholarPubMed
38.Brady, JE, DiMaggio, CJ, Keyes, KM, et al. Emergency department utilization and subsequent prescription drug overdose death. Ann Epidemiol 2015;25(8):619.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Kerr, T, Wood, E, Grafstein, E, et al. High rates of primary care and emergency department use among injection drug users in Vancouver. J Public Health 2004;27(1):62–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Byrne, M, Murphy, AW, Plunkett, PK, et al. Frequent attenders to an emergency department: a study of primary health care use, medical profile, and psychosocial characteristics. Ann Emerg Med 2003;41(3):309–18.Google Scholar
41.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Have health card, will travel: out-of-province/-territory patients. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2010.Google Scholar
42.Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Hospitalizations and emergency department visits due to opioid poisoning in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2016.Google Scholar

Moe et al. supplementary material

Moe et al. supplementary material 1

File 28 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 76
Total number of PDF views: 149 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 15th April 2019 - 13th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Frequent emergency department use and mortality in patients with substance and opioid use in Alberta: A population-based retrospective cohort study
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Frequent emergency department use and mortality in patients with substance and opioid use in Alberta: A population-based retrospective cohort study
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Frequent emergency department use and mortality in patients with substance and opioid use in Alberta: A population-based retrospective cohort study
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *