Background: Effective management of frequent users of emergency departments (FUED) remains challenging. Case management (CM) has shown to improve patient quality of life while reducing ED visits and associated costs. However, little data is available on FUED’s perception of CM outside of North America to further improve CM implementation. Objectives: Explore the FUED’s perspectives about CM in Switzerland. Design, Setting & Participants: Semi-structured qualitative interviews eliciting FUED’s experiences of CM were conducted among 20 participants (75% female; mean age = 40.6, SD = 12.8) across 6 hospital ED. Outcomes measures & Analysis: Inductive content analysis. Main Results: Most participants were satisfied with the CM program. In particular, FUEDs identified the working relationship with the case manager (cm) as key for positive outcomes, and also valued the holistic evaluation of their needs and resources. Overall, patients reported increased motivation and health literacy, as well as facilitated interactions within the healthcare system. Conversely, a small number of participants reported negative views on CM ( ie, stigmatization, lack of concrete outcomes). Barriers identified were cm’s lack of time, COVID-19′s negative impact on CM organization, as well as lack of clarity on the objectives of CM. FUED perceived CM as useful, in particular establishing a working relationship with the cm. Our results suggest that CM can be further improved by (1) professionals remaining non-judgmental toward FUED, (2) making sure the aims and objectives of the CM are understood by the participants, and (3) allowing more time for the cm to carry out their work.

Frequent users of emergency departments (FUED; ≥ 5 ED visits/year) commonly cumulate medical, social, and substance use problems requiring complex and sustained care coordination often unavailable in ED. This study aimed to explore ED healthcare providers’ challenges related to FUED care to gain insight into the support and resources required to address FUED complex needs. An online survey was sent to all general adult emergency services within Switzerland (N = 106). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived that FUED represented a problem and to describe the main challenges encountered. In total, 208 physicians and nurses from 75 EDs (70.7%) completed the survey. Among the 208 participants, 134 (64%) reported that FUED represented a challenge and 133 described 1 to 5 challenges encountered. A conventional content analysis yielded 4 main categories of perceived challenges. Negative consequences in the ED secondary to FUED’s presence (eg, ED overcrowding, staff helplessness, and fatigue) was the most frequently reported challenge, followed by challenges related to FUEDs’ characteristics (eg, mental health and social problems) leading to healthcare complexity. The third most frequently encountered challenge was related to the ED inappropriateness and inefficiency to address FUEDs’ needs. Finally, challenges related to the lack of FUED healthcare network were the least often mentioned. ED healthcare providers experience a wide range of challenges related to FUED care. These findings suggest that currently EDs nor their staff are equipped to address FUEDs’ complex needs.

Background Frequent users of emergency department (FUEDs; ≥ 5 ED visits/ year) are often vulnerable individuals cumulating medical, social and substance use problems. FUEDs often require complex and sustained care coordination generally unavailable in ED and are commonly considered contributing to ED crowding. In view of supporting ED health-care providers through specific training and interventions tailored to FUEDs, this study aimed to explore ED healthcare providers’ perceptions of difficulties related to FUEDs. Methods Participants (N = 208) were ED healthcare providers (i.e., nurses, physicians) from 75 university and community hospitals in Switzerland (71% of all EDs) who answered a questionnaire on FUEDs. They were asked to indicate the extent to which FUEDs represent a problem in their ED. Perceived difficulties related to FUEDs were elicited by an open-ended question. Conventional content analysis was used to extract common categories and themes. Results Among the 208 participants, 134 (64%) reported that FUEDs represent a problem. Of those, 132 provided 1 to 5 answers to the open-ended question. Twenty-eight categories were identified and organized in 4 themes. First, participants reported difficulties related to FUEDs’ characteristics themselves (e.g., problem’s chronicity; behavioural difficulties) leading to healthcare complexity. Second, participants perceived negative consequences related to the presence of FUEDs in the ED (e.g., work overload, staff helplessness and fatigue). Third, ED healthcare offer was considered inappropriate and inefficient to respond to FUEDs needs and fourth collaborating with FUEDs’ existing healthcare network was perceived as difficult. Conclusions ED healthcare providers experience a wide range of difficulties related to the management of FUEDs. Providing training and implementing a case management intervention tailored to FUEDs might support ED health-care providers and contribute to address FUEDs’ complex needs. Key messages ED healthcare providers perceive FUEDs to represent a problem. Perceived difficulties might decrease through training and case management support might contribute to better address FUEDs complex needs.

Background: D/deaf and hard of hearing populations are at higher risk for experiencing physical and mental health problems compared to hearing populations. In addition, they commonly encounter barriers to accessing and benefiting from health services, which largely stem from challenges they face in communicating with healthcare providers. Healthcare providers commonly lack tailored communication skills in caring for D/deaf and hard of hearing populations, which lead to difficulties and dissatisfaction for both staff and D/deaf and hard of hearing communities. This research project aims to develop and evaluate a capacity-building intervention for healthcare providers with the goal of increasing their awareness of D/deaf and hard of hearing individuals' experiences with the healthcare system, their distinct needs, and improving their capacity to communicate effectively with this patient population.Methods: This research project features a participative action research design using qualitative and quantitative methods. Consistent with participative action research, the study will actively involve the target populations, key stakeholders and representative associations. The intervention will be developed and tested through iterative phases. The Integrated Model of Training Evaluation and Effectiveness will guide prospective evaluation of the intervention. The latter will involve qualitative and quantitative assessments in participants before and after the intervention and at 6-months follow-up.Discussion: Results will contribute to research aimed at decreasing barriers to accessing and benefiting from healthcare services for D/deaf and hard of hearing individuals. Findings will be presented to representative associations and political authorities, as well as disseminated at research conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

Background Management of frequent users of the emergency department (FUED; ≥5 visits/year) is a known challenge. Studies show that case management (CM) improves FUEDs' quality of life while reducing their number of emergency department visits and associated costs. However, little is known about FUEDs' own perspectives on CM. Methods This qualitative study was part of a larger study aiming to implement CM for FUED in French-speaking Switzerland. Participants were FUEDs included in the parent study, who had either completed the CM intervention or were still enrolled. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 participants (75% female; mean age=40.55, SD = 12.84), randomly drawn from the parent study sample. Content analysis was performed by two researchers to assess participants' perceptions on the CM intervention. Results Most participants endorsed general positive perceptions of CM. CM differed from their usual treatment by two characteristics: its holistic approach and the quality of the relationship with the case manager. Also, moral support was perceived as a main benefit. FUEDs perceived four outcomes: an increase in motivation (e.g., day-to-day life or health-related), better orientation in and interaction with the healthcare system and improved health literacy. Finally, FUEDs identified two negative aspects to the CM: few perceived benefits (e.g., not enough concrete outcomes) and negative consequences (e.g., feeling ashamed to come back to ED). Three obstacles were identified: case manager's lack of time, COVID-19's influence (e.g., less personal contact) and uncertainty around the program (e.g., organization, aims). The personal relationship with their case manager was perceived as the main driver to positive outcomes. Conclusions FUED perceived the program as useful and considered the relationship with the case manager as key for positive outcomes. Our findings also suggest ways to improve CM, such as clarifying its organization and aims. Key messages In FUEDs’ opinion, the CM intervention had many positive outcomes, often relying on the relationship with the case manager. However, the CM intervention had also some negatives.