Emergency Department Patients Who Leave Before Treatment Is Complete

Introduction Emergency department (ED) patients who leave before treatment is complete (LBTC) represent medicolegal risk and lost revenue. We sought to examine LBTC return visits characteristics and potential revenue effects for a large healthcare system. Methods This retrospective, multicenter study examined all encounters from January 1–December 31, 2019 at 18 EDs. The LBTC patients were divided into left without being seen (LWBS), defined as leaving prior to completed medical screening exam (MSE), and left subsequent to being seen (LSBS), defined as leaving after MSE was complete but before disposition. We recorded 30-day returns by facility type including median return hours, admission rate, and return to index ED. Expected realization rate and potential charges were calculated for each patient visit. Results During the study period 626,548 ED visits occurred; 20,158 (3.2%) LBTC index encounters occurred, and 6745 (33.5%) returned within 30 days. The majority (41.7%) returned in <24 hours with 76.1% returning in 10 days and 66.4% returning to index ED. Median return time was 43.3 hours, and 23.2% were admitted. Urban community EDs had the highest 30-day return rate (37.8%, 95% confidence interval, 36.41–39.1). Patients categorized as LSBS had longer median return hours (66.0) and higher admission rates (29.8%) than the LWBS cohort. There was a net potential realization rate of $9.5 million to the healthcare system. Conclusion In our system, LSBS patients had longer return times and higher admission rates than LWBS patients. There was significant potential financial impact for the system. Further studies should examine how healthcare systems can reduce risk and financial impacts of LBTC patients.

[1]  Shari J. Welch,et al.  Managing and Measuring Emergency Department Care: Results of the Fourth Emergency Department Benchmarking Definitions Summit , 2020, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[2]  H. Tamim,et al.  Left without being seen in a hybrid point of service collection model emergency department. , 2020, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[3]  E. Castillo,et al.  Patients Who Leave the Emergency Department Without Being Seen and Their Follow-Up Behavior: A Retrospective Descriptive Analysis. , 2019, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[4]  Andrea Blome,et al.  Impact of a Direct Bedding Initiative on Left Without Being Seen Rates. , 2018, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[5]  P. Atkinson,et al.  A comparative study of patient characteristics, opinions, and outcomes, for patients who leave the emergency department before medical assessment. , 2017, CJEM.

[6]  April Novotny,et al.  Impact of a Hospitalwide Quality Improvement Initiative on Emergency Department Throughput and Crowding Measures. , 2016, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[7]  S. Thomas,et al.  Identifying Patient Door-to-Room Goals to Minimize Left-Without-Being-Seen Rates , 2015, The western journal of emergency medicine.

[8]  O. Soremekun,et al.  Setting wait times to achieve targeted left-without-being-seen rates. , 2014, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[9]  A. Mehmood,et al.  Missing the boat: odds for the patients who leave ED without being seen , 2013, BMC Emergency Medicine.

[10]  Nathan Timm,et al.  Return visit characteristics among patients who leave without being seen from a pediatric ED. , 2012, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[11]  O. Soremekun,et al.  Operational and financial impact of physician screening in the ED. , 2012, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[12]  Chin-Ming Chen,et al.  Emergency department patients who leave without being seen by a doctor: the experience of a medical center in northern Taiwan. , 2002, Chang Gung medical journal.