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
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Dr. Channa said that policy makers should take action to redirect care of non-emergent eye conditions from emergency departments to eye clinics or urgent care centers.

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

Several approaches can be used to achieve this goal, she noted, including the use of triage personnel. Public education on which signs and symptoms call for a trip to the emergency department versus treatment at a local urgent care clinic or eye doctor’s office would also help, she said.

“There is a dearth of research in this area,” Dr. Channa said. “Our study has highlighted the problem. Now measures need to be taken on a policy level to determine the best possible solutions.”

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: June 2025 (Digital)

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: June 2025 (Digital)

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