We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please 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 account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items 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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
Pediatric patients transferred by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) from urgent care (UC) and office-based physician practices to the emergency department (ED) following activation of the 9-1-1 EMS system are an under-studied population with scarce literature regarding outcomes for these children. The objectives of this study were to describe this population, explore EMS level-of-care transport decisions, and examine ED outcomes.
Methods:
This was a retrospective review of patients zero to <15 years of age transported by EMS from UC and office-based physician practices to the ED of two pediatric receiving centers from January 2017 through December 2019. Variables included reason for transfer, level of transport, EMS interventions and medications, ED medications/labs/imaging ordered in the first hour, ED procedures, ED disposition, and demographics. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, X2 test, point biserial correlation, two-sample z test, Mann-Whitney U test, and 2-way ANOVA.
Results:
A total of 450 EMS transports were included in this study: 382 Advanced Life Support (ALS) runs and 68 Basic Life Support (BLS) runs. The median patient age was 2.66 years, 60.9% were male, and 60.7% had private insurance. Overall, 48.9% of patients were transported from an office-based physician practice and 25.1% were transported from UC. Almost one-half (48.7%) of ALS patients received an EMS intervention or medication, as did 4.41% of BLS patients. Respiratory distress was the most common reason for transport (46.9%). Supplemental oxygen was the most common EMS intervention and albuterol was the most administered EMS medication. There was no significant association between level of transport and ED disposition (P = .23). The in-patient admission rate for transported patients was significantly higher than the general ED admission rate (P <.001).
Conclusion:
This study demonstrates that pediatric patients transferred via EMS after activation of the 9-1-1 system from UC and medical offices are more acutely ill than the general pediatric ED population and are likely sicker than the general pediatric EMS population. Paramedics appear to be making appropriate level-of-care transport decisions.
Assess urgent care (UC) clinician prescribing practices and factors associated with first-line antibiotic selection and recommended duration of therapy for sinusitis, acute otitis media (AOM), and pharyngitis.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Participants:
All respiratory UC encounters and clinicians in the Intermountain Health (IH) network, July 1st, 2019–June 30th, 2020.
Methods:
Descriptive statistics were used to characterize first-line antibiotic selection rates and the duration of antibiotic prescriptions during pharyngitis, sinusitis, and AOM UC encounters. Patient and clinician characteristics were evaluated. System-specific guidelines recommended 5–10 days of penicillin, amoxicillin, or amoxicillin-clavulanate as first-line. Alternative therapies were recommended for penicillin allergy. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to assess predictors of first-line antibiotic selection, prescription duration, and first-line antibiotic prescriptions for an appropriate duration.
Results:
Among encounters in which an antibiotic was prescribed, the rate of first-line antibiotic selection was 75%, the recommended duration was 70%, and the rate of first-line antibiotic selection for the recommended duration was 53%. AOM was associated with the highest rate of first-line prescriptions (83%); sinusitis the lowest (69%). Pharyngitis was associated with the highest rate of prescriptions for the recommended duration (91%); AOM the lowest (51%). Penicillin allergy was the strongest predictor of non–first-line selection (OR = 0.02, 95% CI [0.02, 0.02]) and was also associated with extended duration prescriptions (OR = 0.87 [0.80, 0.95]).
Conclusions:
First-line antibiotic selection and duration for respiratory UC encounters varied by diagnosis and patient characteristics. These areas can serve as a focus for ongoing stewardship efforts.
This chapter builds on the structural and conceptual challenges outlined in the preceding chapters to describe, compare and analyse the international and European jurisprudence on the right to health care or medical care of undocumented people. The assessment uncovers several inconsistencies. While international human rights law elaborates, inter alia, on the concepts of ‘primary health care’ and non-discrimination of vulnerable people, including irregular migrants, in its scope of application, European human rights law entitles irregular migrants to a level of health protection that equates to ‘urgent’ or ‘life-saving’ treatments. Although international human rights bodies employ vulnerability and core and positive obligations to urge states to implement measures in this area of law and policy, the chapter recommends a more substantive-oriented approach to health care obligations by international bodies aligned to the accessible level of health care specified in the WHO recommendations on ‘primary health care’ and greater rigour and consistency in health-related terminology and legal arguments to increase persuasiveness. In both this and the following Chapter 4, special remarks are dedicated to irregular migrant children and to women’s access to reproductive services and care.
Urgent care centers (UCCs) have become frontline healthcare facilities for individuals with acute infectious diseases. Additionally, UCCs could potentially support the healthcare system response during a public health emergency. Investigators sought to assess NYC UCCs’ implementation of nationally-recommended IPC and EP practices.
Methods:
Investigators identified 199 eligible UCCs based on criteria defined by the Urgent Care Association of America. Multiple facilities under the same ownership were considered a network. As part of a cross-sectional analysis, an electronic survey was sent to UCC representatives assessing their respective facilities’ IPC and EP practices. Representatives of urgent care networks responded on behalf of all UCCs within the network if all sites within the network used the same policies and procedures.
Results:
Of the respondents, 18 representing 144 UCCs completed the survey. Of these, 8 of them (44.4% of the respondents) represented more than 1 facility that utilized standardized practices (range = 2-60 facilities). Overall, 81.3% have written IPC policies, 75.0% have EP policies, 80.6% require staff to train on IPC, and 75.7% train staff on EP.
Conclusion:
Most UCCs reported implementation of IPC and EP practices; however, the comprehensiveness of these activities varied across UCCs. Public health can better prepare the healthcare system by engaging UCCs in planning and executing of IPC and EP-related initiatives.
Community pharmacies are recognised as an under-utilised, accessible resource that could support the urgent care agenda. This study aimed to provide a snapshot of the number and nature of urgent care requests presented to a sample of community pharmacies in three counties in southern England, to determine how requests are managed, whether management is appropriate, as assessed by a group of experts, and whether customers receiving the care are satisfied with pharmacists’ interventions.
Methods:
A representative sample of pharmacists across the region was invited to keep a log-book documenting all urgent care requests over a two-week period. Data were analysed to estimate frequency and type of requests and to compare consultations in core and non-core hours. Log-book entries were scrutinised blind by an expert panel to determine appropriateness of pharmacist’s responses. Customers receiving pharmacists’ interventions were surveyed to assess satisfaction.
Results:
Seventeen pharmacies kept log-books detailing 432 urgent care consultations, equating to 13 consultations per pharmacy per week. Of these, 70% (n = 302) were dealt with by the pharmacist in-house with 30% (n = 130) resulting in referrals. Locum pharmacists were significantly more likely to refer to other NHS services than regular pharmacists. Over half the requests were for symptom management, skin problems presenting most commonly (38% of all symptoms presented). Forty-seven percent of consultations were considered to have ‘averted the need for other NHS services’. Pharmacists’ referral (but not assessment of urgency) was deemed appropriate by the expert panel in 90% of consultations. Ninety-five percent of customers surveyed were satisfied with the service and would use the pharmacy again.
Conclusion:
Extrapolating findings across the study population (approximately 4.4 million) suggests that community pharmacists manage over 11 500 urgent care consultations per week, with 8050 managed independently. These prevent approximately 5400 other NHS encounters, while also meeting customer expectations and expert panel endorsement.
The emergency department (ED) of NYU Langone Medical Center was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy, contributing to a public health disaster in New York City. We evaluated hospital-based acute care provided through the establishment of an urgent care center with an associated ED-run observation service (EDOS) that operated in the absence of an ED during this disaster.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients placed in an EDOS following a visit to an urgent care center during the 18 months of ED closure. We reviewed diagnoses, clinical protocols, selection criteria, and performance metrics.
Results
Of 55,723 urgent care center visits, 15,498 patients were hospitalized, and 3167 of all hospitalized patients (20.4%) were placed in the EDOS. A total of 2660 EDOS patients (84%) were discharged from the EDOS. The 8 most frequently utilized clinical protocols accounted for 76% of the EDOS volume.
Conclusions
A diverse group of patients presenting to an urgent care center following the destruction of an ED by natural disaster can be cared for in an EDOS, regardless of association with a physical ED. An urgent care center with an associated EDOS can be implemented to provide patient care in a disaster situation. This may be useful when existing ED or hospital resources are compromised. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:405–410)
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.