Changes in emergency department utilization in vulnerable populations after COVID-19 shelter in place orders

Patient population

Patients who visited any of 20 EDs ranging from large hospital-associated EDs to freestanding EDs across a large Midwest integrated healthcare system Ohio from 5/2/2019-12/31/2019 (designated as the “pre-SIP order” time period) and 5/2/2020-12/31/2020 (the “post-SIP order” time period) were identified. Demographics and diagnoses were extracted from the electronic medical record (EMR). MH and SUDs were identified using the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes; similarly, SDOH were identified in patients’ medical histories using respective Z-Codes in the ICD-10. Historical use of theses codes means that these diagnoses and SDOH were documented in the patient’s chart at any time, and not solely reliant on ED encounter documentation. This study was approved by Cleveland Clinic IRB.

Statistical analysis

Poisson regression models were used to calculate absolute risk ratios (RR) to compare the total number of cases between the pre-and post-SIP periods. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate changes in admission rates between the two periods, and odds ratios (OR) were calculated.

Patient demographics

871,020 total ED encounters from 487,028 unique patients were captured; 473,449 visits (54%) occurred in 2019, and 397,571 (46%) were in 2020. Our cohort was mostly White (65.4%), female (53.8%), privately insured (68.9%), and had a mean age of 46.0 ± 24.0. 2,572 (0.53%) patients had a documented Z code for SDOH. The most coded SDOH in ED encounters was problems related to housing and economic circumstances, followed by other problems related to the primary support group and other psychosocial circumstances (Supplemental Table 1). Compared to patients without SDOH, patients with a coded SDOH were more likely to be Black, younger, identify as male, and were more likely to be on government or self-pay insurance (Supplemental Table 2).

ED utilization rates before and after shelter-in-place orders

Compared to before the implementation of SIP orders, patients with previously diagnosed MH or SUDs were more likely to seek ED care after the SIP orders were put in place (RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.18 – 1.22, p<0.001) (Table 1). Among patients with SDOH, those with a history of problems related to the primary support group (RR: 2.89, 95% CI: 2.54 – 3.29) or housing and economic circumstances (RR: 2.50, 95% CI: 2.23 – 2.80) were more likely to present to the ED after SIP orders. Patients with both previously diagnosed MH or SUD and a documented SDOH (RR: 3.31, 95% CI: 2.83 – 3.88, p<0.001) had even higher ED utilization than those with either condition alone.

ED admission rates before and after shelter-in-place orders

Compared to pre-SIP, patients with a previously diagnosed MH or SUD (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86 – 0.92, p<0.001) or any documented SDOH (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.83, p<0.001) were less likely to be admitted to the hospital after presenting to the ED post-SIP orders (Table 2). Of the SDOH diagnosis categories, only patients with problems related to their primary support group and those with problems related to other psychosocial circumstances were significantly less likely to be admitted. The difference in admission rate pre- and post-SIP orders in patients with both MH/SUD and SDOH did not reach significance (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42, 1.02, p=0.061).

The effect of shelter-in-place orders on vulnerable patient populations

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of addressing social determinants of health, which are critical in shaping an individual’s health status and access to care. Our analysis of ED presentation and admission rates pre-and post-SIP orders found that patients with previously diagnosed MH or SUDs and those with a documented SDOH were more likely to present to the ED post-SIP. Prior studies that analyzed MH and substance use related ED visits demonstrate increased visit rates for these conditions as a primary diagnosis or chief complaint.^6–8 This study extends previous work by demonstrating that SIP orders significantly impacted vulnerable patients with a history of MH, SUDs and SDOH.

Moreover, our analysis revealed that patients with co-occurring MH/SUD and SDOH had the highest increase in ED visits following SIP orders. These patients may have faced increased difficulties in accessing care and maintaining their overall health due to the closure or reduction of community-based resources⁹ and the exacerbation of existing socioeconomic inequities during the pandemic.⁵ Individuals with multiple disadvantages are at a significantly higher risk of premature mortality from avoidable causes than those with a single disadvantage¹⁰, highlighting the urgent need for tailored interventions that address the complex interplay of social, economic, and mental health-related factors contributing to poor health outcomes among these populations. Furthermore, patients with MH/SUDs or SDOH were less likely to be admitted to the hospital after presenting to the ED. While our study was not designed to examine the reasons behind these disparities, possible explanations include inadequate inpatient resources for patients with MH/SUD and SDOH or healthcare professional biases, as well as structural changes of healthcare resources being shunted to emergent medical care beds.

Low documentation of social determinants of health in patients visiting the ED

Our study found that only 0.53% of ED patients had a documented Z-Code for a SDOH before and during early COVID, which is lower than other rates previously reported.^3,4,11 Molina et al. estimated that 1.21% of ED visits have a coded SDOH; however, our paper analyzed SDOH coding at the patient level rather than the visit level, which may explain the differences observed.¹² The usage of Z-Codes to identify patients with SDOH has repeatedly been shown to be underutilized and our results likely underestimate the number of patients with critical SDOH seeking care at EDs.¹³ Future studies could consider using natural language processing models to analyze provider notes to identify patients with SDOH that do not have a documented Z-code.

Identifying patients with SDOH is crucial because they are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes and increased ED utilization.^14,15 Coding SDOH is currently not reimbursable, which is likely reflected in its low adoption rate; however, documentation of SDOH can substantiate patient complexity and reveal trends in healthcare utilization. For instance, if hospital systems accurately track SDOH, they can identify Z-Codes associated with higher readmission rates and allocate appropriate resources to improve patient care and outcomes. In the future, Z-Codes could play a role in determining payment rates and risk adjustment, but consistent documentation of SDOH is necessary.¹⁶

Limitations

Our results should be interpreted in the context of their limitations. First, the retrospective design of our study limits our ability to draw causal conclusions. Second, our data comes from one large integrated healthcare system, which may differ from other healthcare systems or geographic regions. Nonetheless, our study includes a large and diverse patient population from different levels of care within the state. Third, our findings may be influenced by institution-specific documentation practices that could affect SDOH coding rates and limit the generalizability of our findings. Finally, our analysis relied on patients’ past medical history documentation in the EMR, which may not reflect their current diagnoses at the time of their ED visit. However, given the time constraints of the ED, we considered capturing diagnoses from past medical history the best way to represent our sample’s health status.