Social Risk Factor Documentation in Emergency Departments - 19/12/22
Abstract |
Study objective |
Social Z codes are International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes that provide one way of documenting social risk factors in electronic health records. Despite the utility and availability of these codes, no study has examined social Z code documentation prevalence in emergency department (ED) settings.
Methods |
In this descriptive, cross-sectional study of all ED visits included in the 2018 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, we estimated the prevalence of social Z code documentation and used logistic regression to examine the association between documentation and patient and hospital characteristics.
Results |
Of more than 35.8 million adult and pediatric ED visits, there was a 1.21% weighted prevalence (n=452,499) of at least 1 documented social Z code. Social Z codes were significantly more likely to be documented in ED visits among patients aged 35 to 64 compared to patients aged 18 to 34 (18.6/1000 [16.9 to 20.4] versus 12.7/1000 [11.5 to 14.0], odds ratio (OR) 1.47 [1.42 to 1.53]), male patients (16.6/1000 [15.1 to 18.2] versus female 8.5/1000 [7.8 to 9.2], OR 1.97 [1.89 to 2.06]), patients with Medicaid compared to patients with private insurance (15.9/1000 [14.4 to 17.6] versus (6.6/1000 [6.0 to 7.2], OR 2.45 [1.30 to 1.63]), and patients who had a Charlson Comorbidity Index≥1 compared to those with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 (ranges 15.0 to 16.6/1000 versus 10.6/1000 [9.6 to 11.7], ORs ranging 1.43 to 1.58). ED visits with a primary diagnosis of mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental illness had the strongest positive association with social Z code documentation (85.6/1000 [78.4 to 93.4], OR 10.75 [9.88 to 11.70]) compared to ED visits without this primary diagnosis.
Conclusion |
We found a very low prevalence of social Z code documentation in ED visits nationwide. More systematic social Z code documentation could support targeted social interventions, social risk payment adjustments, and future policy reforms.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Please see page 39 for the Editor's Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
Supervising editor: Stephen Schenkel, MD, MPP. Specific detailed information about possible confli1ict of interest for individual editors is available at editors. |
|
Author contributions: MSP, LMG, and MFM conceived and designed the study. MFM and MSP managed the data, including quality control. MFM analyzed the data. MSP assisted with the analysis. MFM drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. MFM takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
Authorship: All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors wish to acknowledge support from the National Clinician Scholars Program at the University of California, San Francisco. |
|
Readers: click on the link to go directly to a survey in which you can provide VXBPD6H to Annals on this particular article. |
|
A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 81 - N° 1
P. 38-46 - janvier 2023 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?