Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 34, Issue 11, pp 2610–2619 | Cite as

Reasons Patients Choose the Emergency Department over Primary Care: a Qualitative Metasynthesis

  • Jody A. VogelEmail author
  • Kristin L. Rising
  • Jacqueline Jones
  • Marjorie L. Bowden
  • Adit A. Ginde
  • Edward P. Havranek
Review Paper

Abstract

Background

To enhance the acute care delivery system, a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s perspectives for seeking care in the emergency department (ED) versus primary care (PC) is necessary.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative metasynthesis on reasons patients seek care in the ED instead of PC. A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, Psych Info, and Web of Science was completed to identify qualitative studies relevant to the research question. Articles were critically appraised using the McMaster University Critical Review Form for Qualitative Studies. We excluded pediatric articles and nonqualitative and mixed-methods studies. The metasynthesis was completed with an interpretive approach using reciprocal translation analyses.

Results

Nine articles met criteria for inclusion. Eleven themes under four domains were identified. The first domain was acuity of condition that led to the ED visit. In this domain, themes included pain: “it’s urgent because it hurts,” and concern for severe illness. The second domain was barriers associated with PC, which included difficulty accessing PC when ill: “my doctor said he was booked up and he instructed me to go to the ED.” The third domain was related to multiple advantages associated with ED care: “my doctor cannot do X-rays and laboratory tests, while the ED has all the technical support.” In this domain, patients also identified 24/7 accessibility of the ED and no need for an immediate copay at the ED as advantageous. The fourth domain included fulfillment of medical needs. Themes in this domain included the alleviation of pain and the perceived expertise of the ED healthcare providers.

Conclusions

In this qualitative metasynthesis, reasons patients visit the ED over primary care included (1) urgency of the medical condition, (2) barriers to accessing primary care, (3) advantages of the ED, and (4) fulfillment of medical needs and quality of care in the ED.

KEY WORDS

primary care healthcare delivery access to care qualitative research metasynthesis patient preferences patient-centered care 

Notes

Contributors

There are no contributors to the manuscript that did not meet authorship criteria. Specific contributions were as follows: study concept and design: JAV, JJ, and EPH; acquisition of data: JAV, KLR, JJ, and MLB; analysis and interpretation of data: JAV, KLR, JJ, MLB, AAG, and EPH; drafting of the manuscript: JAV; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: JAV, KLR, JJ, MLB, AAG, and EPH; statistical analysis: JAV, KLR, JJ, and MLB; obtained funding: JAV; administrative, technical, or material support: JAV and EPH.

Funders

This study was supported in part by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Dr. Jody Vogel [K08HS023901]).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Pitts SR, Carrier ER, Rich EC, Kellerman AL. Where Americans get acute care: increasingly it’s not at their doctor’s office. Health Aff. 2010;9:1620–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rising KL, Hudgins A, Reigle M, Hollander JE, Carr BG. “I’m just a patient”: fear and uncertainty as drivers of emergency department use in patients with chronic disease. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68:536–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen PW. Where have all the primary care doctors gone? New York Times. Available at: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/where-have-all-the-primary-care-doctors-gone/. Accessed May 8, 2019.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asplin BR, Rhodes KV, Levy H, et al. Insurance status and access to urgent ambulatory care follow-up appointments. JAMA. 2005;294:1248–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uscher-Pines L, Pines J, Kellermann A, et al. Emergency department visits for nonurgent conditions: systematic literature review. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19:47–59.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Derlet RW, Richards JR, Kravitz RL. Frequent overcrowding in US emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8:151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    White House. President Barack Obama. Remarks by the president on health care reform. 2010. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-health-care-reform. Accessed May 8, 2019.
  8. 8.
    Starfield B. Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and Technology. Rev. ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press: 1998, p. 55–74.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bodenheimer T. Coordinating care: a perilous journey through the health care system. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1064–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grumbach K, Bodenheimer T. A primary care home for Americans: putting the house in order. JAMA. 2002;288:889–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berenson RA, Rich EC. U.S. approaches to physician payment: the deconstruction of primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:613–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsia RY, Kellermann AL, Shen YC. Factors associated with closures of emergency departments in the United States. JAMA. 2011;305:1978–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Epstein SK, Huckins DS, Liu SW, Pallin DJ, Sullivan AF, Lipton RI, et al. Emergency department crowding and risk of preventable medical errors. Intern Emerg Med. 2012;7(2):173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sun BC, Hsia RY, Weiss RE, Zingmond D, Liang LJ, Han W, et al. Effect of emergency department crowding on outcomes of admitted patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61:605–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chiasm: a New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2001;p. 5–6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCormick J, Rodney P, Varcoe C. Reinterpretations across studies: an approach to meta-analysis. Qual Health Res. 2003;13:933–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, Noblitt G, Sandelowski M. Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res. 2004;14:1342–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noblit GW, Hare RD (1988) Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Letts L, Wilkins S, Law M, Stewart D, Bosch J, Westmorland M: Guidelines for Critical Review Form: Qualitative Studies (Version 2.0). Hamilton: McMaster University; 2007. Available at http://srs-mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Guidelines-for-Critical-Review-Form-Qualitative-Studies.pdf. Accessed May 8, 2019.
  22. 22.
    Durand AC, Palazzolo S, Tanti-Hardouin N, Gerbeaux P, Sambuc R, Gentile S. Nonurgent patients in emergency departments: rational or irresponsible consumers? Perceptions of professionals and patients. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Howard MS, Davis BA, Anderson C, Cherry D, Koller P, Shelton D. Patients’ perspective on choosing the emergency department for nonurgent medical care: a qualitative study exploring one reason for overcrowding. J Emerg Nurs. 2005;31:429–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hunter C, Chew-Graham C, Langer S, Stenhoff A, Drinkwater J, Buthrie E, Salmon P. A qualitative study of patient choices in using emergency health care for long-term conditions: the importance of candidacy and recursivity. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93:335–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kangovi S, Barg FK, Carter T, Lang JA, Shannon R, Grande D. Understanding why patients of low socioeconomic status prefer hospitals over ambulatory care. Health Aff. 2013;32:1196–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koziol-McLain J, Price DW, Weiss B, Quinn AA, Honigman B. Seeking care for nonurgent medical conditions in the emergency department: through the eyes of the patient. J Emerg Nurs. 2000;26:554–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lowthian JA, Smith C, Stoelwinder JU, Smit DV, McNeil JJ, Cameron PA. Why older patients of lower clinical urgency choose to attend the emergency department. Intern Med J. 2013;43:59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmeidhofer 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:e013323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shaw EK, Howard J, Clark ED, Etz RX, Arya R, Tallia AF. Decision-making processes of patients who use the emergency department for primary care needs. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013;24:1288–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    LaCalle E, Rabin E. Frequent users of emergency departments: the myths, the data, and the policy implications. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56:42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fisman R. Straining emergency rooms by expanding health insurance. Science. 2014;343:252–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rust G, Ye J, Baltrus P, Daniels E, Adesunloye B, Fryer GE. Practical barriers to timely primary care access. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1705–1710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Starfield B. Primary care: is it essential? Lancet. 1994;344:1129–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ramlakhan S, Mason S, O’Keeffe C, Ramtahal A, Ablard S. Primary care services located with EDs: a review of effectiveness. Emerg Med J. 2016;p33:495–503.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cooke M, Fisher J, Dale J, et al. Reducing Attendances and Waits in Emergency Departments: a Systematic Review of Present Innovations. Warwick. The University of Warwick, 2004.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jody A. Vogel
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Kristin L. Rising
    • 4
  • Jacqueline Jones
    • 5
  • Marjorie L. Bowden
    • 6
  • Adit A. Ginde
    • 1
    • 2
  • Edward P. Havranek
    • 3
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Emergency MedicineDenver Health Medical CenterDenverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineAuroraUSA
  3. 3.Center for Health Systems ResearchDenver Health Medical CenterDenverUSA
  4. 4.Department of Emergency MedicineThomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.College of NursingUniversity of ColoradoAuroraUSA
  6. 6.School of Social WorkUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  7. 7.University of Colorado School of MedicineAuroraUSA
  8. 8.Department of MedicineDenver Health Medical CenterDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations