ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1633

Use of Emergency Department (ED) and Resulting Hospitalization By Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) in a Predominantly Afro-Caribbean Inner-City Cohort

Maushmi Savjani1, Justin Levinson2 and Ellen M. Ginzler3, 1Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, 2Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, 3Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY

Meeting: 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 18, 2017

Keywords: SLE

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Monday, November 6, 2017

Title: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus – Clinical Aspects and Treatment Poster II: Damage and Comorbidities

Session Type: ACR Poster Session B

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose:
Given the complexity, chronicity and associated co-morbidities, management of SLE poses a challenge. Despite established care in private and fellow/resident clinics, our patients often go to ED, resulting in inappropriate and costly hospitalizations. Our aim is to reduce ED visits with appropriate outpatient rheumatology care, instate appropriate ED rheumatology consults, and reduce unnecessary hospitalizations.  

Methods:
We reviewed SLE patients seen by the Rheumatology Division at least once from 7/2013 to 6/2015, quantifying ED visits and subsequent hospitalization or discharge from 1/2010 to 6/2015. We compared age at SLE diagnosis, SLE duration when first seen by us, and insurance status of “ED users” (at least 1 ED visit) with “ED non-users” (no ED visits). Frequency of ED rheumatology consults among hospitalized vs. discharged patients was noted.  After introduction of education tools (Medical ground Rounds presentation of our data and implementation of required rheumatology rotation by our EM-IM residents), we re-assessed the relationship between ED visit frequency and clinic visits in ED user vs. non-users.

Results:
363 SLE patients had 1700 ED visits (range 1-72), leading to 774 hospitalizations over a 5.5-year period. 25 excluded due to lack of data. Among 338 patients, 95 were ED non-users and 243 were ED users, totaling 1608 ED visits with 727 hospitalizations. Among ED users, 61(25%) had no hospitalizations; 34 (14%) were followed privately vs. 201(83%) in clinic. 33(35%) private and 62(65%) clinic patients had no ED visits (Table 1). Only 112 (7%) of ED visits had a rheumatology consult in the ED; 68 (61%) were hospitalized and 44 (39%) were discharged.  Pre- and post-educational tools introduction data presented in Table 2.

Conclusion:
Our SLE cohort had frequent ED visits followed by high rate of hospitalization. The difference in mean age at SLE diagnosis, mean SLE duration and insurance status between ED users vs. non-users was small.  Only 14% of patients followed privately had any ED visits compared to 83% of clinic patients, yet the % of non-users was higher in clinic patients. Rheumatology consult was requested in only 7%, yet 39% resulted in discharge from the ED, potentially preventing unnecessary hospitalization. Pre- and post-educational tools showed reduction in ED visits and hospitalization among ED users, however, a decrease in clinic visits could be confounded by loss to follow-up. Consistent outpatient care in those not requiring hospitalization and case managers for high-risk patients should reduce inappropriate ED visits and subsequent hospitalizations.

Table 1: Comparisons between ED Users vs Non-users from January 2010 to June 2015

 

ED users (at least 1 visit)  n = 243

ED non-users (no ED visits) n = 95

 

Mean age at SLE Diagnosis (years)

30.89

32.30

Mean SLE duration when 1st seen by Rheumatology Division (years)

3.59

4.81

Without Insurance

6 (2.4%)

5 (5.3%)

Followed Privately

34 (14%) => 143 ED visits => 51 hospitalizations

33 (35%)

Followed in Fellow/Resident Clinic

201 (83%) => 1465 ED visits => 676 hospitalizations

62 (65%)

Seen only as Inpatient Consultation

8 (3.3%)

–

 

Table 2:  Relationship between ED visit frequency and Clinic visits pre- and post-educational tools introduction (Medical Ground Rounds and Rheumatology Rotation requirement for EM-IM residents). Private patients and those seen only as inpatient consults were excluded.

 

Pre-intervention (July 2013 – June 2015)

Post-intervention (July 2015 – June 2017)

 

ED visits

Clinic visits

Hospital
Admissions

ED visits

Clinic visits

Hospital Admissions

ED non-users

n = 95

 

0

348

0

7

281

0

ED users n = 234

562
(2.8/pt)

1370 (6.82/pt)

240

(1.20/pt)

481

(2.39/pt)

858
(4.27/pt)

171

(0.86/pt)

 

 

 


Disclosure: M. Savjani, None; J. Levinson, None; E. M. Ginzler, GlaxoSmith Kline, Aurinia, Genentech, Ablynx, Janssen, 2.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Savjani M, Levinson J, Ginzler EM. Use of Emergency Department (ED) and Resulting Hospitalization By Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) in a Predominantly Afro-Caribbean Inner-City Cohort [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017; 69 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/use-of-emergency-department-ed-and-resulting-hospitalization-by-patients-with-systemic-lupus-erythematosus-sle-in-a-predominantly-afro-caribbean-inner-city-cohort/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/use-of-emergency-department-ed-and-resulting-hospitalization-by-patients-with-systemic-lupus-erythematosus-sle-in-a-predominantly-afro-caribbean-inner-city-cohort/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology