Search results

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) can be a debilitating disorder that is difficult to identify and treat. Failure to adequately manage IIH symptoms may force patients to present at emergency departments (EDs) seeking symptom relief. The purpose of this paper is to empirically characterize ED use by previously diagnosed IIH patients.

Patients diagnosed with IIH, and who registered with the Intracranial Hypertension Registry by 2014, were solicited for study inclusion. A survey was designed to elicit ED use during the period 2010–2012. Information on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, IIH signs and symptoms, time since diagnosis, perspectives of ED use and quality of life was collected. Quality of life was assessed using an adaptation of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric hypothesis tests.

In total, 39 percent of IIH patients used emergency services over the study period; those that did used the services intensely. These patients were more likely to be non-white, live in households making less than $25,000 annually, have public insurance and have received a diversional shunt procedure. Patients who used the ED were less likely to live in households making $100,000, or more, annually and have private insurance. Participants who used the ED had significantly lower quality-of-life scores, were younger and had been diagnosed with IIH for less time.

ED staff and outside physicians can utilize the information contained in this study to more effectively recognize the unique circumstances of IIH patients who present at EDs.

Patient dependence on an emergency department (ED) for ongoing, non-urgent health care is a complex issue related to poor mental and physical health, disability, previous trauma, social disadvantage and lack of social supports. Working Together to Connect Care is an innovative program that provides an assertive community case management approach coupled with an ED management plan to support people who frequently attend the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital ED. The program, which is yet to be fully evaluated, currently helps to manage a large number of patients with a wide variety of complex needs. To demonstrate the scope and capabilities of the program, the purpose of this paper is to present a series of case studies of patients who frequently attended the ED and subsequently became program participants.

A series of five case studies is used to illustrate the variety of patient characteristics and available management pathways. Outcomes, including rates of ED attendance, at five months after program commencement are also described.

The variety of characteristics and experiences of the patients in the case studies is representative of the program cohort as a whole. Program participation has resulted in improved patient outcomes as demonstrated by crisis resolution, housing stability, engagement with primary health care and reduced frequency of ED presentations.

A personalized, integrated-care management approach is both flexible and effective in responding to the complex needs of five patients who frequently attend EDs.

This study contributes to the understanding of the health effects of pesticides exposure and of how pesticides have been and should be regulated.

This study presents literature reviews for the period 2000–2013 on (i) the health effects of pesticides and on (ii) preference valuation of health risks related to pesticides, as well as a discussion of the role of benefit-cost analysis applied to pesticide regulatory measures.

This study indicates that the health literature has focused on individuals with direct exposure to pesticides, i.e. farmers, while the literature on preference valuation has focused on those with indirect exposure, i.e. consumers. The discussion highlights the need to clarify the rationale for regulating pesticides, the role of risk perceptions in benefit-cost analysis, and the importance of inter-disciplinary research in this area.

This study relates findings of different disciplines (health, economics, public policy) regarding pesticides, and identifies gaps for future research.