A new analysis published on the British Medical Journal website claims that focusing on people called frequent fliers, who are often admitted to hospitals for emergencies, is not enough to reduce the rising number of hospital admissions even though they make up a large portion of such admissions.
Martin Roland and Gary Abel from the Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research argue that this is one of several misconceptions about emergency admissions that must be tackled if we are to reduce the number of people being admitted as emergencies. Around the world, the pressure to reduce healthcare costs is huge. Emergency hospital admissions are an expensive aspect of care and rates have been rising for several years, particularly among the elderly and those with several conditions (co-morbidities).
In the UK, many initiatives have been set up to reduce emergency admissions, mainly in primary care and with a focus on high risk patients who are thought to use a disproportionate share of resources.
They also challenge the widespread view that improving primary care could prevent many emergency admissions and suggest that some of the rise in admissions may be due to the introduction of four hour waiting targets in A&E. They say that primary and secondary care doctors need to work together to achieve a common set of goals.
They also point to the problem of "supply induced demand" for services which could explain the apparent increase in admissions found in some studies of intensive case management (e.g. community matrons). Apart from a few exceptions, evaluations of interventions to reduce emergency admissions have been disappointing. Evaluations need to be evidence based, they need to allow for admission rates for individual patients falling of their own accord (a phenomenon known as regression to the mean) and to take account of variation due to chance. The authors suggest some guidelines for those needing to focus on this important and expensive aspect of healthcare