Getting to the bottom of why children with spina bifida use the emergency department: A qualitative analysis of parent and stakeholder perspectives

Abstract

Background

Children with Spina Bifida (SB) have considerable healthcare utilization, including Emergency Department use (EDU). We aimed to elicit reasons for EDU using qualitative analysis of interviews with both patient-caregiver dyads and stakeholders.

Methods

A cohort of children with SB followed at our institution between 2016 and 2020 was identified and patient and clinical characteristics abstracted. Purposeful sampling by age and degree of past EDU was performed. Semi-structured interviews of dyads were performed using iteratively revised interview guides. Spanish-language interviews were conducted by a native Spanish speaker and transcripts professionally translated. Supplemental interviews with stakeholders, namely knowledgeable healthcare professionals, were also conducted. A qualitative framework approach was used for analysis, including open followed by closed independent coding with calculation of inter-rater reliability. A final interpretation of coding reports assessing convergence, divergence, and variation in themes across participant characteristics.

Results

116 families (4 Spanish-speaking) and 7 stakeholders were interviewed. Sampling yielded a heterogenous cohort for EDU (56% with 0–10, 44% with >10 visits) and age (25% 0–4, 44% 5–11, 31% > 11 years). IRR was optimal (κ = 0.9). Themes in perceived reasons for EDU were 1) desire for “one-stop-shop” care, 2) an emergent medical problem, 3) providers’ instructions, 4) negative past healthcare experience, 5) intrinsic caregiver moderators, and 6) temporospatial influences. Themes 1, 2, and 5 predominated in dyads, whereas themes 6, 3, and 5 were most common in stakeholders. Stakeholders focused largely on negative institutional and patient characteristics. Among dyads only, theme #1 was disproportionately emphasized by Spanish-speaking patients.

Discussion

Families desired access to coordinated expert care, testing and imaging. The ED offers this for children with SB, regardless of clinical acuity. This may be especially valued by families with inherent challenges to navigating the healthcare system. Negative experiences in community clinical settings, healthcare provider recommendations and intrinsic parental factors were themes that seemed to contribute to seeking this “one-stop-shop” type of care. Care coordination may reduce ED reliance, but themes for the interviews suggest a systems-based efforts should weave in the community care setting.

Conclusions

For both stakeholders and caregivers, the ED represented a valued form of immediate access to multispecialty, expert care and testing in the context of perceived lack of timely, coordinated outpatient care. This may be moderated by intrinsic caregiver factors and negative past experiences. Although stakeholders discussed ideas that fit into patient-caregiver themes, the also uniquely focused on systems-based and patient-caregiver limitations.