Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objectives were to examine how emergency medicine (EM) residents learn to care for patients in the emergency department (ED) who are homeless and how providing care for patients who are homeless influences residents' education and professional development as emergency physicians. METHODS:We conducted in-depth, one-on-one interviews with EM residents from two programs. A random sample of residents stratified by training year was selected from each site. Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. A team of researchers with diverse content-relevant expertise reviewed transcripts independently and applied codes to text segments using a grounded theory approach. The team met regularly to reconcile differences in code interpretations. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively, and interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. RESULTS:Three recurring themes emerged from 23 resident interviews. First, residents learn unique aspects of EM by caring for patients who are homeless. This learning encompasses both specific knowledge and skills (e.g., disease processes infrequently seen in other populations) and professional development as an emergency physician (e.g., the core value of service in EM). Second, residents learn how to care for patients who are homeless through experience and informal teaching rather than through a formal curriculum. Residents noted little formal curricular time dedicated to homelessness and instead learned during clinical shifts through personal experience and by observing more senior physicians. One unique method of learning was through stories of "misses," in which patients who were homeless had bad outcomes. Third, caring for patients who are homeless affects residents emotionally in complex, multifaceted ways. Emotions were dominated by feelings of frustration. This frustration was often related to feelings of futility in truly helping homeless patients, particularly for patients who were frequent visitors to the ED and who had concomitant alcohol dependence. CONCLUSIONS:Caring for ED patients who are homeless is an important part of EM residency training. Our findings suggest the need for increased formal curricular time dedicated to the unique medical and social challenges inherent in treating patients who are homeless, as well as enhanced support and resources to improve the ability of residents to care for this vulnerable population. Future research is needed to determine if such interventions improve EM resident education and, ultimately, result in improved care for ED patients who are homeless.

Among the countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranks first in health care spending but 25th in spending on social services. High spending on health care may result from low spending on social services. Safe housing, healthful food, and opportunities for education and employment have critical impacts on health. Lack of investment in social determinants of health probably contributes to the high spending on medical care in the United States, which is well behind other countries on basic indicators of population health. This is especially true for homelessness and housing. If homeless people can be provided supportive housing, that is, affordable housing coupled with supportive services, such as on-site case management and referrals to community-based services, health can be improved, hospital use can be reduced, and health care costs can be lowered. New York State is testing an innovation that provides investment in supportive housing for high-risk homeless and unstably housed Medicaid recipients. These recipients include people living on the streets or in shelters and thousands residing in nursing facilities because they have no homes in the community to which they can return. Supportive housing is part of a larger Medicaid Redesign effort initiated in 2011. A working group of representatives from more than 20 organizations discussed barriers to implementing supportive housing and identified solutions. The group's final recommendations included providing integrated funds for capital, operating expenses, rent subsidies, and services in new supportive housing units, targeting high-need, high-cost Medicaid recipients. The 2013-2014 Medicaid budget includes $86 million for supportive housing. Current federal Medicaid rules do not allow capital funding for supportive housing, and to date, New York has been unable to advance a request that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services allow capital funding for supportive housing, so this funding has come entirely from the state budget. The costs of supportive housing are largely offset by savings in services used, mostly within the health care system. The degree of cost offsets or savings depends on how effective programs are targeting patients with high and modifiable costs. Such targeting is challenging because of the transient nature of homeless people, who often are not high-cost health care users. Targeting interventions to patients identified by predictive modeling as high risk or long-term homeless patients or those in institutional settings with consistent patterns of high use is more likely to create savings. This New York innovation will become even more relevant in 2014, when nearly all homeless people will become Medicaid eligible in states that expand eligibility. Many of these people will become part of the 5% of Medicaid recipients who account for 50% of Medicaid costs. The hope is that the New York effort will be a model for other states seeking to provide better, more cost-efficient care for Medicaid recipients who are homeless, unstably housed, or institutionalized.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the proportion of homeless veterans among users of Veterans Affairs (VA) emergency departments (EDs) and compared sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of homeless and nonhomeless VA emergency department users nationally. METHODS: We used national VA administrative data from fiscal year 2010 for a cross-sectional study comparing homeless (n = 64,091) and nonhomeless (n = 866,621) ED users on sociodemographics, medical and psychiatric diagnoses, and other clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Homeless veterans had 4 times the odds of using EDs than nonhomeless veterans. Multivariate analyses found few differences between homeless and nonhomeless ED users on the medical conditions examined, but homeless ED users were more likely to have been diagnosed with a drug use disorder (odds ratio [OR] = 4.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.97, 4.27), alcohol use disorder (OR = 3.67; 95% CI = 3.55, 3.79), or schizophrenia (OR = 3.44; 95% CI = 3.25, 3.64) in the past year. CONCLUSIONS: In a national integrated health care system with no specific requirements for health insurance, the major differences found between homeless and nonhomeless ED users were high rates of psychiatric and substance abuse diagnoses. EDs may be an important location for specialized homeless outreach (or "in" reach) services to address mental health and addictive disorders.

Objectives. We sought to understand interpersonal and systems-level factors relevant to delivering health care to emergency department (ED) patients who are homeless. Methods. We conducted semistructured interviews with emergency medicine residents from 2 residency programs, 1 in New York City and 1 in a medium-sized northeastern city, from February to September 2012. A team of researchers reviewed transcripts independently and coded text segments using a grounded theory approach. They reconciled differences in code interpretations and generated themes inductively. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively, and interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Results. From 23 interviews, 3 key themes emerged: (1) use of pattern recognition in identifying and treating patients who are homeless, (2) variations from standard ED care for patients who are homeless, and (3) tensions in navigating the boundaries of ED social care. Conclusions. Our study revealed practical and philosophical tensions in providing social care to patients in the ED who are homeless. Screening for homelessness in the ED and admission practices for patients who are homeless are important areas for future research and intervention with implications for health care costs and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients experiencing homelessness represent a disproportionate share of emergency department (ED) visits due to poor access to primary care and high levels of unmet health care needs. This is in part due to the difficulty of communicating and following up with patients who are experiencing homelessness. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and types of "new media" use among ED patients who experience homelessness. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional observational study with sequential enrolling of patients from three emergency departments 24/7 for 6 weeks. In total, 5788 ED patients were enrolled, of whom 249 experienced homelessness. Analyses included descriptive statistics, and unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios. RESULTS: 70.7% (176/249) of patients experiencing homelessness own cell phones compared to 85.90% (4758/5539) of patients in stable housing (P=.001) with the former more likely to own Androids, 70% (53/76) versus 43.89% (1064/2424), and the latter more likely to have iPhones, 44.55% (1080/2424) versus 17% (13/76) (P=.001). There is no significant difference in new media use, modality, or frequency for both groups; however, there is a difference in contract plan with 50.02% (2380/4758) of stably housed patients having unlimited minutes versus 37.5% (66/176) of homeless patients. 19.78% (941/4758) of patients in stable housing have pay-as-you-go plans versus 33.0% (58/176) of homeless patients (P=.001). Patients experiencing homelessness are more likely to want health information on alcohol/substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, pregnancy and smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: This study is unique in its characterization of new media ownership and use among ED patients experiencing homelessness. New media is a powerful tool to connect patients experiencing homelessness to health care.

BACKGROUND: National attention is increasingly focused on hospital readmissions. Little prior research has examined readmissions among patients who are homeless. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine 30-day hospital readmission rates among patients who are homeless and examine factors associated with hospital readmissions in this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who were homeless and hospitalized at a single urban hospital from May-August 2012. Homelessness was identified by an electronic medical record flag and confirmed by manual chart review. The primary outcome was all-cause hospital readmission to the study hospital within 30 days of hospital discharge. Patient-level and hospitalization-level factors associated with risk for readmission were examined using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: There were 113 unique patients who were homeless and admitted to the hospital a total of 266 times during the study period. The mean age was 49 years, 27.4% of patients were women, and 75.2% had Medicaid. Half (50.8%) of all hospitalizations resulted in a 30-day hospital inpatient readmission and 70.3% resulted in either an inpatient readmission, observation status stay, or emergency department visit within 30 days of hospital discharge. Most readmissions occurred early after hospital discharge (53.9% within 1 week, 74.8% within 2 weeks). Discharge to the streets or shelter versus other living situations was associated with increased risk for readmission in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were homeless had strikingly high 30-day hospital readmission rates. These findings suggest the urgent need for further research and interventions to improve postdischarge care for patients who are homeless.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There is widespread concern about patients with frequent emergency department (ED) use. We identify sociodemographic and clinical factors most strongly associated with frequent ED use within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) nationally. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of national VHA databases (N=5,531,379) in 2010. The primary outcome measure was the number of VHA ED visits categorized into 6 frequency levels. RESULTS: In 2010, 4,600,667 (83.2%) VHA patients had no ED visit, whereas 493,391 (8.9%) had 1 visit, 356,258 (6.4%) had 2 to 4 visits, 70,741 (1.3%) had 5 to 10 visits, 9,705 (0.2%) had 11 to 25 visits, and 617 (0.01%) had greater than 25 visits. Increasing ED use frequency was associated with homelessness, medical diagnoses, substance abuse and psychiatric diagnoses, receipt of psychotropic and opioid prescriptions, and more frequent use of outpatient medical and mental health services. In multivariable analyses, factors most strongly associated with all levels of ED use were schizophrenia (odds ratio [OR] range 1.44 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.41 to 1.47] to 6.86 [95% CI 5.55 to 8.48] across categories of increasing ED use), homelessness (OR range 1.41 [95% CI 1.38 to 1.43] to 6.60 [95% CI 5.36 to 8.12]), opioid prescriptions filled (OR range 2.09 [95% CI 2.07 to 2.10] to 5.08 [95% CI 4.16 to 6.19]), and heart failure (OR range 1.64 [95% CI 1.63 to 1.66] to 3.53 [95% CI 2.64 to 4.72]). CONCLUSION: Frequent ED use occurs even in a coordinated health care system that provides ready access to outpatient care. Frequent ED users are characterized by traits that represent high levels of psychosocial and medical needs. The correlates we identified for frequent ED use were consistent across multiple distinct levels of ED use.

Background: Homeless patients visit the ED at rates up to 12 times higher than comparable housed patients, yet there is a paucity of research on how this influences emergency medicine residents, who are the primary physician caregivers in many EDs. Objectives: To characterize the experiences of EM residents in caring for homeless patients and explore how these experiences influence resident personal and professional development. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with residents of two northeast urban EM residency programs. A random purposeful sample diverse in training year was selected, with sample size determined by theoretical saturation. Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. A core team of three researchers with diverse content-relevant expertise independently coded transcripts and met regularly to reconcile coding differences. The constant comparison method was used to identify new codes and refine existing ones iteratively. The final code structure was applied to all data using Atlas.ti (GmbH). Results: Four core themes pertaining to the resident experience emerged from 23 interviews. First, residents learn how to care for homeless patients through modeling more senior physicians, storytelling, and experience, rather than formal curricular training. Second, residents learn unique aspects of EM by caring for homeless patients. For example, residents learn to integrate social and systems-level factors into medical decision making (i.e., considering homelessness in disposition decisions). Third, residents struggle with role boundaries as emergency physicians when caring for homeless patients. Though the ED regularly fills gaps in the social service system by providing shelter, food, and other non-medical resources, residents vary in how much of this care they embrace as their job. Finally, caring for homeless patients affects residents emotionally. While residents feel pride in EM's mission to serve all patients, they feel frustrated by what they perceive !