Functional somatic symptoms in Emergency Department frequent presenters

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Patients with Functional Somatic Symptoms (FSS) are frequently encountered within healthcare settings such as Emergency Departments (ED). There is limited research regarding characterisation and frequency of FSS within frequent presenters to ED and no previous Australian evidence. This study aims to fill this gap. METHODS: A retrospective, single-centre study of frequent ED presenters over a 6-month period was undertaken. Patients with > 3 re-presentations/month were reviewed for the presence of FSS using Stephenson and Price's (Stephenson DT, Price JR. Medically unexplained physical symptoms in emergency medicine. Emerg Med J. 2006;23(8):595.) categorisation of FSS. Patients were divided into three groups - FSS, possible FSS (pos-FSS) and non-FSS. The characteristics of these groups were compared using descriptive statistics (chi-square tests, Welch's ANOVA). Person-time at risk during the 6-month study period was estimated for patients in each group and incidence of ED presentation for each group was then calculated. Psychological distress indicators for ED presenters with FSS, as noted by the treating clinician, were also analysed. RESULTS: 11% (71/638) of frequent ED presenters were categorised as having FSS and 72% (458/638) as having possible FSS (Pos-FSS). Mean ED presentations in the FSS group during the study period were significantly higher than in the non-FSS and Pos-FSS groups (p < 0.01). Anxiety was found to be the primary psychological distress indicator associated with ED presentations with FSS. CONCLUSION: We found that, amongst frequent ED presenters, patients with FSS presented significantly more frequently to ED than those without FSS. We propose revising the model of care for FSS in ED to promote appropriate referral to therapy services as a possible demand reduction strategy to improve patient care and efficiency in ED.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.