Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Half of Eye-Related Emergency Department Visits in the U.S. Non-Emergent

By Rita Buckley | on March 3, 2016 | 1 Comment
Latest News
  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version

Half of all eye-related visits to U.S. emergency departments are for non-emergent conditions, according to a new report.

You Might Also Like
  • Marijuana-related ED Visits by Colorado Teens on the Rise
  • Community Mental Health Cuts Tied to Spike in Emergency Department Visits
  • Emergency Department Visits Hit Record High, With More Cases Requiring Urgent Treatment

“Interventions to facilitate management of these cases outside the ED could make ED resources more available for truly emergent ophthalmic and medical issues,” researchers write in JAMA Ophthalmology.

For the study, Dr. Roomasa Channa from the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues used nationally representative data from the U.S. Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS).

They categorized a weighted count of 11.9 million eye-related emergency department visits as emergent or non-emergent. The data spanned the six years from 2006 through 2011.

Of those cases, 41.2 percent were emergent and 44.3 percent were non-emergent (14.5 percent could not be determined).

Corneal abrasions and a foreign body in the external eye were the leading diagnoses in the emergent category. They accounted for 13.7 percent and 7.5 percent of total visits, respectively.

Emergent visits were significantly more likely to occur among males (odds ratio, 2.00), patients in the highest income quartile (OR, 1.47), older patients (OR, 2.38), and those with private insurance (OR, 1.29).

Non-emergent conditions accounted for over 4 million of all eye-related emergency department visits. Being younger and female, with a lower income and on Medicaid were significantly associated with these visits.

Mean annual inflation-adjusted charges for all eye-related emergency department visits totaled $2 billion.

“Non-urgent care costs two to three times more when provided in the emergency department compared with similar visits in other settings,” the researchers note.

The top non-emergent diagnoses were conjunctivitis (28.0 percent), subconjunctival hemorrhages (3.0 percent), and styes (3.8 percent).

“All three are non-vision threatening conditions that can be easily treated in doctors’ offices or urgent care centers,” she said.

Interventions to facilitate management of these cases outside the emergency department could free up resources for treatment of emergent ophthalmic and medical conditions, and potentially decrease health care costs, she said.

“This paper highlights a mismatch between what people need from their health care system and what the system is currently giving them access to,” said Dr. Venkatesh Bellamkonda, an emergency physician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved in the study.

In an email to Reuters Health, he said that use of emergency departments for non-emergent eye-related problems is likely to continue until the mismatch between the need for care and access to it is eliminated.

“This study is a springboard to further inquiry as to what limitations or barriers people experience when trying to pursue treatment in venues other than the emergency department for eye problems like conjunctivitis,” Dr. Bellamkonda said.

Pages: 1 2 | Single Page

Topics: EyeHealth CareOphthalmologyOverutilizationUrgent Care

Related

  • ACEP Tasks Emergency Physician Group to Look at Urgent Care Settings

    November 6, 2024 - 0 Comment
  • The Real-World Utility of Ophthalmic Tomography

    March 3, 2023 - 0 Comment
  • New Study Analyzed Effects of Increasing Urgent Care Capacity

    November 17, 2021 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now May 03

Read More

One Response to “Half of Eye-Related Emergency Department Visits in the U.S. Non-Emergent”

  1. March 7, 2016

    Thomas Benzoni Reply

    While the study by Dr. Channa in JAMA Ophthalmology is interesting, it is not news.
    It is also demonstrating something other than the conclusion.
    First, cognitive biases: you can’t use the conclusion (diagnosis reached by someone trained and experienced in EM) to say what should have been done with this diagnosis before the diagnosis was reached.
    Second, the authors did a great job noting that people with lower financial means have trouble accessing care; we are proud to care for these folks.
    Third, it would be helpful to discuss what treatments were given, by site of service, for diagnoses reached. E.g., if viral diseases are treated without antibacterial meds in the ER and with antibacterial meds in other sites, the improved quality of care is worthwhile. On the other hand, provision of antibacterial treatments that are unnecessary reinforce care-seeking behavior when such behavior cannot help and does hurt.
    Finally, given that people live 24 hours/day, it would be useful to discuss care availability. Many folks cannot get away or get seen in a timely fashion when it is convenient for the care system.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Current Issue

ACEP Now May 03

Read More

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603