Table 3 Records concerning the adequacy of utilization of the ED
Adequacy of utilization of the Emergency Department (ED) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record | Country and classificationa | Migrant sub-population of interest | Measures of frequency | Measures of association | Direction of association with migrant status |
Urgency/Appropriateness | |||||
Schwachenwalde et al. (2020) [62] | Germany (HIC) | Women | n/a | Low-acculturated migrants vs. German natives for system-defined non-urgent gynecologic ED use: Adjusted OR 1.58 (1.02-2.44). | \(\downarrow\) |
Chan et al. (2021) [72] | Singapore (HIC) | No sub-population considered | Foreign workers triaged as low-acuity vs. general ED population: 66.9% vs 45.9%. | n/a | \(\downarrow\) |
Klukowska-Roetzler et al. (2018) [59] | Switzerland (HIC) | Southeast Europe natives | Mean triage level (scale of 1-5, most-less urgent) of southeast immigrants vs. Swiss citizens: 2.84 (2.82-2.85) vs. 2.61 (2.60-2.61). | n/a | \(\downarrow\) |
Sauzet et al. (2021) [61] | Germany (HIC) | No sub-population considered | n/a | 1st generation migrants vs. German natives: Adjusted OR 0.72 (0.57, 0.91). | \(\downarrow\) |
2nd generation migrants vs. German natives: Adjusted OR 0.76 (0.53, 1.09). | |||||
Admissions for Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Conditions (ACSC) | |||||
Brandenberger et al. (2020) [56] | Switzerland (HIC) | Children | Ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC)Â admissions in asylum-seeking children vs. non-asylum-seeking children: 12.1% (0.07-0.18) vs. 10.9% (0.1-0.11). | n/a | = |
Lichtl et al. (2017) [60] | Germany (HIC) | Children | ED visits for ACSC in asylum-seeking children vs. non-asylum-seeking children: 29.5% vs. 7.9%. | ED visits for ACSC in asylum-seeking children vs. non-asylum seeking children, crude OR: 4.89 (4.1-5.85) adjusted OR: 4.93 (4.11; 5.91). | \(\uparrow\) |
Self-referral and walk-in access | |||||
Klukowska-Roetzler et al. (2018) [59] | Switzerland (HIC) | Southeast Europe natives | Southeast migrants self-referring vs. Swiss nationals: 59.9% vs. 41.2%. | n/a | \(\uparrow\) |
Mahmoud et al. (2015) [67] | Australia (HIC) | Non-English speaking non-native patients | n/a | Non-English speaking non-native patients contacting a general practitioner before accessing vs. Australian natives: OR: 0.6 (0.4-0.8). | \(\uparrow\) |
Chan et al. (2021) [72] | Singapore (HIC) | No sub-population considered | Foreign workers arriving by ambulance vs. general ED population: 6.1% vs. 13.3%. | n/a | \(\uparrow\) |
Klingberg et al. (2020) [58] | Switzerland (HIC) | No sub-population considered | Asylum seekers without a general practitioner contact prior to access vs. Swiss nationals: 63.2% vs. 67.6%. | n/a | \(\downarrow\) |